The cowardly Zionism of Jonathan Freedland


Cross posted by our friend Richard Millett

In his piece Yearning for the same land in this week’s New Statesman magazine prize-winning author and columnist Jonathan Freedland cites four shades of Zionism: secular, religious, left-wing and rightist.

Make that five shades: Freedland Zionism – sitting in one’s comfortable diaspora home while joining in the delegitimisation of Israel.

A May issue of the New Statesman was devoted to Who Speaks for British Jews? This week’s issue asks Israel: the future – Is the dream of a two-state solution dead?

Israel is unique in being the only country whose future, or lack of, is constantly under discussion. And who knew that ripping the heart out of Judaism by giving up places like the Machpelah in Hebron is considered a “dream”?  A necessity in return for an elusive peace maybe, but no dream.

Freedland puts himself among the “left-leaning Zionists”. These are “true Zionists” who think that “the 45-year long occupation is jeopardising the founding Zionist goal of a Jewish, democratic state.”

Freedland doesn’t tell us why the “occupation” is threatening Israel’s Jewish and democratic status but it sounds like the scaremongering of J Street and Yachad.

Yachad, for example, claims that if Israel doesn’t withdraw from the West Bank then by 2020 the Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea will outnumber Jews. Minority autocratic rule by Jews over Palestinians will follow or, as Mick Davis, a British Jewish community leader put it recently, “Israel is heading towards an apartheid state”.

Those who cite this thesis never back it up with a source, but that is because it is just more anti-Israel propaganda; a ploy to force Israel to dangerously concede more land.

Yoram Ettinger shows how the numbers of Palestinians on the West Bank are regularly artificially inflated by at least one million and argues that Palestinians and Israeli Arabs can never make up more than 30% of those living between the River and the Sea. Freedland wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of a good story.

Freedland claims to support Israel’s right to exist. He just doesn’t like how Zionism was implemented or current Israeli policy. And he believes that “the security, viability and even the ethical character of the Jewish state matter more than its size.”

He contrasts this position with that of the “hawkish Zionists, heirs of the revisionist tradition of Vladimir Jabotinsky who are territorial maximalists, eager to fly the Israeli flag over all of the West Bank”.

So just how small does Freedland think Israel should have been?

The Peel Commission of 1937 offered the Arabs 80% of British Mandate Palestine and the Jews 20%. The Zionists accepted but Arab leaders rejected this leaving Europe’s Jews to their fate in the gas chambers.

Freedland states “Israel needs to look plainly at the circumstances of its birth and understand why Palestinians regard the event as a catastrophe.” But Arab leaders having rejected, this time, 45% of British Mandate Palestine in 1947 went on to commence hostilities against the Jews instead.

So who are the real “territorial maximalists” here?

In fact the seeds for Arab defeat in 1947-1949 were self-inflicted having been sown during the 1936-39 Arab uprising in British Mandate Palestine which was brutally crushed by the British leaving the Arabs bereft of leaders, fighters and weapons while Zionist militias used the time to build up their reserves.

Freedland then complains that there were no takers in Israel for a “national memorial day to mark the Arab dispossession”.

But why would Israelis commemorate an attempt by Arab leaders to kill them?

Despite all this Arab rejectionism Freedland then, incredibly, goes on to portray Jews and Arabs as drowning nations clinging to the same piece of driftwood. He thinks the Jews who were “gasping for breathe” were right to cling to it in 1948. After 1967, he claims Israel pushed the Palestinians off the shared driftwood and into the sea.

Freedland doesn’t bother analysing what the situation might have been like today had Israel not been in West Bank.  One need only look at the aftermath of Israel’s pullout from Gaza: rockets slamming into Tel Aviv, anyone?

Like in his piece This is Israel? Not the one I Love in the Jewish Chronicle last November Freedland doesn’t like to complicate the issue by mentioning Hamas or Islamic Jihad. No mention of Hamas’ call to kill Jews in its charter or of Hamas’ beliefs that Israel is an “Islamic waqf” and that peaceful solutions are invalid.

Freedland never asks, or answers, why he thinks the Palestinians, who rejected 80% of the territory in 1937 and 45% in 1947 would accept 22% now. In fact he doesn’t criticise the Palestinians once.

Luckily for Freedland he has never had to take a life or death decision. Sadly, he takes the coward’s way out and criticises those unlucky Jews forced to. He yearns for the perfect Israel and until then won’t stop his constant delegitimisation of the Jewish state.

But it gets worse. Alongside Freedland’s piece is a piece by Ali Abunimah.  Abunimah calls for a one state solution and the ending of “Israelis’ demand for the supremacy of Jewish rights over those of the Palestinians”. While Geoffrey Wheatcroft, in his book review How the dream died, describes the American “pro-Israel official ‘Jewish establishment’” as “elderly, rich and right-wing”.

“Supremacy of Jewish rights”, Jews described as “rich”? The New Statesman obviously has no problem with keeping sickening anti-Semitic stereotypes alive.

74 comments on “The cowardly Zionism of Jonathan Freedland

    • Revisions were made in the post after errors were pointed out. It would be nice if large UK media groups made such corrections so promptly, don’t you think?

    • No one takes Ettinger’s report seriously except himself and his close friends. He’s leagind Israel towards a one-state solution and the end of the Jewish state.

  1. ‘Those who cite this thesis never back it up with a source, but that is because it is just more anti-Israel propaganda; a ploy to force Israel to dangerously concede more land.’

    Which part do you want a source for? For the demographic shift? Or are you saying that even if Palestinians outnumber Israelis within the boundaries of Mandate Palestine, and there is a Jewish minority rule, you’re saying that this wouldn’t be apartheid? Please explain.

    • How on earth could a minority Jewish rule be “apartheid” except in your pea-sized brain, sanity? Does one follow the other, except in sharia and in cases when Muslims outnumber non-Muslims?

      Do you need a reminder of how the tiny Jewish state is NOT apartheid? If so, say but the word and I’d be happy to provide it.

      • There is no apartheid in Israel proper but there is definitely discrimination and double standards in the occupied West Bank, where settlers are enjoying rights which Palestinians do not.

      • There are two questions. We’re talking about a supposed lack of source. But source for what ?

        1. Will there be a demographic shift whereby there are soon more Palestinians than Israelis within the territory currently described as Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories? (I exclude the occupied Golan Heights.)

        2. Would a minority rule whereby Jews ruled Arabs and enjoyed more rights, etc. (like the Alawis in Syria, perhaps) be an apartheid state?

        It’s not sure to me which Millet wants a source for? You don’t address either of these points.

      • Snigger, in South Africa a minority imposing its rule over a majority and it was called appartheid.

        • Give me some specifics Beny about how South African type apartheid is enacted in Israel, anywhere? For example:

          Are there separate benches for Muslims/Arabs,
          Are there separate public libraries, clinics, washrooms, bank queues and so on?
          Can Muslims and Jews ride together on buses or bathe in the same pools or sit on the same beaches? (Incidentally, if you are going to talk about Jews only roads, then don’t forget to tell the nice ladies and gentlemen the real reason for any of them).
          Were there any black judges in the South African judiciary during the time of apartheid?

          Come on, clever clogs, now is your chance to shine – or, more likely, wink out.

          This ought to help you out http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CO&hl=es-419&v=m4QLbr7TIYc

          • There is no apartheid in Israel, where Palestinian citizens of Israel do have the same rights as Israeli Jews so no problem there.

            However there are definitely double standards applied to settlers and to Palestinians in the West Bank.

            There are several separate bus lines, separate roads and separate checkpoints for Jewish settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank.

            A Palestinian can enter a Jewish settlement only provided he has a permit – exactly as Blacks from Soweto had to have a permit to enter the White city of Joburg in the past.

            It is nearly impossible for a Palestinian to obtain a building permit in Area C of the West bank while settlers get them quite easily.

            • A Palestinian (Christian or Muslim) whose family has been living in East Jerusalem for centuries can be denied the right to live in his hometown by Israeli authorities if he goes and studies abroad for several years.

              A Jewish American who decides to make Aliyah and to move to Jerusalem will never lose his right to reside in the city, even if he goes back to the USA and never sets foot in Jerusalem again in his life.

              http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_jerusalem_report_2011_03_23_web_english.pdf

              • Nat/Ben, the caught liar, creeps around.
                A big part of East Jerusalem was century long Jewish, and demolished by the Arabs in 1948, the Jews driven out.

    • Sanity,
      There is no Mandate Palestine, only a former Mandate Palestine, that at one time included all of today’s (artificially created) Jordan. Once the borders of Israel and “the Country of Palestine” are mutually agreed to among the parties involved, the Palestinians Arabs may bring in as many zillions of Arabs into the country of “Palestine” as they wish to call Palestinians, but they will only control that territory that has been agreed to with the independent state of Israel, and not one silly millimeter more, that is, if the Palestinian leadership ever comes to its senses and stops trying to b.s. the world. A “one state solution” is an Arab supremacist’s game.

      • There are two questions. We’re talking about a supposed lack of source. But source for what?

        1. Will there be a demographic shift whereby there are soon more Palestinians than Israelis within the territory currently described as Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories? (I exclude the occupied Golan Heights.)

        2. Would a minority rule whereby Jews ruled Arabs and enjoyed more rights, etc. (like the Alawis in Syria, perhaps) be an apartheid state?

        It’s not sure to me which Millet wants a source for? You don’t address either of these points.

        • 2. Would a minority rule whereby Jews ruled Arabs and enjoyed more rights, etc. (like the Alawis in Syria, perhaps) be an apartheid state?

          You seem to be the one who either has a magic crystal ball or can read tea leaves and routinely gives opinions as facts. You tell me, in the light of what I wrote to silly Benyamin above

  2. Let’s do the thing we do an enumerate the lies:

    “Israel is unique in being the only country whose future, or lack of, is constantly under discussion.”

    Erm…Palestine? Is it possible that Mr Millet simply forgot? Or is he genuinely so blind?

    “The Peel Commission of 1937 offered the Arabs 80% of British Mandate Palestine and the Jews 20%. The Zionists accepted but Arab leaders rejected this leaving Europe’s Jews to their fate in the gas chambers.”

    The Arabs rejected the “offer” of having the British Imperial power donate a fifth of their homeland to European immigrants. Shocker. Considering the pogroms being conducted by Israel against Africans, I would have thought this at least understandable.

    And the Zionists did not accept it. This is disingenuous. The 12th Zionist congress announced that “that the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted”. Ben Gurion felt that Zionists could use the Peel Commission to gain a foothold in Palestine, from which they could cleanse all of Eretz Yisrael.

    More drivel from the apologea brigade.

    • Avram, no matter what you (or others) may wish to be the case, there IS no country of Palestine, and there never HAS been a country of Palestine. There has certainly been a LAND known as Palestine, but that’s not the same thing.

      So no – that is not a country whose future, or lack of, is constantly under discussion. It is a POTENTIAL country which MAY have a future IF its leaders could possibly once just say “yes” instead of “no”.

      • Well said, GoonerEll. There’s not likely to be a “Palestine” either, according to the World Monetary Fund because its leaders lack the smarts to be self-reliant as regards basic funding.

      • “there IS no country of Palestine, and there never HAS been a country of Palestine.”

        Considering Palestine is recognised as a state by a majority of the world’s other states, that puts you in the minority opinion.

        But you point out something interesting. Palestine is unique in that it not only is its future or lack thereof under constant discussion, its present is also under constant discussion,

        • It’s proven. You are somewhat lacking, to put it politely.

          Have you ever heard of the saying that even if a million people believe a stupid thing it is still a stupid thing?

          Palestine is unique in its persistent resorting to the autorhinectomy and the repeating of old murderous behaviours which have never worked in the past and still will not, and then trying to manipulate world opinion by professional self-pity.

          People like you collude and are codependent with it.

          What would you do if Palestinian leaders suddenly developed insight and love for their people and showed that they wanted peace? Would there be as much meaning in your life as there is in supporting this basket case of a people?

    • “Considering the pogroms being conducted by Israel against Africans…” WTF? What “pogroms”? What on earth are you talking about?

      Are you somehow referring to recent disturbances surrounding illegal immigration from sub-Saharan Africa in Israel? Are you SERIOUSLY calling these “pogroms”?

      In any evemt, whatever the nature of these disturbances, how on Earth are they even slightly relevant to a decision made in 1937? Yet you say that the Arab rejection of the Peel Commission’s offer was “at least understandable” because of disturbances 75 years later?

      • (All that proves, if this schmuck is correct, is the inordinately long time that Arabs are capable of holding onto grudges and hatred)

      • I’m saying that resistance to immigration of foreigners is not specific to Arabs. Jewish immigration was opposed by Arabs for similar reasons.

        • Israelis today oppose immigration of Sudanese into their country.

          Palestinians yesterday opposed immigration of European Jews in their country.

          • Are you saying that if that the British opposed immigration into their country that would be OK?

          • “Israelis today oppose immigration of Sudanese into their country.
            Palestinians yesterday opposed immigration of European Jews in their country.”

            “Palestinians” didn’t have a country. “European” Jews ( as much as any Jew), i.e., Jews, had a historical and then a legal right to go there. No matter how one feels about it, Sudanese have no such right.

          • In which “their” country? The Ottoman empire, or the British mandate, caught liar? The Palestine nation is an invention of latter days.

    • “Considering the pogroms being conducted by Israel against Africans, I would have thought this at least understandable.”
      Huh? By Israel? You mean Israeli authorities are the ones attacking Africans…? And a source for that would be where? Oh right, on Stormfront… Carry on.
      “Ben Gurion felt that Zionists could use the Peel Commission to gain a foothold in Palestine, from which they could cleanse all of Eretz Yisrael.”
      And you gather this how? Are you some sort of psychic? Mind reader?
      So, in those two passages, let’s enumerate the lies:
      Other than the judicious placement of the articles “the”, “being”, and “that”, it’s just one being smear, a la Mondoweiss/Stormfront.
      Congrats!

      • Palestine was so much of a country that even Jewish shops in Israel sell the famous posters “Visit Palestine” which werfe published by Palestine’s tourism agency in the 1910s.

        • Because in those days, “Benyamin”, it was Jews who were known as Palestinians and it was universally accepted that “Palestine” was Eretz Yisroel, the homeland of the Jews.

      • Palestine is a country which was recogniwed by two-thirds of the world’s states, which sits at the UN and which has embassies in every country in the world, even in the USA.

        • See Yohoho’s post above, slightly amended: Even though lots of people agree to do a stupid thing it is still a stupid thing.

          How many of those states were Muslim and/or had large Muslim populations?

    • For an “international human rights lawyer” like Laughton the xenophobic attack against illegal immigrants (the perpetrators have been arrested waiting for trial) – what has been condemned by virtually all the Israeli political factors including the PM, the speaker of the Knesset and the huge majority of Israelis etc -. is a pogrom., what justifies the Arab intolerance 65 years ago. Certainly the 1929 Hebron pogrom against Jews living there for hundreds of years was an understandable manifestation of the Arab masses’ frustration caused by the future attack against their Sudanese brothers who were viciously attacked in some Arab villages too by their clairvoyant Muslim brethren.

      • Your very presence here is an insult, benyamin. You contribute far, far less than Fritz

        Now, what’re you going to do about it?

  3. ” Freedland Zionism – sitting in one’s comfortable diaspora home while joining in the delegitimisation of Israel.” Spot on.

  4. ““Supremacy of Jewish rights”, Jews described as “rich”? The New Statesman obviously has no problem with keeping sickening anti-Semitic stereotypes alive.”
    Problem for those hacks? Not really.

  5. You meet with these Jews and Israelis like this Freedland,after talking with them,that is if you could be bothered to talk to them,they leave you with a very bad taste in the mouth.Hard to describe these people without using expletives.

