vrijdag 16 december 2011

Leugens Saeb Erekat nu ook in Jerusalem Post


Het siert de Jerusalem Post natuurlijk dat ze Erekat de mogelijkheid bieden om zijn verhaal – ook als dat voor een groot deel niet klopt – aan het Israelische publiek te vertellen. Het zou nog mooier zijn als Palestijnse kranten Netanjahoe die mogelijkheid ook zouden bieden, en het allermooist wanneer Erekat eerlijk zou zijn. Dat is moeilijk, want hij (en Abbas en andere PA en PLO functionarissen) zijn tegen het principe van twee staten voor twee volken (en zien de Joden als een religie en geen volk), en moeten dus laveren (spreek: liegen) om toch over te komen alsof ze voor de tweestatenoplossing en vrede zijn. 





Erekat continues to lie with impunity in JPost op-ed



Saeb Erekat continues his long tradition of lying. The only problem is that the Jerusalem Post allowed him to do it on their op-ed pages.

Here are some of his lies and half-truths:


The two-state solution on the 1967 borders has been the official Palestinian position for the past 23 years.

Neither the 1988 PLO statement to the UN, nor the 1988 "Declaration of Independence" referred to the 1949 armistice lines. There was an elliptical reference to and international conference based on UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 in the statement, but no indication that the PLO accepts it.


Since then, we have engaged Israel and the international community and exerted sincere efforts to achieve our inalienable right to self-determination through the establishment of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state on the territory occupied by Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem, and a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.


"Sincere efforts" are debatable, since they launched a terror war right in the middle of that time period.

UNGA 194, besides not having any legal validity, does not give a "right to return." It also includes a part about Arab refugees resettling in Arab states - which the PLO ignores. And if the PLO loves 194 so much, it would not end up with Jerusalem or Bethlehem - which UNGA 194 says would be part of a separate UN administered territory.


Twenty years of peace process have passed without a conclusion to the conflict. In fact, most Palestinians have witnessed their situation go from bad to worse in the past two decades, while Israel enjoys unprecedented economic growth and prosperity.


Mahmoud Abbas in 2009 said "I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements. Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life."

Doesn't sound like the PalArabs have it so bad, does it?


During these years, successive Israeli governments have actively pursued settlement construction and expansion in the Occupied Territory, including in East Jerusalem, in flagrant violation of international law and signed agreements.


Whether Jews living in Judea and Samaria violates international law or not - which is a debatable point -  Israel never signed any agreement with the PLO saying they would stop settlement activity.


Today, the Palestinian Authority does not have any real authority. Real authority lies with Israel, with the exception of some municipal work.


I agree that they have no authority - in Gaza. But in Area A they have full autonomy. If they had no authority, how did they manage to go to the UN to demand recognition?

In the end, the definition of "occupation" is when the occupying state has the ability to dissolve the government of the occupied. Israel cannot do that.


This bleak reality of walls, checkpoints and daily humiliation has driven expectations to an all-time low.


And why are there checkpoints again - checkpoints that Israelis also have to cope with? Oh, yeah, because the PLO decided to forego negotiations in 2000 and chose terror instead. 


The latest opinion polls show that a majority of Palestinian still believe in the two-state solution and reaching peace with Israel through negotiations.

poll over the summer says that 66% of PalArabs said their real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.

And only one third accepts "two states for two peoples." Meaning that their acceptance of Israel is a tactical move on the way to a single Arab Palestine "from the river to the sea." 

How can you tell that Saeb Erekat is lying? His lips are moving.


Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten