Pages: 1 2
Thus, immediately following their UN bid, the Palestinians will have furthered their main objective: to weaken Israel both militarily and territorially. In this case, by provoking the IDF (military) as well as “settlers” (territory), and then branding Israeli actions of self-defense as “disproportionate” and “aggressive.” All that is required is the “martyring” of a few Palestinians. Easy come easy go.
And the fact that Palestinian statehood will still remain elusive—assuming the Obama administration fulfills its promise to veto any motion to this effect brought to the Security Council—further highlights the Palestinians’ raison d’être—not self-determination, but rather bringing about the inexistence of Israel.
This past weekend, chief PLO “negotiator” Saeb Erekat made this objective overt, stating that “the [aim of the] Palestinian bid at [the] United Nations is to gain full UN membership of the state of Palestine within 1967 borders and not to announce independence,” according to the Palestinian news agency WAFA. Erekat proceeds to explain the utility of UN membership without declaring statehood: “If we were recognized as a state member in UN, we don’t think that settlements or Israeli crimes and provocations will disappear immediately, but the difference will be that Palestine is an occupied country by another state member.” This, according to Erekat, would provide “Palestine” with added leverage to escalate the conflict against Israel by dictating “solutions for issues like prisoners and refugees.”
As further proof, consider Erekat’s recent affirmation that “going to the UN won’t cancel the ‘right of return,’” the Palestinian euphemism for the demographic destruction of the Jewish state. A Jerusalem Post editorial explains the ramifications of Palestinian intransigence on this issue: “Exercising the Palestinian ‘right of return’…would result in the influx of millions of ‘refugees’ who, together with Arab Israelis who already make up 20 percent of the population, would seriously endanger, if not overturn, the Jewish majority.”
Ergo, the end of Israel.
Returning to Mr. Harris: “A GA vote would send precisely the wrong message to Israel. It would say we are prepared to…ignore your vital interests…[and] overlook your determined efforts to reach a negotiated two-state agreement.…”
And that’s the point.
Pages: 1 2