Germany reverses on Palestinian bid at UN General Assembly

posted at 11:21 am on November 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The UN General Assembly will vote later today to admit the Palestinian Authority as a non-voting observer state, the first official recognition of statehood for the Palestine by the world body — boosted by Western approval, or at least tacit approval.  Germany announced earlier this morning that it had reversed its earlier position and decided to abstain rather than oppose the resolution, which recognizes the Palestinian state as defined by 1967 borders:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian people are enjoying sweeping support in the lead up to Thursday night’s vote at the UN General Assembly over whether to upgrade the Palestinians’ standing to non-member observer status. By Thursday morning Israel time, that support had turned into a full-on landslide, as more European nations decided to alter their positions, essentially leaving Israel to fend for itself.

Early Thursday morning, just hours before the vote — scheduled to take place around 11:00 P.M. (Israel time) — Germany changed its mind, deciding to abstain from voting rather than opposing the Palestinian initiative, as Israel had assumed it would.

“The decision wasn’t taken lightly,” Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said. “Germany shares the goal for a Palestinian state. We have campaigned for this in many ways, but the recent decisive steps towards real statehood can only be the result of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians,” the German official said.

The UN General Assembly is expected to pass a historic resolution recognizing Palestine within the 1967 borders as a non-member observer state.

Until now, the Western position had been that the borders had to be drawn as part of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in a two-state settlement.  Israel has repeatedly committed to the two-state solution, in both English and Hebrew, the official languages of its state.  Mahmoud Abbas has committed to a permanent two-state solution only in English to international audiences; when speaking in Arabic to his own people, he has never committed to recognition of Israel as a permanent sovereign state [see update].

Ha’aretz includes this helpful graphic to show Israel’s diplomatic isolation on forcing the Palestinians to negotiate for statehood recognition:

Only Canada, Guatemala, the Czech Republic, and the US (among Ha’aretz’ “major players”) have publicly announced opposition to the proposal to recognize Palestine as a state without Palestinian recognition of Israel as a state — even though Israel is a member of the UN.

Jeff Dunetz says there are more defects in the proposal than just that:

According to article 4 of the United Nations charter membership is reserved for states (and ”peace loving” states at that. But Abbas the man who arraigned the financing for the Munich Massacre, is asking for “non-member state” status” so his terrorist organization Fatah can join the International Criminal Court and wage “Lawfare” against Israel.

Palestine does not even meet the minimum qualifications of a state under international law. As CAMERA points out:

Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States provides the internationally recognized criteria of statehood:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

This Palestinian entity, which will be called a state by the UN today, has none of the above.

Why did Germany switch its vote?  The UK’s decision to switch swayed a lot of thinking in Europe, according to one Israeli official:

This, in effect, leaves Israel without any European country supporting it at the international forum. Officials in Israel said that Germany’s decision was influenced by Britain. “Britain’s dramatic reversal prompted the Germans to change their mind,” a Foreign Ministry official said. “We lost Europe. More than half of its countries will vote with the Palestinians, and the rest will abstain.”

Except for the Czechs, of course, who know what it’s like to have their country carved up and treated as fodder by Europeans pursuing deluded notions of appeasement.  Some lessons just never quite sink in.

Update: Commenter Lexhamfox supplies a quote from Abbas in Arabic from September of this year:

Abbas said in a press conference following the meeting that Palestine recognizes Israel and that Israel has to recognize the independent state of Palestine too.

SOUNDBITE 1 (Arabic) – Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas:

“Israel is an existing state and we recognize it. We recognize it although certain authorities or states do not recognize it. We recognize a state on the 1967 border and the Israelis have to recognize us too. Israel is required to recognize the Palestinian state according to the two-state solution.”

Abbas said that if Israel wants to complete negotiations it has to recognize the two-state solution according to [1967] borders, adding added that Palestinian UN membership could stop the Israeli settlement construction.

Update II: Via The Week, the liberal Tikkun is optimistic:

The U.S. and Israel should welcome the Palestinian Authority’s proposal, says Rabbi Michael Lerner at Tikkun. “The authority has agreed to return to negotiations with Israel without conditions once that status has been granted,” with the goal of “a state living in peace with Israel in borders roughly approximating those of the [era] before than 1967 war, with minor border changes mutually agreeable through negotiations.” Hamas, on the other hand, wants nothing short of Israel’s destruction. And the only way it can achieve that is by provoking war to keep the Palestinian people living in fear. “So the last thing Hamas wants is for the Palestinian Authority to win popular esteem by being seen as having ‘delivered’ a real tangible accomplishment to the Palestinian people in the form of statehood.”

If this leads to a settlement with which Israel can guarantee its existence as a sovereign nation and establish the two-state solution (or perhaps three-state, now) in fact rather than theory, then I will celebrate it.  So far, I’m not as optimistic about that outcome from this event.  We’ll see if Abbas keeps his promise to return to negotiations after this passes, or instead just starts filing complaints at The Hague.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

You are advocating killing 1.8 billion people. Not all Muslims are violent radicals – but this undoubtedly is advocating radical violence which would obliterate roughly a quarter of the worlds population.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Those philistines (technically, from Jordan, etc.) are so damn violent that other muslim countries don’t want them.

Maybe they should accept their non-statehood status. Meanwhile, the US and Israel are paying for their lifestyle where they’re well-fed.

Kyle_Reese on November 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM

We really need to start rethinking where our money goes. Why are we funding things that are not in our best interest? We could use that money here at home.

katiejane on November 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM

the most radical interpreters of Islam do not speak for every Muslim.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM

You don’t get it. THERE are NO RADICAL interpreters of Islam. There are those who quote it word for word and those who do not. To quote and practice something EXACTLY as it was written and intended to be practiced is not a RADICAL position.

SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Don’t the radical environmentalist advocate reducing world population around 200 million. For them that would be a good start.

chemman on November 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Don’t the radical environmentalist advocate reducing world population around 200 million. For them that would be a good start.

chemman on November 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Stupid fingers. Should be to around 200 million.

chemman on November 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Why are we funding things that are not in our best interest? We could use that money here at home.

katiejane on November 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Why? Because true power is not in having billions of dollars, true power is in controlling hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars, in having the ability to say where it goes and when it goes there. When you have that kind of power, those wishing to be the beneficiaries of your benevolence will make such concessions as required to ensure that they become the beneficiaries of your benevolence. That my friend is how politician become not only powerful, but wealthy as well.

SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Lexhamfox’s comment and the Abbas quote are misleading. Abbas does indeed recognize Israels right to exist, but he refuses to recognize Israel as the Jewish state—per UN Resolution 181. That is part of the Palestinians stated strategy to destroy Israel.

EVERY single prime minster After Rabin recognized the right to a Palestinian Arab state (Rabin did not). No Palestinian leader has ever recognized the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish Homeland. Charter of Abbas’ party FATAH does not recognize Israel’s right to exist in any form.

Israeli Prime Minister outlined the issue brilliantly in his speech before Congress in May 2011

“You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about….

They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.”

My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.”
In his Middle East address President Obama called Israel a Jewish State…

The real issue is where the Palestinian refugees go. While the number of Palestinian refugees in 1949 was somewhere between 800,000-900,000, today the number is over 4 million. This group of refugees is the only example in history where the number has grown without a population shift (the UN counts the original refugees, their children, grandchildren, first cousin twice removed on their mother’s side, friends etc. as refugees-The Jewish refugees from Arab countries, 900,000+ were absorbed by Israel and other countries).

One of the stated goals of the Palestinians is to flood Israel (within the green lines) with Palestinians. Being a democracy, if Israel allows herself to be flooded with millions of the descendants of those 1948 refugees, she will cease to be the Jewish State. Instead Israel will be just another Muslim country in the Middle East.

That is why the original partition resolution passed by the UN in November 1947, UN Resolution 181 calls for dividing Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States.

Palestinian President Abbas has always refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. In an interview with German newsmagazine Der Spiegel President Abbas said,


We recognized the State of Israel within the 1967 borders. Whether it defines itself as a Jewish state, a Hebrew state or a Zionist state is its business. As far as I’m concerned, it can call itself what it pleases. But he cannot force me to agree with this definition.”

In October 2010 when negotiations were going on to convince PM Netanyahu to extend the Judea and Samaria building freeze, Netanyahu made a very simple offer to the PA. If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend building freeze indefinitely. As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:

Netanyahu’s proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.

“The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect,” Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as “an aggression on Palestinian rights and land”.

“What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related,” he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu’s condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.

“The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter,” he told the Reuters news agency. According to Al Jazzeera Abbas replied almost imminently with a resounding no.

The “I recognize Israel” quote is nothing but a ruse…time and time again the Palestinians have refused to recognize the JEWISH State of Israel. And without that recognition, none of the other issues will be resolved.

–Jeff Dunetz

jeffdunetz on November 29, 2012 at 1:41 PM

I wish you ALL would search the internet for “photos” from the 1800s and early 1900s of people you call “Palestinians”, and people called “Jews.” The people called Palestinians were known (in the 1800s) as “bedouins” and “nomads”—NOT as “Palestinians.” Also, there were VERY FEW of either Palestinians or Jews during the 1800s and early 1900s in what people today refer to as “Palestine!” MOST of the people you’re calling “Palestinians” WERE NOT from the Palestine that the Romans named, of the “land of Israel” (which was named the “land of Israel” from thousands of years ago, but were from Jordan—and what was known as “Trans Jordan.” (In early 1800s photos the Arabs wore the turbins, and the Jews word the fez-like hats.)

DixT on November 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Don’t the radical environmentalist advocate reducing world population around 200 million. For them that would be a good start.

chemman on November 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Actually, according to some enviros, four BILLION fewer humans would make the world ‘sustainable’. Anything less means Mommy Earth will get gas and suffer, or something.

Liam on November 29, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Don’t the radical environmentalist advocate reducing world population around 200 million. For them that would be a good start.

chemman on November 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Stupid fingers. Should be to around 200 million.

chemman on November 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Don’t be silly, it’s for the Children, and protecting Mother Gaia is protecting the Children.

SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Sorry, I meant “wore” in the last sentence in parentheses!)

DixT on November 29, 2012 at 1:45 PM

You don’t get it. THERE are NO RADICAL interpreters of Islam. There are those who quote it word for word and those who do not. To quote and practice something EXACTLY as it was written and intended to be practiced is not a RADICAL position.

SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

There are absolutely people who have different interpretations. I’m not sure what you are arguing exactly, that only an extremely violent, hardline strand of Islam is legitimate? This isn’t what most Muslims follow and is a minority viewpoint… but you still would kill all 1.8 self described Muslims, every man woman and child, even if they do not follow this strand, view it as illegitimate, and do not agree with you that it is the only “true way?”

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM

NO more funding to the U.N…..Please don’t give in Israel to them..don’t negotiate after this..

sadsushi on November 29, 2012 at 1:54 PM

If it is conceded that Palestinians lived in the “Palestinian territories,”

You’re ‘begging the question’.
The claim is that there are no distinct “Palestinian” people.
What was the name of the geographical area now called Palestine before it was given that name?

Mimzey on November 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM

DixT on November 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

But that would make sense.

Mimzey on November 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Ed-

Rabbi Michael Lerner is an avowed leftist and his magazine,Tikkun can be best described as this: At best, they are a naive organization that constantly hammers Israel for defending herself. At worst, it is ashamed that Israel actually exist and wishes it goes away since their G-d is liberalism, not Judaism.

Lance Murdock on November 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I do not think you are paying much attention as to what is happening in the Islamic world.
While SWalker may seem extreme, he is NOT wrong in his views of Islam.
All one needs to do is watch developements in Egypt.
There, “Hardline” Islam is fully attempting to impose their hardline and violent views upon the ENTIRE population. That a majority of the population may not be as strident or strict in their interpratation of the Koran matters not one wit. Morsi and the MB are attempting to IMPOSE it on them. Iran is already there and Pakistan is on its way.
It does not take an entire population for a “radical” islam to exist.
Just the leaders. By their own rules, it’s an all or nothing proposition.

Jabberwock on November 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

There are absolutely people who have different interpretations. I’m not sure what you are arguing exactly, that only an extremely violent, hardline strand of Islam is legitimate? This isn’t what most Muslims follow and is a minority viewpoint… but you still would kill all 1.8 self described Muslims, every man woman and child, even if they do not follow this strand, view it as illegitimate, and do not agree with you that it is the only “true way?”

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Your premises is predicated on a suicidal fantasy. Your suicidal fantasy is that Islam has any other doctrine than that of violent conquest and total submission to Islam. IT DOES NOT. There is and never will be a truce between the Wildebeest and the Lion. There is NO Radical Islam, their is NO Moderate Islam, their is ONLY ISLAM.

Islam has a singular primary doctrine, to bring about by any and every means the complete and total submission of every living inhabitant on earth to Islam. By peaceful means when possible or by whatever violent means required when those not submitted to Islam refuse to submit.

You desire to believe otherwise is a complete and total suicidal fantasy.

SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

The people you are referring to were merely a subset of those that “lived in the “Palestinian territories,” [and] have generations of ties to the region.”

It’s fake to pretend that one subset represents everyone.

blink on November 29, 2012 at 1:45 PM

You are right certainly, not everyone living in the area would regard themselves as “Palestinians” in the way it is understood now.

Of course there is, but noone today tries to argue that such American national identity is encompassed by the subset of Polish people (or Irish people or Italian people, etc) that settled in the 13 colonies.

blink on November 29, 2012 at 1:45 PM

You are right. But it cuts both ways – should Israelis, some of whom have generational ties to the land, be able to claim all of the geographical area of “Palestine” even though they were just one subset?

Its a messy situation, shouldn’t be surprising that the UN played a huge role in creating it in its current form. The past really can’t be revisited or revised though; the question should be where to go from here. There is a unique Palestinian identity same as there is an Israeli identity today. Maybe an ideal is they all get together in one big, peaceful country that is equally respectful of both groups.

I don’t think that is realistic right now, so maybe the best really is to have two separate states – which after all exists in a de facto sort of way already.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Mimzey

The name was switched from Judea to Palaestina by the Romans after the Bar Kochba revolt in the year 135

jeffdunetz on November 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Jabberwock on November 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I’m not denying there is radical Islam at all. But I don’t think he “may sound extreme” – he is openly arguing that all 1.8 billion Muslims should be killed. This is extreme. That is what I’m taking issue with by arguing that radicals do not speak for everyone, the same as he does not speak for every supporter of Israel when he advocates for what amounts to genocide.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The “I recognize Israel” quote is nothing but a ruse…time and time again the Palestinians have refused to recognize the JEWISH State of Israel. And without that recognition, none of the other issues will be resolved.

–Jeff Dunetz

jeffdunetz on November 29, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Nonsense. This about recognition of a viable sovereign state (Israel). That is what Israel and others have been demanding for some time and it is the foundation of the peace accords Israel has with Egypt and Jordan. This additional demand didn’t surface until after 2007 and is irrelevant to the negotiations about a Palestinian state and Israel’s international security concerns.

lexhamfox on November 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM

The 1967 borders are not defensible. And they call for returning East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, to Palestine. This cannot and will not happen.

rockmom on November 29, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Maybe an ideal is they all get together in one big, peaceful country that is equally respectful of both groups.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

READ the DAMNED Qur’an, THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Are you really so mentally challenged that you cannot understand what the concept of blowing ones self up to kill your enemies means? Do not deceive yourself into thinking that only the poor or uneducated do that, because that premises, like so many of your other premises is 100 percent totally false.

SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

There will be no peace in the Levant until the Prince of Peace returns to rule. Before that, God will not allow Israel to be crushed. Read Ezekial Chapters 38 & 39.

Quartermaster on November 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM

The name was switched from Judea to Palaestina by the Romans after the Bar Kochba revolt in the year 135

jeffdunetz on November 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Thanks for the info. I’ll read more about it.
I was hoping to get Rangley to take one more step into the past history of the area and have to type the word Judea.

Mimzey on November 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM

What’s most amazing about this is how so many just gloss right over the 1967 borders issue. Sure, all Israel’s neighbors attacked Israel and lost the right to demand a return to those borders by so doing. Sure, the 1967 borders for Israel are indefensible. Sure, Israel is already an existing member of the UN, and so this proposal calls for demanding a member of the UN redraw its borders to the satisfaction of a neighbor that a) is not even a nation, and b) continues to launch attacks and promote terrorism against Israel.

But what does any of that matter, when you can be “on the right side of history?”

By which they mean, of course, the side of history that seems to have the upper hand at the moment.

tom on November 29, 2012 at 2:48 PM

I’m not denying there is radical Islam at all. But I don’t think he “may sound extreme” – he is openly arguing that all 1.8 billion Muslims should be killed. This is extreme. That is what I’m taking issue with by arguing that radicals do not speak for everyone, the same as he does not speak for every supporter of Israel when he advocates for what amounts to genocide.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Wake UP.

SWalker is but one private citizen.
In Islam, over 1,000,000 followers will cheer on a fatwa to KILL you should you even say something negative about the religion.
Nearly as many would follow thru on it if they could.
And you missed my point. If the “Leaders” are extreme, so is the country they lead. ALL OF IT.

Jabberwock on November 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Maybe an ideal is they all get together in one big, peaceful country that is equally respectful of both groups.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

That seems really…reeeally delusional.
You mean kinda like a big commune with camp fires and talking drums and junk? The people who are good at talking care of the camels take care of the camels and the ones who are good at making hummus make hummus and the ones who are good at beating the women beat the women..and all the men get to screw the 9 year old girls?? Cool.

Mimzey on November 29, 2012 at 2:53 PM

We need to SEVERELY cut our spending to the UN. If we’re not going to be any more influential then say, Zimbabwe, we needn’t be paying the lion’s share.

Murf76 on November 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM

PERFIDIOUS ALBION! Return the Malvinas to Argentina. Close RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall.

Old Country Boy on November 29, 2012 at 3:15 PM

That seems really…reeeally delusional.
You mean kinda like a big commune with camp fires and talking drums and junk? The people who are good at talking care of the camels take care of the camels and the ones who are good at making hummus make hummus and the ones who are good at beating the women beat the women..and all the men get to screw the 9 year old girls?? Cool.

Mimzey on November 29, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I would love to see peace on earth. I wish there wasn’t hatred and violence. I don’t consider it delusional to see it be an ideal where there is peace. But as I stated in the very next sentence, “I don’t think that is realistic right now,” where there is simply one state where everyone with generational ties to the land can just get along.

blink on November 29, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Some people absolutely do want to see Israel have all of what is currently called Palestinian territories. Some go even further to suggest that these Palestinians should be segregated against, believing they should not have voting rights if they are annexed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/israeli-poll-majority-apartheid-policies

It absolutely does cut both ways that people who have such ties to the land should not be disenfranchised from their own land.

The problem is that “moderates” don’t speak publicly much at all because they don’t feel worthy enough to speak out because they far too often don’t view themselves as being adequately devout enough to speak as muslims. Therefore, they far too often allow more devout muslims speak for islam.

This is different from other religions in which the most devout aren’t seen as harboring radically violent views. In other religions the most devout speak out against those that would propose violence in the name of their religion.

blink on November 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

A large part of this perception is the media’s tendencies in general – they aren’t going to go report on a forest that didn’t become engulfed in a wild fire. Likewise, in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack it was much more likely to hear about the attack itself than those who protested it as not representing Libya or Islam: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/does-not-represent-us-moving-photos-pro-american-rallies-libya/56803/

The voices are out there, I wish they got more coverage too.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 3:21 PM

The voices are out there, I wish they got more coverage too.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Islam has a messaging problem then ?
Yeah, that’s the ticket !
It is hard to see beyond all the violence.
s/

Jabberwock on November 29, 2012 at 3:31 PM

It is hard to see beyond all the violence.
s/

Jabberwock on November 29, 2012 at 3:31 PM

But don’t call Islam violent or they will kill you.


Violent Islamic Acts: No Apologies But the Toll Keeps Mounting

Dr. Norman Berdichevsky / Canada Free Press

For those who would like a scorecard from 1948 to the present of violent Arab/Islamic heinous acts of barbarism for which the entire world (including innocent Muslims) are still waiting for an apology…

1.Massive violence between Muslims and Hindus in India on an unprecedented scale following partition (at Muslim insistence) in 1947 and three India-Pakistan wars, terrorism in Kashmir and India resulting in several million killed and at least fifteen million people displaced. As a result, Hindu minority in Pakistan has practically disappeared while Muslim minority has dramatically increased and thrived.

2.Pakistan-Bangladesh conflict, 1971 (following civil war and secession). This war saw the highest number of casualties in any of the India-Pakistan conflicts. It is believed that from one to three million Bangladeshis were killed as a result of this war. Very little media coverage.

3. The eight-year-long war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988 making it longest conventional war of the 20th century resulting in almost a million killed. Tens of thousands of children employed by both sides as cannon fodder to set off landmines.

4.The First Gulf War; Invasion of Kuwait (Aug. 1990-Feb.1991), Operation Desert Storm, the Second Gulf War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

5. Ongoing Yemeni and Somali Civil Wars. Thousands killed. No media coverage.

6. Inter-sectarian Muslim violence between Shias and Sunnis in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Several hundred thousand killed.

7. Jordan’s crackdown on “Black September,” 1970. PLO crushed by Jordanian Legion under command of King Hussein (at least 25,000 killed).

8. Syria’s suppression of the Muslim Brothers and opponents of the Assad regime; destruction of the city of Hama (at least 25,000 killed) to wipe out Muslim Brotherhood. Media barred from entering the city. Uprising in Hama by Muslim Brotherhood crushed by Assad regime in Syria Feb. 1982.

9. Current Syrian Civil War. It is quite probable that the son, current Syrian tyrant Baashar al-Assad has already broken his father’s record, at least 20,000 now killed.

10. Al-Qaeda and Taliban violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Muslims are both perpetrators and largely victims for such crimes as sending girls to school, wearing make-up and listening to Western music).

11. Inter-Palestinian factionalism in Gaza; hundreds killed (Hamas activists threw at least 170 members of Fatha off roofs from high buildings).

12. Decade-long mass violence between Muslim religious extremists (Salafist movement) and Algerian government beginning in 1991 estimated to have cost between 150,000 and 200,000 lives. Practically no media coverage.

13. Sixteen-year-long civil war in Lebanon. The war lasted from 1975 to 1990 and resulted in an estimated 130,000 to 250,000 civilian fatalities. Another one million people (one-third of the population) were wounded, half of whom were left with lifetime disabilities.

14. Iraqi, Iranian, and Turkish suppression of Kurdish autonomy; approximately 180,000 Kurds killed, mostly civilians in Iraq, by Saddam Hussein’s forces via poison gas attacks.

15. Muslim terror against civilians in Chechnya, and additional hundreds killed in Moscow and other Russian cities including children at primary school. Russia’s two biggest terrorist attacks both came from Muslim groups. The Chechniyan separatist “Special Purpose Islamic Regiment” took an estimated 850 people hostage in Moscow in October 2002 at a theater. At least 129 hostages died during the rescue, all but one killed by the chemicals used to subdue the attackers.

16. In the September 2004, 1,200 schoolchildren and adults were taken hostage at a secondary school in Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania, which was overrun by an Islamic terror group. About 500 people, including 186 children, died in the attempt to free the hostages.

17. Muslim secessionist activity and terrorism in the Philippines (with almost monthly reports by American media that do not mention the words “Muslim” or “jihad”).

18. Darfur in the Sudan; genocidal attacks against non-Muslim Black Sudanese. On July 13, 2008, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court filed ten charges of war crimes against Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir, charges that included three counts of genocide, five crimes against humanity, and two of murder. The ICC’s prosecutors have claimed that al-Bashir “masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part” three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity. Finally, the Southern Sudan seceded from the Muslim dominated north creating a new state in February, 2011 following a plebiscite approved by 99.6% of the population.

19. Muslim grievances and violence in Thailand; dozens killed.

20. Terrorist activity by local Muslims against the Han Chinese majority in Western China. Several hundred fatalities.

SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM

It is hard to see beyond all the violence.
s/

Jabberwock on November 29, 2012 at 3:31 PM

But don’t call Islam violent or they will kill you.


Islam approaches it’s 20,000 terror attack since 9/11

But it’s all good, we can live in peace with these animals.

SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM

SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM

But it’s all good, we can live in peace with these animals.
SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Crates, leashes and electronic fences help.

Jabberwock on November 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM

See….the rockets DID work.
And will again next time. Lovely.

connertown on November 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM

lexhamfox

Your history is wrong. Israel was established as a Jewish state and has always claimed to be one. Before 1967 as well as today. The strategy of destroying Israel from the inside was not conceptualized till the 1980s when the terrorist Arafat left tripoli for Judea and Samaria

jeffdunetz on November 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Lexnamfox…look it up

The Internal Charter of Abbas’ Fatah Party written in 2010 did not remove Fatah’s rejection of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state (or any other kind of state) nor did it remove its support of terrorism against Israel. It speaks of

“sacrific[ing] our souls, blood, time and effort. All these are the weapons of the revolutionaries … our tragedy continued throughout all those long years. You must know that our enemy is strong and the battle is ferocious and long. You must know that determination, patience, secrecy, confidentiality, adherence to the principles and goals of the revolution, keep us from stumbling and shorten the path to liberation. Go forward to revolution. Long live Palestine, free and Arab!”

The Charter speaks of the “enemy” and does not mention accepting Israel as a Jewish state or even as a state. Also, it does not mention any rescission of the Fatah Constitution, which calls for

“Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine” (Article 22) and insists that “Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated” (Article 19).

jeffdunetz on November 29, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I’m no lawyer, but doesn’t the palestinian recognition as a “state,” now include a number of ancillary benefits for Israel; i.e. the palestinian rocket attacks are now acts of war? If I am correct, the U.S. would be duty-bound to attack its ally’s aggressor as well, no?

This may turn out to be the end of palestine after all….not that it should have gone on this long anyway….

DrScottMD on November 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM

lexhamfox

Your history is wrong. Israel was established as a Jewish state and has always claimed to be one. Before 1967 as well as today. The strategy of destroying Israel from the inside was not conceptualized till the 1980s when the terrorist Arafat left tripoli for Judea and Samaria

jeffdunetz on November 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

You haven’t challenged my history or pointed out any faults with what I stated earlier. Israel never demanded that other nations recognize it as a Jewish state and there really isn’t a standing in international relations for such recognition. It was introduced in 2007 as an added precondition to negotiations related to the Palestinian question. The critical part of Israel’s security and international standing is recognition by other nations of Israel as a sovereign nation. That was vital to the negotiations with Jordan and Egypt and it remains a problem in relations with other Arab states. I understand that it is a critical concept within Zionism and they are welcome to claim whatever they like. It’s Israel’s business what kind of state it is and its up to Israelis to decide not Palestinians, Americans, or Chinese.

I don’t understand why you are directing comments about Fatah’s 2010 Charter towards me. I have never mentioned the Charter and think it is irrelevant to the matter of mutual recognition between Israel and a Palestinian state. Since you brought it up, however, I would point out that while you got the preamble correct your other citations don’t jive with the most authoritative translation found here. I think this is a pretty fair summary of the changes and it is at odds with yours.

Fatah is not the PA anymore than the Likud is Israel. Fatah and Likud have obvious similarities and you are right to call Arafat a terrorist just as Begin and Shamir were terrorists but I think paramilitary is the more diplomatic term for leaders like that. The official Likud platform rejects a Palestinian state entirely and Bibi has never come out in favor of a two state solution to the Palestinian question. The Likud platform argues for aggressive settlement of occupied land and Fatah’s charter argues for resistance to the occupation.

lexhamfox on November 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Israel never demanded that other nations recognize it as a Jewish state and there really isn’t a standing in international relations for such recognition.

Actually, UN Resolution 181, from November of 1947, referred 30 times to the creation of a Jewish State, as well as an Arab State.

Israel’s declaration of independence referred to the re-establishment of the Jewish State and an “independent Jewish State in Palestine.” The exact wording of the independence clause itself was as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, WE, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world, met together in solemn assembly today, the day of the
termination of the British mandate for Palestine, by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish and of the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations,

HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL.

It is not true that Israel never made a point of being the Jewish state prior to 2007. The reestablishment of Israel was the result of a century of Zionism that was all about reviving the Jewish state. That history was well known and understood in the late 1940s. One would have been thought a fool to suggest that Israel was not intended by the Israelis to be a Jewish state. The Israelis said explicitly that that’s what they were establishing, and the UN saw a valid path forward with both an Arab and a Jewish state on the territory of the old Palestine Mandate. Israel was prepared to act according to that plan, accepting and recognizing an Arab state as a neighbor, but the Arabs did not agree to it.

You’re entitled to your own opinions on this, but not to your own facts.

J.E. Dyer on November 29, 2012 at 11:12 PM

J.E. Dyer on November 29, 2012 at 11:12 PM

I do understand that Israel was founded as a Jewish state and I understand the partition plan for a Jewish and an Arab state and I said as much in my earlier comment. Recognition in international relations, statecraft, diplomacy, ..etc does not entail adding on such things and since, as you have pointed out, it was implicit in its founding …why then does Israel demand this from the Palestinians and why only recently?

It is not true that Israel never made a point of being the Jewish state prior to 2007.

I did not make that point. My point was that it was never a condition in negotiations with the Palestinians or with Israel’s enemies who have since made peace and recognized Israel.

If you are aware of any instance where an Israeli government made recognition of Israel as a Jewish state a core issue and precondition to negotiations with the Arab states or the Palestinians prior to Netanyahu then please share it but I can;t recall it being so. It certainly wasn’t a factor during the negotiations and mutual recognition pacts with Egypt or Jordan. It doesn’t appear in Resolution 242 which was carefully crafted and accepted by Israel as the basis for regional peace.

lexhamfox on November 30, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Because the “jewish state” question did not become an issue when it was the Arab league trying to drive Israel into into the sea. It didn’t matter..the issue was saving the entire state. Egypt and Jordan never desired to flood Israel with pseudo-refugees.

As the arab league handed the “battle” over to the palestinians in the 1980s, flooding Israel with “refugees” became one of their strategies and maintaining the Jewish Character of the state came to the forefront.

Resolution 242 was for the stoppage of war between Israel->and Egypt, Jordan and Syria. At that time they were supposed to return land back to those countries–nothing to do with the Palestinian Arabs. Israel didn’t have to defend its Jewishness then.

BTW 242 didn’t require Israel to go back to the 1949 armistice lines (commonly called the 1967 lines), yet yesterday’s agreement breaks that also.

jeffdunetz on November 30, 2012 at 6:33 AM

Egypt and Jordan never desired to flood Israel with pseudo-refugees.

jeffdunetz on November 30, 2012 at 6:33 AM

Exactly. Israel was negotiating entirely separate issues with Egypt and Jordan.

The Oslo process is a different matter. There was no such thing as the Oslo process before 1991. (Nor will there be after Abbas’s unilateral initiative over the past year, and yesterday’s UN vote, which effectively abrogated it.)

The issue of Abbas recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is tied to the Palestinian Arab strategy for bringing Arab immigrants to Israel as part of a two-state deal. This is usually phrased as demanding the “right of return,” although the vast majority of “Palestinians” living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc., were born in those nations, and had no part in leaving what is now the territory of Israel when Jordan attacked in 1948 or when the Arab coalition attacked in 1967. Jordan and the other nations have declined to make the “refugees” citizens, which after so many decades is evidence of a political goal far other than achieving peace. The evil situation of so-called “Palestinian refugees” is nothing but a policy on the part of Arab nations of sequestering these people, mostly the children of those who left in ’48 or ’67, against a future day when they will immigrate to a modern Israel and West Bank.

Israel will not make any agreement that leaves the door cracked to such a strategy. She has no intention of letting her Jewish population be overwhelmed by Arab immigrants from the surrounding states. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East where governments change hands peacefully and civil order makes the people safe. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship peacefully there, and freedom of speech and thought are respected. Israelis don’t want to lose that, and “Israel” would be meaningless if they did. As long as Abbas makes the so-called “right of return” an issue for a two-state solution, Israel will very properly require the PA, including Fatah, to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state, and has a sovereign right to be.

I realize, lexhamfox, that you don’t agree with this. But others may benefit from knowing what’s behind the shorthand in these arguments.

J.E. Dyer on November 30, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2