by Joseph Puder
A death cult continues bowing to the legacy of Al-Husseini.
A recent Palestinian Liberation Organization position paper titled “The PLO Committee for Interaction With Israeli Society,” has refused to recognize Israel as the Jewish people’s state. Similarly, the Palestinian Authority (PA) President, Mahmoud Abbas, speaking at a November 2014 emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo declared, “We will never recognize the Jewishness of the State of Israel.” These are the latest “no’s” coming out of the mouths of Palestinian leaders.
To reasonable people, facts do matter, and documented historical facts matter a lot. While we are still awaiting the materialization of the two-state solution in 2019, Arab-Palestinian rejectionism is still holding sway 82-years after the first “no” in 1937. Since the 1930’s, the leadership of the Arab-Palestinian community has rejected all efforts at a compromise with the Jewish community in Palestine, and subsequently with the State of Israel. This Palestinian attitude of a zero-sum game, in which the Palestinians take all, has been the pattern of behavior by those who have led the Palestinian cause.
The Arab community in Palestine did not consider themselves as residents of Palestine (they saw themselves as Southern Syrian) until the 1920’s, when the prospects of an Arab nation in Greater Syria, led by the Emir Feisal (son of the Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca) was dashed by the League of Nations giving the French a Mandate over the Levant (today’s Syria and Lebanon). Arabs, including those living in Palestine, considered themselves Ottoman (Turkish) subjects. The political term “Palestinian” did not exist until the 1960’s.
Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and Nazi Germany’s ally during WWII, disillusioned with the prospect of greater Arab Syria, focused his attention on Arab Palestine. It is his initial rejectionism and uncompromising attitude, as well as his pursuit of violence that enshrined the Palestinians pattern of behavior. Ironically, Herbert Samuel, the first appointed British High Commissioner for Palestine, who was also Jewish, appointed Haj Amin al-Husseini as Mufti of Jerusalem. Fearing accusation of partiality, Sir Samuel appointed a notorious anti-Semite, and Nazi sympathizer.
It was Al-Husseini who encouraged and led the “Arab” Revolt (not Palestinian) in 1936-1939, aimed against the British Mandatory rule in Palestine. In the process, the Mufti murderous gangs butchered fellow Arabs, Jews, and Brits. The British government, intimidated by the violence, responded by establishing the Royal Commission of Inquiry to Palestine, chaired by Lord William Peel, hence it became known as the Peel Commission of 1937. The Zionist leadership accepted the recommendations of the Peel Commission, albeit, dissatisfied with the land size allotted to the Jewish state. The Peel Commission recommended that about three-quarters of Palestine be allotted to the Arabs and a bit over a quarter of the land apportioned to the Jews of Palestine.
The Peel Commission report resolved that the British Mandate for Palestine was unworkable because Jewish and Arab objectives in Palestine were incompatible, and it proposed that Palestine be partitioned into three zones: An Arab state, a Jewish state, and an international zone encompassing Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Al-Husseini and the Arab High Committee rejected the offer, demanding that there be no Jewish state. Husseini continued the revolt that was finally crushed by the British. To appease the Arab aggressors (just as Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler’s aggression), in 1939, the British government established the “White Paper” policy, which closed the gates of Palestine to Jews, just when Jews in Europe needed a refuge from the impending Nazi genocide we recognize today as the Holocaust. Thus, the first opportunity for a two-state solution and an independent Arab-Palestinian state was rejected by Arab leaders.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, with hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors holed up in Displacement Camps throughout Germany, and the gates to Palestine still locked, public opinion in the West turned against Britain’s White Paper policy. London, being exhausted economically from WWII, and the expense of colonial holdings, decided to turnover its Palestine Mandate to the United Nations. In 1947, the UN established the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). The Committee arrived at the same conclusion as the Peel Commission: irreconcilable aspiration of the two groups. It recommended partition. The Jews of Palestine happily accepted it. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to approve the partition plan. Otto Preminger’s film “Exodus,”conveys the joy in which the Jewish community greeted the vote. Al-Husseini, the Arab High Committee, and the Arab League adamantly rejected the plan, and immedicably began their attack on Palestinian-Jews. Once again, Palestinian-Arab self-determination and a two-state solution was discarded by the would-be Palestinians.
Following the June, 1967 Six Day War, the Israeli cabinet, intent on using the victory as leverage to make peace with the Arab world and the Palestinians,offered territory for peace. Egypt made peace with Israel 12 years later, with Jordan following 27-years later. The Palestinians however, refused to deal with Israel as did the rest of the Arab world. In fact, in response to Israel’s offer of peace, the Arab League,meeting in Khartoum, Sudan in August, 1967, responded with the infamous “Three No’s”: No to peace with Israel, no to negotiations with Israel, and no to recognition of Israel. The Palestinians, now under the PLO leadership, chose armed struggle with the aim of replacing the Jewish state with an Arab Muslim state. The PLO charter made it clear that it aimed to destroy the Jewish state, and most of its people. The opportunity for a solution was dashed again by the Arab countries, and the Arab-Palestinians.
Following the 1993 Oslo Accords signing on the White House lawn, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, evermore the terrorist leader, in Arabic, incited his fellow Palestinians to commit terror, and continue the armed struggle until victory. To the West, in English,he “spoke of peace.” The Oslo Accords produced horrific suicide bombing in Israel, committed by Palestinians. Ehud Barak, who replaced Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister in 1999, campaigned with the message of peace-making, and furthering the Oslo Accords. In July 2000, President Clinton hosted Arafat and Barak at Camp David. Barak, without the approval of the people of Israel, agreed to the “Clinton Parameters,” which offered Arafat far-reaching concessions, including 94% of the West Bank, all of the Gaza Strip, an additional 3% of Israeli territory, a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, and the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Arafat rejected the “Clinton Parameters.” He refused to commit to “ending the conflict.” He chose instead to launch the second Intifada (uprising) that claimed over 1,000 Israeli lives, mostly from terror attacks. Another opportunity for Palestinian self-determination and a two-state solution was rejected by the Palestinian leadership.
Mahmoud Abbas, who succeeded Arafat as chairman of the PA, capped off Palestinian rejectionism when he refused to accept even PM Ehud Olmert’s 2008 offer that went even beyond Barak’s. He added a limited number of Palestinian refugees to be admitted to Israel and exchanging practically kilometer for kilometer West Bank territory with Israeli territory.Abbas, knowing that an assassin’s bullet awaited him should he sign such a peace accord, walked away.
Efraim Karsh, in his 2010 book Palestine Betrayed,cited Haj Amin al-Husseini’s 1936 statement, saying that, “There is no place in Palestine for two races. The Jews left Palestine 2,000 years ago. Let them go to other parts of the world where there are wide vacant places.” The Palestinian leadership is unfortunately still committed to al-Husseini’s rejectionism, and will not accept the two-state solution under any circumstance.
Joseph PuderTo reasonable people, facts do matter, and documented historical facts matter a lot. While we are still awaiting the materialization of the two-state solution in 2019, Arab-Palestinian rejectionism is still holding sway 82-years after the first “no” in 1937. Since the 1930’s, the leadership of the Arab-Palestinian community has rejected all efforts at a compromise with the Jewish community in Palestine, and subsequently with the State of Israel. This Palestinian attitude of a zero-sum game, in which the Palestinians take all, has been the pattern of behavior by those who have led the Palestinian cause.
The Arab community in Palestine did not consider themselves as residents of Palestine (they saw themselves as Southern Syrian) until the 1920’s, when the prospects of an Arab nation in Greater Syria, led by the Emir Feisal (son of the Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca) was dashed by the League of Nations giving the French a Mandate over the Levant (today’s Syria and Lebanon). Arabs, including those living in Palestine, considered themselves Ottoman (Turkish) subjects. The political term “Palestinian” did not exist until the 1960’s.
Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and Nazi Germany’s ally during WWII, disillusioned with the prospect of greater Arab Syria, focused his attention on Arab Palestine. It is his initial rejectionism and uncompromising attitude, as well as his pursuit of violence that enshrined the Palestinians pattern of behavior. Ironically, Herbert Samuel, the first appointed British High Commissioner for Palestine, who was also Jewish, appointed Haj Amin al-Husseini as Mufti of Jerusalem. Fearing accusation of partiality, Sir Samuel appointed a notorious anti-Semite, and Nazi sympathizer.
It was Al-Husseini who encouraged and led the “Arab” Revolt (not Palestinian) in 1936-1939, aimed against the British Mandatory rule in Palestine. In the process, the Mufti murderous gangs butchered fellow Arabs, Jews, and Brits. The British government, intimidated by the violence, responded by establishing the Royal Commission of Inquiry to Palestine, chaired by Lord William Peel, hence it became known as the Peel Commission of 1937. The Zionist leadership accepted the recommendations of the Peel Commission, albeit, dissatisfied with the land size allotted to the Jewish state. The Peel Commission recommended that about three-quarters of Palestine be allotted to the Arabs and a bit over a quarter of the land apportioned to the Jews of Palestine.