    FreedLand would like us to Freed more Land to give these very same people who’s whole sole purpose of being is to wipe us all out,he suggests this from the warmth and safety of his house in London.Which is about 3650 kilometers from Israel.That distance should make him feel very safe to shoot his mouth off…………..A bit of advice to this Freedland go EFF yourself…….

  6. Freedland Zionism – sitting in one’s comfortable diaspora home while joining in the delegitimisation of Israel.

    Oh please. Is it not possible for anyone to criticise Israeli policy (which Freedland does in reasonable terms) without being accused of “delegitimising Israel”?

    And who knew that ripping the heart out of Judaism by giving up places like the Machpelah in Hebron is considered a “dream”?

    Isn’t a two-state solution – and permanent peace for Israel – a dream for the author?

    • Oh please. Is it not possible for anyone to criticise Israeli policy (which Freedland does in reasonable terms) without being accused of “delegitimising Israel”?

      Being a paid high ranking staff member of a rag whose agenda is the deligimitisation of Israel is not simply “criticising Israel”
      If Freedland was a bonafide critics of Israel he would do it in other forums not in the very hostile Guardian. He could voice his criticism in a lot of other papers but he knows very well that his skills and opinion much more marketable in Guardian/Independent/New Statesman circles. That his Jewishness is openly expolited by his employers to mask their anti-Jevish agenda doesn’t seem to disturb him.

      Isn’t a two-state solution – and permanent peace for Israel – a dream for the author?

      Yes it is a dream of millions of Israelis and others myself. But as we learnt during the last decade it is a really a dream nothing more. Hopefully one of the the next generations of Arab leaders will be ready to be a partner to realize this dream and the Israelis can be convinced that they have a real peace on the horizon and it is worth to give up some of the most important places of Judaism

      • The Guardian, “whose agenda is the deligimitisation of Israel”?

        What a bizarre perspective. The Guardian homepage – as is generally the case – currently makes no mention of Israel. Some “agenda”!

        Or is it “deligimitisation” via omission?!

        • In the Volkische Beobachter and the Sturmer certainly were a lot of days when nothing about Jews was mentioned. So they were not anti-semite papers in pretzel’s world. They were anti-semites via omission…

      • That his Jewishness is openly expolited by his employers to mask their anti-Jevish agenda doesn’t seem to disturb him.

        The G. management also have an “anti-Jewish agenda”? Despite having plenty of Jewish staff and e.g. a Jewish podcast?

        I have the impression that you genuinely believe what you write, peter. The good news – for everyone – is that you are mistaken.

  7. The Zionists accepted but Arab leaders rejected this leaving Europe’s Jews to their fate in the gas chambers.

    I used to take Richard Millet seriously – but the above constitutes appalling anti-Arab propaganda. It blames the Arabs for the six million!

    If a similar comment were made about Israelis or Jews – quite a few people here would be screaming “libel”!

    • Well, the Arab attitude (not to mention the rabid antisemitism of old Haj Amin) shows them not to be entirely innocent, does it?

      Think about it pretzelberg – imagine if the Arabs had opened their doors to the Jews who wanted to go to Palestine? How many might’ve been saved?

      • What do you mean “the Arab attitude” and “shows them …”?

        Of course there’s always the question of how many Jewish Europeans would’ve been saved if the British had allowed more immigration to Palestine.

        But Richard Millet – to his shame – has linked the Holocaust to the rejection of the partition plan by the Arab leadership in a way that reeks of anti-Arab propaganda.

    • Unbelievable! Your post was about me?
      I never got “dumped by a Jewish woman”.
      I have not “joined the Muslim side”.
      I have no “spite” in me – unlike a lot of posters here.

      And there were plenty of agrees with Fairplay’s anti-goy slur the other week as well. No doubt the same pathetic specimens.

      What a bunch of hate-filled bigoted dickheads you are. How silly you must all feel now!

      • I don’t feel at all silly pretzelberg.

        But I am curious as to why you keep company with us if we are as awful as you argue we are.

        Is it really only to give your right forefinger wagging practice?

        • You have nothing to say about the appalling remarks here and elsewhere by Fairplay?

          Nice to see you’ve got your priorities straight!

          But I am curious as to why you keep company with us

          What do you mean “us”?

          I was here a long time before you got here – and will be here a long time after you’ve gone.

  8. Jonathan Freedland was “dumped by a Jewish woman and joined the Muslim side out of spite”???

    What wacko website did you get that from?

    • Apt that the word “coward” should feature in the headline. What kind of lowlife votes down a post that simply asks a question?

      • I am trying to shape your behaviour here, pretzelberg, by voting down your posts which are petulant and childish and giving lots of stars to those which show you being a reasonable and good boy and debating rather than throwing your toys out of the pram.

        For that reason the one above and several others got one star

        • You’re trying to “shape my behaviour”? What a hoot!

          While doing nothing to criticise the appalling bigotry of Fairplay?

          Join the list of cowards and hang your sorry head in shame.

          • You’ve just done it again, haven’t you pretzelberg? Another down vote!

            And whether I criticise other contributors is not your business – we are talking about your childish petulance and when you have the nerve to lecture any of us.

            I have said before that you can turn on a sixpence but I have known you to contribute positively here, whether or not I have always agreed with what you said.

            If you can do it once or twice you can make the effort every time can’t you?

            • Well, how would you “contribute positively” when faced with the disgusting comments of Fairplay?

              I’m showing them up as the bigot they are – and likewise the mental midgets supporting them.

              Why don’t people like you speak up and make a “positive contributution” as regards said posts?

  9. Benjamin says,

    Israelis today oppose immigration of Sudanese into their country.

    Palestinians yesterday opposed immigration of European Jews in their country.

    First, their was never in history any state called Palestine governed by Palestinians.
    2nd, The Palestinians were called greater Syrians before 1964, cause the majority of Arabs in Israel were Arabs who came to the land from the surrounding Arab countries late in the Ottoman Empire and during the British Mandate.

    3rd, the Palestinians who are really Syrians have no right to tell the Jews they cant live in Israel, when Jews were living in Israel 15 centuries before Mohammad and Islam.

  10. Avram, the 48 war was the was the result of the Palestinians together with their Arab allies to perform ethnic cleansing on the Jews and their failure to complete it.
    Every single Jew in the parts of the Mandate seized by the Arabs was expelled from their homes. No exceptions. They even dynamited the entire ancient Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem in an attempt to wipe out the history of Jewish residence there. They also made it illegal for a Jew to live in the areas of the former Mandate that they controlled, including East Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.
    850,000 Jews were also forced from the Arab countries.
    After the 5 Arab armies attacked Israel in 48,Haj Amin Al Husseini stated:
    I declare a holy war, my muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!
    The Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared “a holy war. He said, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.

  11. Avram, On the same day Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV.
    “Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.”

    Arafat’s speech in front of 40 Arab diplomats in the Grand Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden, on January 30, 1996. Was called “The Impending Collapse of Israel”.
    Arafat said, you understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State . . . I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews. We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under total Arab-Muslim domination!”

    The chief of Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority Police
    has compared the Wye Accord to a 7th-century peace treaty that Mohammed,the founder of Islam, signed with an enemy tribe and then later tore up.

    Speaking on official Palestinian Authority Television on October
    30, 1998, PA Police Chief Col. Ghazi Jabali said:

    “We wish to build an independent state and to build our nation –
    even the Prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him, accepted the
    Khudaibiya agreement, which contained unjust conditions.”

    Jabali was referring to the 10-year peace agreement signed by
    Mohammed with the tribe of Koreish. After two years, Mohammed’s military position improved, and he then tore up the agreement and slaughtered the Koreishites.

    Morton A. Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of
    America, said:

    “When Arafat and his senior aides compare the Oslo or Wye
    Accords to the temporary truce signed by Mohammed, they are telling the
    Palestinian Arabs that they don’t want peace, but continue to want the
    destruction of Israel. This makes a mockery of all of Arafat’s agreements
    with Israel, and the Clinton administration, as the sponsor of the
    Israel-PA agreements, should publicly condemn Jabali’s statement and
    demanded that Arafat immediately condemn it, as well.”

    On numerous previous occasions, both Arafat and other senior PA
    officials have assured Arab audiences that their treaties with Israel are
    only temporary truces rather than genuine, permanent peace agreements, citing as precedents the Khudaibiya agreement, the accord signed by Salah a-Din with the Crusaders, and the PLO’s 1974 “Strategy of Phases.”

    Salah a-Din was the Muslim leader who, after a cease fire, declared
    a jihad against the Crusaders and conquered Jerusalem.

    The “Strategy of Phases” was adopted by the PLO’s National Council
    at its session in Cairo during June 1-8, 1974. Prior to the 1974 meeting,
    the PLO’s position was that it would never accept anything but the
    immediate destruction of Israel. At the 1974 meeting, the PLO decided to
    seek Israel’s destruction in phases, by first establishing a small PLO
    state, then later seeking to conquer the rest of Israel. Point #2 of its
    10-point 1974 platform declared that the PLO should create “a national,
    independent fighting authority on every part of the Palestinian land to be
    liberated.” Point #8 explains that the “the Palestine national entity,
    after it comes into existence,” will seek “to complete the liberation of
    the entire Palestinian soil.”

    In the Palestinian Arab newspaper Al Quds on May 10, 1998, Arafat
    was asked:

    “Do you feel sometimes that you made a mistake in agreeing to Oslo?”

    Arafat replied:

    “No…no. Allah’s messenger Mohammed accepted the
    al-Khudaibiya peace treaty and Salah a-Din accepted the peace agreement with Richard the Lion-Hearted.”

    In an interview with Egyptian Orbit TV on April 18, 1998, Arafat
    was asked about his decision to sign the Oslo accords. He replied:

    “In 1974, at the Palestinian National Council meeting in Cairo, we passed
    the decision to establish national Palestinian rule over any part of the land
    of Palestine which is liberated.”

    In that interview, Arafat also declared that the Oslo accords are
    comparable to

    “when the Prophet Mohammed made the Khudaibiya agreement…we
    must learn from his steps…We respect agreements the way that the Prophet Mohammed respected the agreements which he signed.”

    Abdul Aziz Shaheen, the PA’s Minister of Supplies, told the
    official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on January 4, 1998:

    “The Oslo accord was a preface for the Palestinian Authority and the
    Palestinian Authority will be a preface for the Palestinian state which, in its turn, will be a preface for the liberation of the entire Palestinian land.”

    In an interview with the Palestinian Arab newspaper Al Ayyam on
    January 1, 1998. Asked his view of the Oslo agreement, Arafat replied:

    “Since the decision of the Palestinian National Council at its
    12th meeting in 1974, the PLO has adopted the political solution of
    establishing a National Authority over any territory from which the
    occupation withdraws.”

    Speaking in a mosque in Johannesburg, South Africa on May 10, 1994,
    Arafat stated that the Oslo Accord was akin to the temporary truce between Mohammed and the Koreish tribe:

    “This agreement, I am not considering it
    more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Koreish, and you remember that the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it a despicable truce …But the same way Mohammed had accepted it, we are now accepting this peace effort.”

  12. Avram,
    http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publi…rticle-27.html
    The Late Faisal Husseini: Oslo Is A Trojan Horse In Husseini’s last interview with the the popular Egyptian newspaper el Arav in 2001.
    Husseini said, it is the obligation of all the Palestinian forces and factions to see the Oslo Accords as “temporary” steps or “gradual” goals, because in this way, “We are setting an ambush for the Israelis and cheating them.”

    He also differentiated between, “strategic,” long term, “higher” goals, and “political,” short term goals dependent on “the current international establishment, balance of power, capabilities, and variable considerations that change from time to time.” Nevertheless, the Palestinians have been forced to temporarily concentrate on “gradual diplomatic goals.” However, the main goal is the “liberation of all Palestine from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean),” even if this requires a struggle that will continue “1,000 years, or generations upon generations.”

  13. Jonathan Freedland is not a Zionist.
    He’s as much a Zionist as Thomas Friedman and Peter Beinart.

Comments are closed.