Abbas at the UN: Decoding the Babble

abbasbMahmoud Abbas – putative president of the Palestinian Authority – addressed the UN General Assembly on Thursday, focusing on the negotiations between the PA and Israel. How eminently reasonable was the tone he attempted to project.  There he stood on the dais, expressing his intention to work hard for peace, even pleading for peace.

“Our quest is supportive of the path of peace,” he assured those assembled.

“I affirm before you that… we shall continue [the negotiations] in good faith and with open minds, strong determination and an insistence on success…we shall …foster the most conducive atmosphere for the continuation of these negotiations…”

Ah! That he should truly be what he would have us believe he is. But an even cursory look at his words tells us that he is not.  The leopard has not changed his spots.

We might start with that bit about fostering “the most conducive atmosphere…” Khaled Abu Toameh has just described the atmosphere that Abbas fosters:

“Although Abbas and some of his aides have been telling Israelis, Americans and Europeans that they are opposed to violence and terror attacks against Israel, they continue to incite Palestinians against Israel on a daily basis.”

The irony is that Abbas himself provides an example of this incitement in his talk, as he refers to almost daily attacks on the Al-Aksa mosque.  This is pure and outrageous fabrication.  The reality is that Jewish visitors on the Temple Mount – which is where the mosque is located – are sometimes accosted by stone-throwing Arabs, and sometimes prevented from visiting at all because of threats of Arab riots.

“The objective of the negotiations,” he explains,

“is to secure a lasting peace accord that leads immediately to the establishment of the independence of a fully sovereign State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all of the Palestinian lands occupied in 1967, so that it may live in peace and security alongside the State of Israel, and the resolution of the plight of Palestine refugees in a just agreed upon solution, according to United Nations resolution 194, as called for by the Arab Peace Initiative.”

This run-on sentence must be unraveled. What we are seeing here is the Palestinian Arab “narrative”: A host of claims without legal or historical basis that have been repeated so often that much of the world believes them.

There is no “occupation.”  “Belligerent occupation” applies only when a sovereign state moves into the territory of another sovereign state.  This was not the case here, when Israel took Judea and Samaria in a defensive war in 1967.  What is more, and perhaps more significantly, this area is historically the cradle of the ancient Jewish nation. This fact – the reality of the region as the heritage of the Jewish people – was recognized in the Mandate for Palestine, an international legal document mandating establishment of a Jewish homeland from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Prior to the ‘67 war, Jordan was the presence on the other side of the Green Line, not “the Palestinians.”  And so, in no event should that land be referred to as “Palestinian land.”: And, it should be noted here, that Green Line was merely an armistice line, which Jordan, when signing the armistice agreement, concurred would be temporary only.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed shortly after the war in ’67, recognized that Israel would not move back behind the Green Line, as this would not provide a secure border. That resolution referred neither to a “Palestinian state” nor to a “Palestinian people.”

As to the “refugees,” Palestinian Arabs and their supporters routinely point to Resolution 194 as proving that they have a “right to return” to lands in Israel they left in 1948.  But this is a misrepresentation of the facts.  That was a General Assembly resolution, and GA resolutions are merely recommendations – not binding and without weight in international law. What is more, while one phrase in the resolution speaks of “return,” when one reads the entire resolution, it becomes apparent that this was only one option mentioned, along with resettlement.

Israel has never agreed to the Arab Peace Initiative, for it was a “take it or leave it” deal that is nothing more than a formula for her destruction – precisely along the lines that Abbas spells out here.  Recently there were suggestions by representatives of the League that “minor” adjustments “might” be made but were never approved by the League.

The initiative consists of a two-part plan. First, to push Israel back behind the indefensible armistice line.  And then to push on that “right” of refugees to return to their villages of  65 years ago, thereby inundating Israel with a hostile population.

We see this two-track theme in Abbas’s speech. In one place he refers to the “injustices” of 1948, and in another, the “occupation” of 1967. There is a reason why Palestinian Authority textbooks routinely reflect “Palestine” from the river to the sea.

Abbas indicates that if Israel signs on to the deal he outlines, there will be recognition from 57 Arab and Muslim states, but this is simply not the case.  The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has 57 members, but by no stretch of the imagination have they all signed on to recognition of Israel, whatever the parameters of an agreement.  The Arab League consists of 22 members.

What must be emphasized here is that Israel would, ostensibly, be recognized. But not Israel as the state of the Jewish people.  This is more than a technicality, for it is the intention of supporters of the Palestinian Arabs to push for Israel as the “state of all its residents,” by which is meant that its Jewish character would be erased.

Lastly here I note the outrage of Abbas instructing Israel that it is time to “stop relying on exaggerated security pretexts and obsessions.”

In 1967, the Security Council recognized Israel’s need for secure and defensible borders.  How much more so is this the case in the volatile Middle East of today.  Nightly operations by the IDF in Palestinian Arab areas of Judea and Samaria control the threat of terrorism.  Radical Islamic groups would have a field day, were the IDF no longer able to enter within the borders of a Palestinian state. What is more, should Jordan fall to Islamists, there would be risk from farther east.

Where Israel’s borders are set is of enormous, existential, import.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “I affirm before you that… we shall continue [the negotiations] in good faith and with open minds…”

    I affirm before you that… we shall continue [the negotiations] in good Islamic faith and with open sharia-compliant minds

  • Sharon Raanan

    Excellent article!
    Sharon Ra’anan

  • Biff Henderson

    Other than paying the PA lip service no one in the OIC trusts this nest of vipers yet Israel is expected to take them at their word. Israel plays along with the ridiculous diplomatic game, nation building has its fits and starts while the Arab world crumbles around her. Having to contest with the loud rattle of the beggar’s bowl is the cost of doing business.

  • Gee

    Israel needs to end this farce. Abbas is not the President or representative of anything. His term of office expired 7 years ago.

    He has admitted to sending terrorists to murder civilians because of their religion – which makes him a war criminal.

    Time to target him

  • Ken Kelso

    As Giulio Meotti said about Abbas.

    Under Abbas, the PA has been waging a war of words against the Jewish state, engaging in anti-Semitic incitement of the vilest kind and using Holocaust denial, racial slurs, and Judeophobic epithets. It is a stream of hostility cultivated and implemented over the past decade under the Abbas leadership. A stream which is competing with “Der Ewige Jude”, the Eternal Jew, favored by Joseph Goebbels, in which Jews are compared to rats.

    Abbas openly rewards terrorists. One of them, Mahmoud Awad Damra, who was sentenced in 2006 to 15 years in prison for his role in terror attacks against Israel, was promoted by Abbas to the rank of major-general. Abbas then bestowed the Star of Honour to Nayef Hawatmeh, the leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and convicted terrorist whose group took the lives of 22 Jewish children in Maalot.

  • Ken Kelso

    The lying weasel Abbastard says “to stop relying on exaggerated security pretexts and obsessions” while he continues to give motivation for appalling acts of terror and murder by paying pension bonus money to murderers in prisons, which today account for 6% of the PA’s total budget of all moneys including what is received from the US and Europe.

  • itaintmojo

    Its amazing anyone would listen to Abbaas’s blatant lies.

    Israel turned a a useless desert into a thriving country, while Abbass lines his swiss bank account, and lets his people rot in filth and hate, as pawns, just like Arafat did.

  • JacksonPearson

    I understand, Mahmoud Abbas is an unelected no body. Neither is he a head of any state, yet is given access to a U.S. visa and front row seat in the United Nations, plus to international dignitaries…how come?

    • defcon 4

      Islam0fascist petrodollars grease a lot of pockets at the UN and the US Congress.

  • defcon 4

    Why don’t the Jews have a right of return to the lands stolen from them in Soddy Barbaria? After all, wasn’t Medina once the Jewish village or Khybar? I don’t think any peace process should continue until the rights of the Jewish tribes to the lands they were dispossessed from in Soddy Barbaria by violence is settled.

    • Softly Bob

      Yes, Medina was called Yathrib and the town was built by the Jews. Mohammed was just a squatter who kicked out the rightful home-owners. In fact Muslims everywhere are basically squatters. They need to go back home to the only land that they rightfully possess – about ten square miles of empty desert just outside Mecca. All one billion plus of them!

  • glennd1

    A perfect recitation of Zionist propaganda. I’ll make a few points that somehow don’t make it through:

    1. For almost 2000 years before the formation of Israel in ;48, Jews lived in a tiny minority in Palestine, 2-5% of the population – as it was in 1880. Christians lived in larger numbers than jews by a factor of 2-3. The Jewish population only begins to go up at the end of the 19th century with the advent of political Zionism which funded the emigration of massive numbers of Jews to Palestine.

    2. The British Mandate for Palestine – This colonial order fell apart. But if you actually read the mandate, you’ll see that it forbade the Zionists from forcing any indigenous people living in Palestine from their homes. See my next point…

    3. In 1948, the radical Zionist militias forced 800,000 Arab Muslims from their homes in 500 villages, towns and cities. The Zionists also took 20% more land than awarded by the ’48 partition agreement.

    4. ’67 borders is the official position of the U.S. government and many other humane nations.

    “Revisionist Zionism” a la Jobotinski expressly called for the cleansing of Israel of enough Arabs to form a majority Jewish state. The entire campaign was one of invasion, colonization, occupation and expulsion. There was no other way for Zionism to work. Most honest Israelis and Zionists today only say that “all nations are born in blood” – they no longer pretend to victims when the Zionists were and continue to be the aggressors.

    Sane, moral people are anti-Islamist and anti-Zionist. Just sayin’…

    • defcon 4

      I know point 3 is a lie. As for ethnic cleansing, muslimes have been experts at it even since Muhammad consummated his marriage w/his 9 year old wife.

      “Islamist” a neologism coined to create the false viewpoint that islam is really a religion of peace.

      • glennd1

        Lol – you are not even coherent.

    • mikeh420

      3. In 1948, the Arab League militias forced 800,000 Arab Muslims
      from their homes in 500 villages, towns and cities, as part of the preparation to “Drive the Jews into the Sea.”

      4. ’67 Armistice Lines were the result of the Arabs, knowing they were about to lose, suing for peace.

      There, that’s better.

    • Salomon Benzimra

      This is what Abbas said in his speech, in a hardly veiled accusation of israel as being responsible for the “Palestinian refugees”:

      “I am personally one of the victims of Al-Nakba, among the hundreds of
      thousands of my people uprooted in 1948 from our beautiful world and thrown into exile. Like hundreds of thousands of Palestine refugees, I have known as a youth the pain of exile and the tragedy of the loss of loved ones in massacres and wars, and the difficulties of building a new life from zero. And we tasted in refugee camps in exile the bitter taste of poverty, hunger, illness and humiliation, as well as rising to the challenge of affirming one’s identity. Our people have walked the path of armed revolution and rose from the ashes of Al-Nakba…”

      The same Mahmoud Abbas, in an article he wrote in March 1976 in “Falastin al-Thawra” (the official journal of the PLO in Beirut) admitted that:

      “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a
      political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe.”
      Now, would anyone trust Abbas if he offers you a used-car deal?

      • glennd1

        Do you believe this obviates Israel’s responsibility for its cleansing? Fyi, Israeli historians like Benny Morris clearly show that cleansing went on intentionally – it’s not in dispute.

        • StanleyT

          Actually it’s very MUCH in dispute. Benny Morris’s claims have been thoroughly refuted ably (see

          I would also highly recommend “Palestine Betrayed” by Efraim Karsh. Yes, Karsh is pro-Israel, but as a true historian, he backs up every claim with ample proof, in this case from newly released documents in the British Archives and from Arab League sources, proving beyond a shadow of doubt that almost all the Arabs who fled in 1948 did so at the instigation of the Arab League. This is INDISPUTABLE proof, unlike yours and Benny Morris’s claims. The Jews did not FORCE anyone from their homes, except for a few very isolated cases necessitated by military security.

          I also take issue with your point 3. To begin with UNGA 181 was a General Assembly resolution, not binding under international law. The only thing that would have made it binding was agreement between ALL the parties. The Arabs did not agree, and attacked Israel. That rendered the Partition Plan null and void. There’s also the fact that the League of Nations had already given ALL of the land to the Jewish people and all League of Nations decisions were continued under Chapter 80 of the UN Charter. The only way ownership of the land can ever change is if the Jews offer it to the Arabs in the name of peace, something they have been doing repeatedly since 1937. In other words, the Jews did not “take (took) 20% more land than granted them”. They took ownership of a small portion of the land that is rightfully theirs under international law.

          In short, all you are doing is parroting the “Palestinian” narrative, which really is propaganda. What you call “Zionist propaganda” can very quickly and easily be shown to be international law.

        • Salomon Benzimra

          Glenn, you are running behind the times, As Stanley pointed out, Benny Morris saw the light several years ago and corrected many of his past misinterpretations.

          Besides, contemporary reporting (1948-1950) from Time Magazine, the London Economist, Newsweek, Christian clergy in Palestine, and many Arab media from Beirut, Damascus and Cairo attest that the overwhelming majority of Arabs left Palestine at the urge of Arab leaders. And this, in spite of noted instances where Jews persuaded them ro stay.

    • Gee

      Do you even know what the truth looks like? I doubt it.

      1. In 1880 80% of the population of Jerusalem was JEWISH – oh just a minor fact from the Ottoman Empire.

      2. That same mandate stated that Jews were allowed into the Mandate – but the British forbade it.

      3. Number of Muslims forced out of their homes – zero. Even the Prime Ministry of Syria reported that most left without ever seeing a Jew. Same with hundreds of leaders. While the British leader Jordanian Arab Legion ethnically cleansed 10s of thousands of Jews from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

      General Assembly Resolutions are RECOMMENDATIONS and the partition was in direct violation of the San Remo Treaty, Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the UN Charter. And was REJECTED by the Arabs whom stated that they were going to finish what Hitler started.

      4. Pure BS – the official position of the U.S. government is that the borders need to be negotiated – even though the Arabs do not have a single legal claim.

      In short every single statement you made is an outright lie.

      Sane, moral people you are not. You are lying racist bigot without a fact to support your stupidity