h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dispelling the myth of the "rock throwing children". We have seen this phenomenon many times on our TV news bulletins. As a Jew I understand this activity, but perhaps many do not.

The annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca involves an Islamic ritual in which muslims throw rocks at a pillar which represents Satan. By now we know that "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" are references to the USA and Israel respectively.

Before the State of Israel was created, for Jews in Arab Lands there was only Islamic law. Anyone, including children, could heft a rock at a Jew without impunity. No Jew could retaliate in kind, and had no recourse to a lawful complaint.

This is an old insult which Jews no longer have to passively tolerate.

hi agcB,
the following is an example of Arafat double talk:
In a letter to then PM Yitzak Rabin, September 9, 1993, Arafat stated the following:

"The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions | 242 | and | 338 |. The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations. The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and Personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators."

However, just 3 years later, in Stockholm's Grand Hotel on January 30, 1996, he met with a group of Arab leaders and said the following:

"We of the PLO will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years, we will have six to seven million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem. All Palestinian Arabs will be welcomed by us. If the Jews can import all kinds of Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbeks and Ukranians as Jews, we can import all kinds of Arabs to us." He added that the PLO plans "to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion; Jews won't want to live among us Arabs."

It's difficult to find translations of Arafat's speeches because he doesn't want the West to know what he says to his own people.

Journalists coined the phrase “turnspeak” after the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939. The German propagandists blamed the Czechs for trying to precipitate war by their attempt to defend themselves from invasion. This was “turnspeak”. The attacker has turned themselves into the victims to justify their illegal actions.

This is the propaganda that the PLA and other terrorist organizations are using against Israel and the West. They have been well schooled in these techniques, up close and very personal.

In the 1930’s and 40’s Haj Amin al-Husseini (the Mufti of Jerusalem), was the notorious Nazi who mixed this type of propaganda and Islam. Haj Amin was the uncle of Yasser Arafat (Arafat’s birth name is Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Hussein). The Bet Agron International Center in Jerusalem interviewed Arafat’s brother and sister who described Hajj Amin as a “cousin” with tremendous influence on Yasser after The Mufti (Amin) returned from Berlin. Saddam Hussein was raised in the house of his uncle Khayrallah Tulfah. This man was prominent in the pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in May 1941. Haj Amin al-Husseini was the leader of the coup.

Source: The Arab Higher Committee. Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes. Documentary Record Submitted to the United Nations, May 1947, by the Nation Associates.


This is not just a Middle East problem, but also a serious situation for all countries that believe in the justice of democratic principles and would prefer to practice peace.

Hi Halavana

Thanks for that. Nothing one can say about it. *sigh* But it is always good to have an example.

gccB

Reading, learning, still hoping for Zero Intolerance.

x x Fenny (ZI)

Fenchurch:

I think I have made myself clear on where I stand on the Issue of Kuwait/Iraq. I think you did not understand my stand...so please go read my post#917 again. I will say it again: IRAQ HAD NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER IN KUWAIT.....ok

Now,
You said: "You seem to count Yasser Arafat as representative of your views, and show yourself completely in favor of the party which used to be called PLO"
I have never said that, and I have never showed myself completely "in favor" of the PLO..Never...except in the Peace Process, in which I agreed with Arafat's view that Israel has the right to exist in the 1948 borders, and the Palestinians to form their state in the 1967 borders and to implement the various UN resolutions on the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands...
As for Arafat stand on the issue of Kuwait/Iraq, I believe that this was the biggest political and ethical mistake he made in his whole life

Btw, you also said: “I have to remember that most of my fellow Brits don't know what I know"
I am curious, what do you know that they, or even I, do not know??

Peace and Justice for ALL

halavana,
You said:
"It's difficult to find translations of Arafat's speeches because he doesn't want the West to know what he says to his own people."

If this is true, then how in the world could you find the presumed speech he made to the Arab leaders in the Stockholm hotel?!!!
If he wants the hide his intentions, as you say, from the West, then making such speech in the middle of the peace process contradicts all what you say

Peace and Justice for ALL

ME, I'm sorry you shouted. I recognise your view on Iraq's non-claim in Kuwait. I was making a question which I felt as difficult for you to answer as the ones you asked me.

I don't want to sound superior, and I certainly don't want to imply that I know more than anyone else. When I say that "most of my fellow Brits don't know what I know", I'm acknowledging that UK coverage of the Middle East situation is sometimes more biased than I would like, and never covers the full picture. I'm also reasoning that I pay more attention to each piece of news I hear, from public source or friend, because I have a personal interest in the area. Absolutely and in no way did I suggest I know more than you.

I'm going to jump in and answer your question to Halavana, now. You ask "how in the world could you find the presumed speech he made to the Arab leaders in the Stockholm hotel?" Actually, it's not difficult to find that particular speech, now the details are on this thread. A search on Google turned up 55 related articles. All of these related to that meeting, which were verified by several independent and international sources.

The search went by the keywords (if anyone else is interested in following this up) of 'Arafat, "Grand Hotel", Stockholm'. I've also followed up a couple of other links provided by halavana and EtherZev, and broadened my own horizons. Moderators, what follows is personal opinion: as a result of reading the results of that search, I would have to disagree with ME@SF's statement that "Arafat's view [is] that Israel has the right to exist in the 1948 borders". Some of the articles I read would tend to dispute that. But I have no first-hand evidence, so it's just opinion, which I hope I don't get moderated for.

Fenny (still most desperately hoping for Zero Intolerance)

Within the next few minutes I will have put a link on my page to a site with the texts of the PLO charters and their opinions of the Peace Process. It's a document I found during the search labelled above.

x x Fenny (hoping for Zero Intolerance through broader vision)

My point was that what Arafat says in Arabic contradicts what he says in English, or willingly has translated into English.

The quote from Stockholm was taken from a newspaper which "wasn't supposed" to be able to understand Arabic but did. Naturally it was denied by Arafat's people. It was not recorded and therefore no one had proof. However a transcript was taken by the Swiss and authenticated by others who were at the meeting.

One of the things that has the Israelis so concerned is that many of them watch PATV and don't need a translator to tell them Arafat's message to his own people. They understand all too well.

So then, let me get this right...

Arafat says things in English that the English-speaking world wants to hear. Then he turns around and says the opposite thing *in public* and expects non arabs not to notice for the simple fact that it is in a different language? And the rest of the world has been foxed by this ever-so-cunning plan of his?

Sounds a bit far fetched to me. It feels like paranoia and deep mistrust.

There's my 2p

Why not? Politicians do it all the time, and in the *same* language, to boot. He says what people want to hear. So does my Prime Minister. I'm not paranoid, those are facts. OK, so maybe I am paranoid, but they really are out to get me.

Item: The leader of the PLO became the ruler of the lands called West Bank and Gaza, and tells 'the West' he hopes for Peace.

Item: Terrorist groups allegedly use the lands above as bases, and arrange assassinations and suicide bomb attacks from them. ("Allegedly", because I haven't looked up news sources.)

Item: The ruler of the lands above tells 'the West' he will stop his people attacking the people of Israel.

Item: The ruler of the lands above formalises agreements with the terrorist groups who arrange assassinations and suicide bomb attacks, and allows them to continue operations unhindered. [Link removed by moderator]

Item: The ruler of the lands above, having won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in Oslo, continues the policies he said in Oslo that he would amend. Namely, the policy of an armed revolution to overthrow the *illegal* establishment of the State of Israel. Note to moderators: This fact is taken from the site at the above link, which shows that that policy comes from the complete and unabridged text of the Palestinian National Covenant, as published officially in English by the PLO.

I know I haven't convinced anyone. But please try to look beyond the reporting and see one more reason for the Uprisings.

Thank you

Fenny (Still hoping and praying for Zero Intolerance, and wondering whether I will recognise it when it comes)

It seems to me that Arafat's refusal to change the covenant until there is a palestinian authority isn't particularly new or outrageous - it was only a few years ago that Ireland renounced its constitutional claim on Ulster, for example. And Ireland required a referendum - much harsher than the 2/3 majority of the national council.

That the covenant views the creation of Israel as an immoral and illegal act is not surprising: there are good arguments that it was. Similarly, many native americans might view their historical fate at the hands of European settlers as immoral and illegal, but that does not mean that they will not be satisfied until they control the whole of the Americas. Similarly, the PLO's view of the history of Israel does not mean that they will not be satisfied until Israel is destroyed.

Sorry Benjamin Ze'ev Begin - it seems to me that you're conclusion that "An entity which is the result of injustice must be liquidated" is your own interpretation of the covenant, and nothing more.

Hi Martin Been a long time! Thanks for taking the time to follow my link, and I appreciate your attempt to look further into this.

I wanted to acknowledge your opinion of an opinion; but I also wanted to stress that his (Benjamin Ze'ev Begin's) opinion is based on a document which is a complete and unabridged official document (as per the link which I just realised will shortly be moderated out; you can find it on my Userspace). The text is written on a green background and is the Charter of the Palestine National Council. "The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine".

Did you get that? I don't want to be provocative, but I point to the words "armed Palestinian revolution" and "reject all ...substitutes".

My point is that the recent uprising now seems to me *not* the result of victimisation or of a tactless Walkabout in September 2000. There appears to me to be a deeper and more fundamental reason for the extreme responses on both sides, and I suggest that those words could explain a large part of it.

[Heartache: Please stop me if I'm sounding intolerant. Please. I don't want to join anyone's hate-campaign.]

Fenny (preaching Zero Intolerance and hating hate)

Depends how you define "In public" Which public? The American public? He doesn't talk to us in Arabic. The Palestinian public? He can say whatever he wants on PATV and no one in America will know, unless they hear about it from Gamla, Palestinian Media Watch, Arutz-7 or the Jerusalem Post.
But after all, those sources are Jewish, and therefore questionable. We all know how paranoid, mistrusful and unreliable the Jews are. Right?
(Moderators: Please pardon my sarcasm)

I'm sorry I was moderated. It was a long post, and I haven't been told which part was moderated out, so this is a general apology for whichever part upset people.

x x Fenny (Seeking Zero Intolerance and truth)

The link/posting was being checked Fenny. The post is back now.

The Stockholm speech seems to hark back to the 1974 “Phased Plan”. This was a document drawn up at the 12th Session of The Palestinian National Council, in Cairo on the 9th June, 1974. In his speech after the 1993 Israel-PLO accord Arafat stated “The PNC resolution issued in 1974 calls for the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws or which is liberated." (Radio Monte Carlo, 1 September 1993)

On 26th October, 1994 a Treaty of Peace was drawn up between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and lodged with the U.N. This document was witnessed by President Bill Clinton.
Article 3 of the treaty defines the agreed borders between Jordan and Israel as
A. The Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers
B. The Dead Sea
C. The Emek Ha'arva/Wadi Araba
D. The Gulf of Aqaba

Article 8 deals with the joint resolution on refugees and displaced persons. The bulk of people living in Jordan are Palestinians.
A simple search will bring up both of these documents.

Arafat and PLA do not recognize the Kingdom of Jordan. Both Jordan and Lebanon have in the past have expelled Arafat et al from their countries.

The area known as the Palestinian Territories are, strictly speaking, within the borders of Israel as defined by this Treaty. Its many articles deal with such things as joint efforts on smuggling (drugs and arms) and other illegal activities.

Israel is within its legal rights to enter the so-called Palestinian Territories to deal with any of the issues that pertain to this Treaty.

Thanks for checking and approving, Peta. I had hoped I'd kept to the facts, but with this subject it's easy to stamp on someone's beliefs and opinions.

Starbirth, what did I say that raised your ?

x x Fenny (still hoping for ZI)