|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
Ambassador Mike Huckabee’s recent suggestion that pursuing a ‘Palestinian’ terrorist state should no longer be a goal of our foreign policy was rejected by more cautious voices in the Trump administration. But what would such a state look like? Oct 7 again and again.
The media is hyping the news that Palestinian Authority dictator Mahmoud Abbas wrote a letter to France’s President Macron, calling for peace and condemning the Oct 7 attacks. But last week, a newspaper under Abbas’ control republished an interview with the dictator praising Oct 7 as an “attack shook the foundations of the Israeli entity” but only objecting that “as important as the goals that Hamas attempted to achieve through this attack may have been,they are not comparable to the damages and heavy losses that the Gaza Strip, its residents, and the Palestinian cause have suffered.” After the interview went public, Abbas condemned Oct 7.
Should the Trump administration believe Abbas had a change of heart?
The letter also claims that “Hamas will no longer rule Gaza and must hand over its weapons and military capabilities to the Palestinian Security Forces.” But just last year, Abbas’ Fatah terrorist movement and Hamas had signed a unity agreement in Beijing.
“The Beijing Declaration to End the Division and Strengthen Palestinian National Unity,” had been hailed by China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi “as a historic moment for the cause of Palestine’s liberation.” Was Abbas lying to Xi and China or to Macron and France?
When China holds a conference on the ‘Palestinian’ cause, the Palestinian Authority pledges unity with Hamas, when France holds a conference, the PA promises to disarm Hamas. When talking to his own people, Abbas praises Oct 7, when talking to France, he condemns it.
The Palestinian Authority ordered its terrorist flags flown at half-staff after the death of Hamas leader Ismail Hamiyeh. It signed a unity memorandum with it. Now it promises to get rid of it.
Which version of a ‘Palestinian State’ should we believe in? Let’s just follow the polls.
In the latest survey in May, a majority of the Arab Muslims occupying parts of Judea, Samaria and Gaza declared once again their support for the Oct 7 attacks and atrocities. Like the Abbas condemnation, it’s not a moral condemnation, but a tactical one. After Oct 7, support peaked at 82% in the West Bank and 71% in Gaza. It’s dropped now to 59% in the West Bank and 31% in Gaza. But on Oct 7, 98% said that the atrocities made them “proud” to be ‘Palestinians’.
Abbas hasn’t held an election since the Bush administration. And the last time that happened, Hamas won. Why did Hamas really win? Because what the ‘people’ they represent really want is terrorism. They want the brutality and the mass murder of non-Muslims that Hamas gave them on Oct 7, but this time they want to win. The Abbas sales pitch is that next time they can do Oct 7 under the protection of Turkey, Qatar and Muslim countries with their armies inside as long as they first secure international recognition for their genocidal Islamic terrorist state.
But why is France’s Macron and why are so many European leaders that much more eager to create a terrorist state inside Israel than they were before Oct 7 to the extent that they’re sanctioning Israeli government officials and threatening unilateral diplomatic recognition?
The Palestinian Authority certainly didn’t become any more functional and Abbas did not somehow magically gain more credibility since his last election in 2005.
What happened was Oct 7.
No wonder that Abbas alternately condemns and praises Oct 7, depending on whether he’s speaking to an Islamic or Western audience, because that’s also the hypocritical position of Macron and his Western backers. They claim to be urgently pushing for an Islamic terrorist state for reasons having nothing to do with Oct 7 and yet without Oct 7, they wouldn’t be doing it.
Oct 7 was the best expression of what the artificial ‘Palestinian’ identity is. That’s why 98% of the occupiers of Judea, Samaria and Gaza took pride in it. It’s not as if they have Nobel prizes, great inventions or any significant contributions to human culture to take pride in. What is ‘Palestine”, beyond a misappropriated Roman name for the Philistines: a European people?
In the words of “Fidai” (another name for Jihadi) the ‘Palestinian’ national anthem, “Palestine is my revenge.” In the 30 years since a PLO terror entity was formed in parts of Israel, it failed to achieve a self-sustaining economy, a functional society, a democratic government or any of the basic prerequisites to statehood. All it’s ever done is fight an endless war against Israel.
That is the only aspiration of a ‘Palestinian’ state. That’s all it will ever be good for.
There’s only one possible reason for supporting a ‘Palestinian’ state and that’s terrorism. Oct 7 was the highest expression of ‘Palestinism’ in its one enduring goal: the mass murder of Jews. The push by France’s Macron, the UK’s Starmer and others to recognize a terrorist state in Israel is a tribute to the great ‘Palestinian’ accomplishment of the massacres of Oct 7.
They can try to pretend that the Palestinian Authority and its dictator Abbas, despite signing a unity pledge with Hamas, are somehow fundamentally different than Hamas, and pretend that despite celebrating Oct 7 (and components of PA terrorist groups that took part in it), are now against it, and that a terrorist state run by Islamic terrorists will somehow bring peace.
But if they really believed that, why didn’t they recognize a terrorist state before Oct 7?
France is not pushing to recognize a ‘Palestinian’ state despite Oct 7, but because of it, and that’s consistent with the fact that the only reason anyone ever took the Soviet fiction of a ‘Palestinian’ identity seriously was because of Yasser Arafat, his gun and his terrorism.
Without terrorism, ‘Palestinism’ and a ‘Palestinian’ identity wouldn’t exist.
That’s not just bad news for Israel, it’s bad news for the world. Every time the ‘Palestinian’ terrorist movements gained some recognition, international terrorism grew worse. Al Qaeda’s first attacks appeared around the same time as the Oslo accords with Arafat did. The Hamas takeover of Gaza paralleled the rise of ISIS. Every time ‘Palestinian’ Jihadists proved that terrorism worked, other Islamic terrorist groups sat up, paid attention and increased their efforts.
The one thing a terrorist state in Israel won’t lead to is peace. The one thing it is certain to lead to is terrorism, not just in Israel, but in America, Europe and around the world.
A Pally State would just be a bridgehead the terrorists could use to attack Israel.
Like Iran. Why not also give them some nukes. In fact I read Iran WILL give Gaza nukes to attack Israel with. But, lets debate it some more and more because “Peace In Our Time!”
There is already one Islamist state with nukes — Pakistan (thanks to China) — and that is one too many. They also ran the nuclear black market through A. Q. Khan’s network for proliferating not just nuclear weapons related technologies and expertise but also chemical and biological warfare agents and expertise. Iran was one of the beneficiaries.
Despite Khan’s death in 2021 and the exposure of his network, evidence persists that a network for the illegal transport of nuclear expertise and materials continues to operate. Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea, and China (perhaps also Russia) are the usual suspects for providing such technology, materials, and expertise to selected proxies and allies. “Peace in our time”? Fuhgeddaboudit.
Well, let’s just give these Arabs, masquerading as a separate people, a commensurate sized city like National City and Chula Vista in Southern California. Considerably more space and it would butt up against the City of San Diego.
Now, having been given this state called Palestigo, an adjacent part of the US proper, there should be peace. However, before the Gazans are relocated here, all of the residents currently living in this area will be forced to leave their homes and businesses along with removing those buried in this area and move further north into allowable communities designated by governmental dictate. After all, Palestigo will usher in peace and these former Gazans will live harmoniously together building again their once great people and nation.
But there is a cautionary BOLO ( be on the lookout), these are people accustomed to being ruled by violent Jihadis and we should remain vigilant regarding their use of federal funds. If their history in Gaza is repeated, money distributed to them for building their state may result in the money being co-opted to build deep underground tunnels into Mexico and far north into San Diego and across into southern Arizona. But please understand that their propensity to violence was a result of being maltreated and with time they will cease this behavior.
FAST FORWARD: It has been twenty-five years since Palestigo became a state but the mass of their people still remain uneducated and live in poverty. They have repeatedly chosen from among themselves jihadis to govern them. Their leaders terrorize them into submission, willing or not. All the monies provided to build infrastructure, schools and businesses have instead built a massive network of underground tunnels and the Mexican cartels and violent, Islamic men from many Middle Eastern countries have been smuggled in and routed through the tunnels into Arizona and then beyond into already established Islamic communities throughout the US.
These Arabs have yet to build anything lasting, After billions and billions of dollars…they remain just as they behaved in Gaza but the in the US, cities in many parts of California have built shelters and run when the sirens are heard. Land for peace? Not so much!
Gabrielle,
Atlantis is also available. The crack is all fixed
I checked nothing in the US is available so the following not ever-
National City and Chula Vista in Southern California. Considerably more space and it would butt up against the City of San Diego.
In World War One, Britain was hampered at first from establishing a total sea blockade against Germany by some previous international agreements. So in 1915, after the sinking by German submarines of the Lusitania, the British Government issued an order banning goods of any kind from entering or exiting Germany. Something similar might be considered in case of future sieges, to cancel international agreements allowing supplies into besieged areas.
(The WW1 blockade was eventually decisive, or at least one of the main factors in ending the war).