The Peel Commission report resolved that the British Mandate for Palestine was unworkable because Jewish and Arab objectives in Palestine were incompatible, and it proposed that Palestine be partitioned into three zones: An Arab state, a Jewish state, and an international zone encompassing Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Al-Husseini and the Arab High Committee rejected the offer, demanding that there be no Jewish state. Husseini continued the revolt that was finally crushed by the British. To appease the Arab aggressors (just as Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler’s aggression), in 1939, the British government established the “White Paper” policy, which closed the gates of Palestine to Jews, just when Jews in Europe needed a refuge from the impending Nazi genocide we recognize today as the Holocaust. Thus, the first opportunity for a two-state solution and an independent Arab-Palestinian state was rejected by Arab leaders.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, with hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors holed up in Displacement Camps throughout Germany, and the gates to Palestine still locked, public opinion in the West turned against Britain’s White Paper policy. London, being exhausted economically from WWII, and the expense of colonial holdings, decided to turnover its Palestine Mandate to the United Nations. In 1947, the UN established the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). The Committee arrived at the same conclusion as the Peel Commission: irreconcilable aspiration of the two groups. It recommended partition. The Jews of Palestine happily accepted it. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to approve the partition plan. Otto Preminger’s film “Exodus,”conveys the joy in which the Jewish community greeted the vote. Al-Husseini, the Arab High Committee, and the Arab League adamantly rejected the plan, and immedicably began their attack on Palestinian-Jews. Once again, Palestinian-Arab self-determination and a two-state solution was discarded by the would-be Palestinians.
Following the June, 1967 Six Day War, the Israeli cabinet, intent on using the victory as leverage to make peace with the Arab world and the Palestinians,offered territory for peace. Egypt made peace with Israel 12 years later, with Jordan following 27-years later. The Palestinians however, refused to deal with Israel as did the rest of the Arab world. In fact, in response to Israel’s offer of peace, the Arab League,meeting in Khartoum, Sudan in August, 1967, responded with the infamous “Three No’s”: No to peace with Israel, no to negotiations with Israel, and no to recognition of Israel. The Palestinians, now under the PLO leadership, chose armed struggle with the aim of replacing the Jewish state with an Arab Muslim state. The PLO charter made it clear that it aimed to destroy the Jewish state, and most of its people. The opportunity for a solution was dashed again by the Arab countries, and the Arab-Palestinians.
Following the 1993 Oslo Accords signing on the White House lawn, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, evermore the terrorist leader, in Arabic, incited his fellow Palestinians to commit terror, and continue the armed struggle until victory. To the West, in English,he “spoke of peace.” The Oslo Accords produced horrific suicide bombing in Israel, committed by Palestinians. Ehud Barak, who replaced Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister in 1999, campaigned with the message of peace-making, and furthering the Oslo Accords. In July 2000, President Clinton hosted Arafat and Barak at Camp David. Barak, without the approval of the people of Israel, agreed to the “Clinton Parameters,” which offered Arafat far-reaching concessions, including 94% of the West Bank, all of the Gaza Strip, an additional 3% of Israeli territory, a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, and the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Arafat rejected the “Clinton Parameters.” He refused to commit to “ending the conflict.” He chose instead to launch the second Intifada (uprising) that claimed over 1,000 Israeli lives, mostly from terror attacks. Another opportunity for Palestinian self-determination and a two-state solution was rejected by the Palestinian leadership.
Mahmoud Abbas, who succeeded Arafat as chairman of the PA, capped off Palestinian rejectionism when he refused to accept even PM Ehud Olmert’s 2008 offer that went even beyond Barak’s. He added a limited number of Palestinian refugees to be admitted to Israel and exchanging practically kilometer for kilometer West Bank territory with Israeli territory.Abbas, knowing that an assassin’s bullet awaited him should he sign such a peace accord, walked away.
Efraim Karsh, in his 2010 book Palestine Betrayed,cited Haj Amin al-Husseini’s 1936 statement, saying that, “There is no place in Palestine for two races. The Jews left Palestine 2,000 years ago. Let them go to other parts of the world where there are wide vacant places.” The Palestinian leadership is unfortunately still committed to al-Husseini’s rejectionism, and will not accept the two-state solution under any circumstance.
Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/09/palestinian-rejectionism-and-two-state-solution-joseph-puder/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment