RSS
The United Nations Is Against Peace
The UN decision on May 10, 2024, to upgrade the status of the Palestinian state is not surprising. It is a direct continuation of previous UN decisions, most notably that of November 29, 2012, which granted the Palestinian Authority the status of non-member observer state.
Since the 1970s, there has been an almost automatic majority for anti-Israel resolutions in the UN. This majority includes Muslim countries and countries that define themselves as part of the “Global South,” such as African countries and some South American countries, all of which are known for their invariably critical approach towards Israel.
The UN’s recognition of the Palestinian Authority grants the Palestinians an independent state without a negotiated peace process or clearly defined and agreed upon borders between it and Israel. This is precisely the situation the PLO has been striving for since 1974. The establishment of a Palestinian state without peace with Israel is a sure recipe for instability and perpetual war in the Middle East, and those negative consequences are being deliberately fomented by the UN.
In June 1974, the Palestine Liberation Organization approved a ten-point plan known as the Phased Plan. The plan was presented at the time as a considerable moderation of the PLO, which at the time was considered Israel’s most bitter enemy. The 1970s were full of bloody terrorist incidents committed by Palestinian organizations, including airplane hijackings. The leading terrorist organizations at that time were the Fatah organization headed by Yasser Arafat, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) organization headed by George Habash, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) organization headed since its inception by Nayef Hawatmeh.
The reason why the PLO’s ten-point plan was considered a political advancement was that for the first time since the adoption of the revised Palestinian treaty of 1968, the activists of the Palestinian organizations seemed to have agreed to an incomplete “liberation” of Palestine. A careful reading of the plan, however, shows that its goal remained the destruction of the entire State of Israel – “from the river to the sea.”
The second section of the plan says: “The PLO will fight by all means, primarily the armed struggle, to liberate the Palestinian land and establish an independent national government over any part of the Palestinian territory that will be liberated.” This clause was allegedly fulfilled – not through armed struggle but mainly through diplomacy via the Oslo Accords of the 1990s.
Another section of the phased plan defines the establishment of self-government on part of the territory as only one step on the way to the total “liberation” of the entire land of Palestine. According to the phased plan, the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip was a temporary solution that was never meant to stop the war between the two national movements. The phased plan was designed to promote a continuation of the fight for the other “rights” the Palestinians demand, such as the complete “liberation” of, and purported right of return to, the entire land of Israel.
Despite lengthy negotiations between Israel and the PLO on the permanent agreement, the parties were unable to reach a satisfactory settlement. The most intense attempts were in July 2000 at Camp David with the mediation of President Bill Clinton, and in 2008 with the mediation of President George Bush, Jr.
The Palestinian state that was supposed to be established was meant to include most of the territories of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip (over 90% of the territory); provide safe passage between the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria; and make agreed-upon special arrangements regarding Jerusalem and the refugees. Almost all the details were settled, but Israel asked for something the PLO was not willing to give. Israel requested that in exchange for a comprehensive agreement, representatives of the PLO, as the recognized representatives of the Palestinian people, would sign a document stating “the end of claims between Israel and the Palestinians” – i.e., a contractual obligation to make peace with Israel. No Palestinian representative has ever been willing to sign such a document because peace with Israel has never been their goal.
Because of this, negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been stuck for decades, with neither side possessing the ability to reach a binding permanent settlement. The Palestinians cannot force Israel to withdraw militarily from the territories of Judea and Samaria without a political agreement, and Israel cannot force a political agreement on the Palestinians that would include recognition of Israel and a final end to the national-religious conflict between the parties.
At this stage, the Palestinians turned to the United Nations to try to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority to that of a sovereign independent state. The Palestinian attempt to establish a state unilaterally was not new. On October 1, 1948, shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip announced the establishment of the All-Palestine Government. The president of the independent state of Palestine, which declared its sovereignty in all of Mandatory Palestine, was Nazi sympathizer and virulent antisemite Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini; the prime minister was Ahmed Hilmi Abd al-Baqi. This government lasted for about a decade, ruling the Gaza Strip under Egyptian auspices. After its dissolution by the Egyptians, Prime Minister Hilmi continued to serve as Palestine’s representative in the Arab League until his death in 1963.
The Palestinians flatly denied the existence of the State of Israel. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence states:
On the basis of the Palestinian people’s natural and historical right to freedom and independence, a sacred right for which he shed blood and made sacrifices, and for which he fought against the imperial forces and the Zionists who conspired against him, we, the members of the Palestinian National Council who gathered in Gaza, the city of Hashim (the Prophet’s grandfather), declare this today… October 1, 1948, on the independence of Palestine as a whole within its borders: in northern Lebanon and Syria, in eastern Syria and across the Jordan, in the western Mediterranean and in southern Egypt. This independence is full independence and within its framework a free, democratic and sovereign state will be established, and its citizens will enjoy freedom.
The next time the Palestinians declared a state was on November 15, 1988, at the conference of the Palestinian National Council in Algiers. In the declaration of Palestinian independence drafted by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, it was stated, among other things, that the declaration was based on Partition Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947. The Palestinians recognized the right of the countries of the region to live in peace, but conspicuously did not mention Israel. In addition, they declared the continuation of the struggle until the end of the “occupation,” without clarifying whether the term referred to the territories of 1967 or beyond.
The announcement led the UN to invite Yasser Arafat to address the UN General Assembly (UN General Assembly Resolution 43/177). Unsurprisingly, 104 countries voted in favor of the resolution recognizing the Palestinian state unilaterally declared by Yasser Arafat. Only two countries voted against this recognition – the US and Israel.
The Palestinians understood that in order to have a basis for this type of decision, some sort of fact on the ground was required. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s gave them political-autonomous status for the first time in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accords were defined from the beginning as temporary interim agreements that were intended to lead to a permanent settlement of the two political entities living side by side in peace, security and prosperity.
After the peace talks with Israel at Camp David 2000, the Palestinians ignited a bloody intifada. After the failure of the negotiations in Annapolis in 2008 between Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Palestinians realized they had exhausted all the Israeli concessions they could obtain via regular negotiations. This was the reason for their appeal to the UN Assembly and their request to upgrade their status to a state on November 29, 2012.
Their request was approved due to the automatic majority that exists in anti-Israel resolutions at the UN. For the first time, a UN observer body that does not have either effective control over territory or defined borders was granted the status of a state (in this case, that of an observer state). One hundred thirty-eight countries voted in favor this time, with nine opposed and the rest abstaining. This step was directly contrary to the principles of negotiations the parties had signed in the Oslo Accords.
The vote on May 10, 2024 was the most recent step in the Palestinian journey towards an independent state without a binding border agreement with Israel. The vote was intended to grant the Palestinians various rights reserved for sovereign states recognized by the UN, even though the Palestinian Authority is still defined as an observer state. This time, 143 countries voted in favor, with nine voting against and the rest abstaining.
The role of the UN is supposedly to maintain peace and world order. Upgrading the status of the Palestinian Authority to a state despite its having neither effective control over territory nor clear borders – and in the process empowering a political entity whose majority population openly supports a terrorist organization, Hamas, that rapes women and murders children – will not add to world peace and stability, but will only deepen the war between Israel and the Palestinians. Nor will it create an incentive for the moderate elements in Palestinian society to strive for true peace with Israel.
Dr. (Lt. Col.) Shaul Bartal is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and a research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Lisbon. During his military service, he served in various roles in the West Bank. He has also taught in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies and the Department of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post The United Nations Is Against Peace first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Slammed by Progressives After Voting for Resolution Condemning ‘Global Antisemitism’
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has received an onslaught of criticism from anti-Israel progressives over her decision to vote in favor of a resolution “condemning the rise of global antisemitism.”
On Wednesday, Ocasio-Cortez supported House Resolution 1449, which affirms the State Department-endorsed “global guidelines for countering antisemitism.” The resolution passed the House by a 388-21 margin.
Ocasio-Cortez, who commonly goes by the nickname “AOC,” voted opposite three fellow members of the so-called “Squad” — a cohort of progressive Democrats with left-wing positions on issues ranging from foreign policy to economics. Reps. Cori Bush (D-MO), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) — all stalwart anti-Israel voices in Congress — voted against the resolution, along with a handful of Republicans.
In the face of progressive backlash, Ocasio-Cortez took to Bluesky, a social media website, to explain her decision to vote in favor of the resolution. She implored her followers to “read the text of this bill” and emphasized that it is not “an IHRA bill.” The left-wing congresswoman clarified that she would “NEVER vote for codifying IHRA.”
She added that a “subclause references a separate [State Department] guideline which noncomittally references IHRA” and that it is “nonbinding.” The congresswoman minimized the bill as a right-wing attempt “to get the left infighting.”
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel, adopted a non-legally binding “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and well over 1,000 global entities, from countries to companies. The US State Department, the European Union, and the United Nations all use it.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
IHRA provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.
Opponents of the IHRA definition of antisemitism assert that it exists as a pretext for governments and institutions to silence anti-Israel criticism and squash pro-Palestine activism.
Despite Ocasio-Cortez’s reassurances that she does not support the definition, anti-Israel progressives still condemned the congresswoman for “normalizing” it. They also blasted the lawmaker for her previous overtures to the Jewish community, such as participating in an online event with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a liberal pro-Israel organization.
“This absolute goddamn fraud voted for HR 1449 tonight, which further cements criticism of Israel as antisemitic under the law, and will encourage more mass arrests on campus, defunding charities, and strangling aid to Gaza,” wrote one X/Twitter user about Ocasio-Cortez.
“AOC’s vote for HR 1449 hurts. This definition of antisemitism — one that condemns accusations of Israel as ‘racist’ or ‘colonial’ — leaves no room for anti-Zionist Jews,” wrote another X/Twitter user.
Meanwhile, the virulently anti-Israel publication The Electronic Intifada published a story on Ocasio-Cortez’s vote with the headline, “AOC votes to back Israel lobby’s bogus ‘antisemitism’ definition.”
Over the past year, Ocasio-Cortez has stoked ire from anti-Israel progressives over her attempts to balance her harsh repudiations of the Jewish state with expressions of empathy for victims of antisemitism. She sparked outrage from progressives in August when she posed for a photo with the parent of an American taken hostage by the Hamas terrorist group during its massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.
However, Ocasio-Cortez also drew outrage for pro-Israel activists on Sunday when she denounced the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, as an “overly influenced by a special interest group pushing a wildly unpopular agenda.” Her commentary on AIPAC, which came a couple weeks after US Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss in the presidential election, drew accusations of antisemitism from some critics.
The global guidelines endorsed by HR 1449 praise the IHRA definition as “an important internationally recognized instrument” and urge governments and political leaders to take certain steps to address the global surge in antisemitism since Hamas’s invasion of Israel last October.
The post Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Slammed by Progressives After Voting for Resolution Condemning ‘Global Antisemitism’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Columbia University Locks Down Campus Amid Anti-Hillel Protest
Columbia University locked down its campus on Thursday, following an anti-Hillel protest staged by a front group for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) outside the Kraft Center for Jewish Student Life.
“SIPA, SIPA, you can’t hide, you invest in genocide!” the mob chanted, according to The Columbia Daily Spectator, as they held signs calling for the university to “abolish” the Birthright Israel program, which grants Jewish students a free trip to their ancient homeland.
As The Algemeiner previously reported, this assault on Columbia’s Jewish life, perpetrated by a group which calls itself the Palestine Working Group (PWG), appears to have been prompted by an event held by the university on Thursday, in which Israeli journalist Barak Ravid spoke as a guest of the Kraft Center — where the Hillel chapter serving both Columbia and Barnard College students is located — and the School of International and Public Affairs’ (SIPA) Institute of Global Politics (IGP).
Reputed to be the largest Jewish collegiate organization in the world, Hillel International is a “home away from home” for the 180,000 students at over 850 colleges who avail themselves of its religious services, relationship building opportunities, and recreational activities. PWG, along with another group called Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), insists, however, that “Hillel is complicit in manufacturing propaganda and consent for the Zionist entity’s imperialist and colonial projects.”
On Friday, Columbia University — which has come under fire for its alleged failure to combat the incubation of antisemitism and jihadist extremism on its campus — denounced the attacks on Hillel.
“The Kraft Center for Jewish Student Life, the home of Columbia and Barnard’s vibrant Hillel, is a vital part of our campus, providing a welcoming space for our students to explore and celebrate Jewish culture and identity,” Columbia University said in a statement that was not attributed to any one official. “We appreciate the many contributions the Kraft Center and Hillel and make to supporting our Jewish community and building our university community. Any efforts to intimidate the Kraft Center, Hillel, and our Jewish community and all forms of antisemitism are unacceptable and inimical to what we stand for as a university.”
Columbia Apartheid Divest hit back at the university hours later, charging that it “directly engages in the colonization and destruction of Palestinian life and land through the construction of their ‘Tel Aviv Global Center’ on stolen land,” linking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the popular left-wing issue of gentrification in urban cities. Such messaging continues a pattern of blaming Israel, the lone Jewish state, for the world’s problems.
“On top of the centuries of continuing gentrification and displacement of Harlem residents, the entire campus is illegally isolated solely to punish and hide the brutality Columbia inflicts on us for fighting for Palestinian liberation,” the group continued.
The campaign to kick Hillel chapters off college campuses is not new. The campus group National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) launched the initiative, titled “Drop Hillel,” in October, just weeks after the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.
“Over the past several decades, Hillel has monopolized for Jewish campus life into a pipeline for pro-Israel indoctrination, genocide-apologia, and material support to the Zionist project and its crimes,” a social media account operating the campaign said in a manifesto published in concurrence with its launching. “Across the country, Hillel chapters have invited Israeli soldiers to their campuses; promoted propaganda trips such as birthright; and organized charity drives for the Israeli military.”
The idea has already been picked up by pro-Hamas student groups at one college, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, according to The Daily Tar Heel, the school’s official student newspaper. On Oct. 9, it reported, a member of SJP unveiled the idea for “no more Hillel” during a rally which, among other things, demanded removing Israel from UNC’s study abroad program and adopting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. Addressing the comments to the paper days later, SJP, which has been linked to Islamist terrorist organizations, proclaimed that shuttering Hillel is a coveted goal of the anti-Zionist movement.
The #DropHillel campaign comes amid an unprecedented surge in anti-Israel incidents on college campuses, which, according to a report published in September by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), have reached crisis levels.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Columbia University Locks Down Campus Amid Anti-Hillel Protest first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Half of French People Adhere to Over 6 Antisemitic Prejudices, 12% Happy to See Jews Leave Country: Survey
Hostility toward the Jewish people has surged to alarming levels in France, where half the population adhere to more than six antisemitic prejudices and nearly one in five young people want to see the departure of Jews from the country, according to a new survey.
Ipsos, a market research and consulting firm, conducted the survey of the French public for the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF), the main representative body of French Jews, to examine the country’s attitudes toward the Jewish community amid a surge in antisemitic hate crimes over the past year.
The findings, unveiled by CRIF on Thursday and first reported by the French news magazine Le Point, revealed a surge in antisemitic attitudes across France.
Among France’s general population, 12 percent of people are happy to see Jews leave the country, up from just 6 percent in 2020, according to the survey.
“It’s a terrifying figure,” CRIF president Yonathan Arfi told the radio station Europe 1 when asked about the finding.
The number goes up among people under the age of 35, of whom a striking 17 percent think that the departure of Jews from France would be good for the country.
“It is contrary to the historical trend,” Arfi told Le Point. “Young people are more receptive to antisemitic, Islamist, and conspiracy theories, which are invading social networks.”
As for people aged 18 to 24, only 53 percent think that the majority of Jews are well integrated into the population, compared to 84 percent of French people more broadly, the survey found.
Overall, nearly half (46 percent) of French people today adhere to more than six anti-Jewish prejudices, compared to 37 percent in 2020, according to the results. Meanwhile, almost a quarter of those surveyed think that Jews are not really French like the rest of their countrymen, an uptick of more than six points.
The numbers increase among backers of France’s main far-left and far-right political parties. Indeed, the survey found that 52 percent of those who support the far-right Rassemblement National (RN — “National Rally”) and 55 percent of those who support the far-left La France Insoumise (LFI — “France Unbowed”) adhere to at least six antisemitic stereotypes. And a third of LFI supporters indicated they adhere to at least nine such prejudices.
LFI is the largest member of the New Popular Front (NFP), an anti-Israel leftist coalition of political parties that came to power in France’s snap parliamentary elections in July. The coalition gained the most seats of any political bloc but not enough for a majority. Its leader, Jean-Luc Melenchon, has been lambasted by French Jews as a threat to their community as well as those who support Israel.
“It seems France has no future for Jews,” Rabbi Moshe Sebbag of Paris’ Grand Synagogue told the Times of Israel following the ascension of the NFP in July’s elections. “We fear for the future of our children.”
According to the survey, 20 percent of LFI supporters consider the departure of Jews from France desirable, compared to 15 percent of those who back RN.
Similarly troubling, the results showed that 25 percent of LFI supporters have “sympathy” for Hamas, and 40 percent refuse to label the Palestinian Islamist group as a terrorist organization.
Hamas, which has been designated internationally as a terrorist group, launched the war in Gaza with its invasion of southern Israel last Oct. 7. During the onslaught, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, mostly civilians, wounded thousands more, and kidnapped 251 hostages while perpetrating rampant sexual violence, including torture and gang rape.
The survey noted that one in two French people now suspect their Jewish fellow citizens of “double allegiance” to Israel — a reality that Arfi blamed in part on LFI’s fierce anti-Israel opposition.
“LFI has given antisemitism a political endorsement,” he told Le Point. “We observe this toxic porosity between criticism of Israel and the ostracization of French Jews. The Palestinian cause becomes a license to hate.”
The findings also showed that, among the French people surveyed, 64 percent believe that Jews have reason to be afraid of living in France, and 70 percent believe that the country has experienced an increase in antisemitism.
The survey results came as France has experienced a record surge of antisemitism in the wake of Hamas’s atrocities last Oct. 7, amid the ensuing war in Gaza. Antisemitic outrages rose by over 1,000 percent in the final three months of 2023 compared with the previous year, with over 1,200 incidents reported — greater than the total number of incidents in France for the previous three years combined.
This year, anti-Jewish hate crimes and demonstrations in France have continued to skyrocket.
Earlier this month, for example, a monument honoring victims of the Nazis located in eastern France was vandalized with graffiti reading “Nique Israël,” or “F—k Israel” in English.
Last month, a man wearing a sports jersey with the words “Anti-Jew” written in French was photographed riding the Paris metro, prompting an investigation by law enforcement and outcry from Jewish leaders who lamented what they described as public indifference to surging antisemitism in France.
Days earlier, a visibly Jewish teenager was assaulted by two youths as he was leaving a metro station in the northwest suburbs of Paris.
That incident followed three men brutally attacking a Jewish woman at the entrance to her home in Paris on the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities. The victim stated that the assailants threatened her with a box knife, made antisemitic threats, and mentioned the events of last Oct. 7.
In September, a kosher restaurant in Villeurbanne, near the eastern city of Lyon, was defaced with red paint and tagged with the message “Free Gaza.”
The incident came days after French police arrested a 33-year-old Algerian man suspected of trying to set a synagogue ablaze in the southern French city of la Grande-Motte.
Two months earlier, an elderly Jewish woman was attacked in a Paris suburb by two assailants who punched her in the face, pushed her to the ground, and kicked her while hurling antisemitic slurs, including “dirty Jew, this is what you deserve.”
In another egregious attack that garnered international headlines, a 12-year-old Jewish girl was raped by three Muslim boys in a different Paris suburb on June 15. The child told investigators that the assailants called her a “dirty Jew” and hurled other antisemitic comments at her during the attack. In response to the incident, French President Emmanuel Macron denounced the “scourge of antisemitism” plaguing his country.
Around the same time in June, an Israeli family visiting Paris was denied service at a hotel after an attendant noticed their Israeli passports.
In May, French police shot dead a knife-wielding Algerian man who set fire to a synagogue and threatened law enforcement in the city of Rouen.
One month earlier, a Jewish woman was beaten and raped in a suburb of Paris as “vengeance for Palestine.”
Such incidents are part of an explosion of antisemitic outrages across France that has continued since last Oct. 7.
In August, then-French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin warned that incidents targeting the country’s Jewish community spiked by about 200 percent since Jan. 1.
“Two-thirds of anti-religious acts … are against Jews,” he added, according to French broadcaster BFM TV.
Darmanin’s comments followed him stating weeks earlier that antisemitic acts in France have tripled over the last year. In the first half of 2024, 887 such incidents were recorded, almost triple the 304 recorded in the same period last year, he said.
Despite widespread concern among French Jews, senior officials including Macron have repeatedly said they are committing to combating antisemitism and supporting the country’s Jewish community.
According to Arfi, a whole-of-government response is needed to combat the surge in antisemitism, which he largely attributed to people spreading misleading information about the Israel-Hamas war and blaming Jews worldwide for false allegations leveled against Israel.
“The hysteria of the debate on Gaza has blown the last barriers,” Arfi observed, adding that elected officials are making the Palestinian cause “an electoral business” and using it for “criminal instrumentalization.”
“We need a systemic response,” he concluded.
The post Half of French People Adhere to Over 6 Antisemitic Prejudices, 12% Happy to See Jews Leave Country: Survey first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The United Nations Is Against Peace
The UN decision on May 10, 2024, to upgrade the status of the Palestinian state is not surprising. It is a direct continuation of previous UN decisions, most notably that of November 29, 2012, which granted the Palestinian Authority the status of non-member observer state.
Since the 1970s, there has been an almost automatic majority for anti-Israel resolutions in the UN. This majority includes Muslim countries and countries that define themselves as part of the “Global South,” such as African countries and some South American countries, all of which are known for their invariably critical approach towards Israel.
The UN’s recognition of the Palestinian Authority grants the Palestinians an independent state without a negotiated peace process or clearly defined and agreed upon borders between it and Israel. This is precisely the situation the PLO has been striving for since 1974. The establishment of a Palestinian state without peace with Israel is a sure recipe for instability and perpetual war in the Middle East, and those negative consequences are being deliberately fomented by the UN.
In June 1974, the Palestine Liberation Organization approved a ten-point plan known as the Phased Plan. The plan was presented at the time as a considerable moderation of the PLO, which at the time was considered Israel’s most bitter enemy. The 1970s were full of bloody terrorist incidents committed by Palestinian organizations, including airplane hijackings. The leading terrorist organizations at that time were the Fatah organization headed by Yasser Arafat, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) organization headed by George Habash, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) organization headed since its inception by Nayef Hawatmeh.
The reason why the PLO’s ten-point plan was considered a political advancement was that for the first time since the adoption of the revised Palestinian treaty of 1968, the activists of the Palestinian organizations seemed to have agreed to an incomplete “liberation” of Palestine. A careful reading of the plan, however, shows that its goal remained the destruction of the entire State of Israel – “from the river to the sea.”
The second section of the plan says: “The PLO will fight by all means, primarily the armed struggle, to liberate the Palestinian land and establish an independent national government over any part of the Palestinian territory that will be liberated.” This clause was allegedly fulfilled – not through armed struggle but mainly through diplomacy via the Oslo Accords of the 1990s.
Another section of the phased plan defines the establishment of self-government on part of the territory as only one step on the way to the total “liberation” of the entire land of Palestine. According to the phased plan, the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip was a temporary solution that was never meant to stop the war between the two national movements. The phased plan was designed to promote a continuation of the fight for the other “rights” the Palestinians demand, such as the complete “liberation” of, and purported right of return to, the entire land of Israel.
Despite lengthy negotiations between Israel and the PLO on the permanent agreement, the parties were unable to reach a satisfactory settlement. The most intense attempts were in July 2000 at Camp David with the mediation of President Bill Clinton, and in 2008 with the mediation of President George Bush, Jr.
The Palestinian state that was supposed to be established was meant to include most of the territories of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip (over 90% of the territory); provide safe passage between the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria; and make agreed-upon special arrangements regarding Jerusalem and the refugees. Almost all the details were settled, but Israel asked for something the PLO was not willing to give. Israel requested that in exchange for a comprehensive agreement, representatives of the PLO, as the recognized representatives of the Palestinian people, would sign a document stating “the end of claims between Israel and the Palestinians” – i.e., a contractual obligation to make peace with Israel. No Palestinian representative has ever been willing to sign such a document because peace with Israel has never been their goal.
Because of this, negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been stuck for decades, with neither side possessing the ability to reach a binding permanent settlement. The Palestinians cannot force Israel to withdraw militarily from the territories of Judea and Samaria without a political agreement, and Israel cannot force a political agreement on the Palestinians that would include recognition of Israel and a final end to the national-religious conflict between the parties.
At this stage, the Palestinians turned to the United Nations to try to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority to that of a sovereign independent state. The Palestinian attempt to establish a state unilaterally was not new. On October 1, 1948, shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip announced the establishment of the All-Palestine Government. The president of the independent state of Palestine, which declared its sovereignty in all of Mandatory Palestine, was Nazi sympathizer and virulent antisemite Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini; the prime minister was Ahmed Hilmi Abd al-Baqi. This government lasted for about a decade, ruling the Gaza Strip under Egyptian auspices. After its dissolution by the Egyptians, Prime Minister Hilmi continued to serve as Palestine’s representative in the Arab League until his death in 1963.
The Palestinians flatly denied the existence of the State of Israel. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence states:
On the basis of the Palestinian people’s natural and historical right to freedom and independence, a sacred right for which he shed blood and made sacrifices, and for which he fought against the imperial forces and the Zionists who conspired against him, we, the members of the Palestinian National Council who gathered in Gaza, the city of Hashim (the Prophet’s grandfather), declare this today… October 1, 1948, on the independence of Palestine as a whole within its borders: in northern Lebanon and Syria, in eastern Syria and across the Jordan, in the western Mediterranean and in southern Egypt. This independence is full independence and within its framework a free, democratic and sovereign state will be established, and its citizens will enjoy freedom.
The next time the Palestinians declared a state was on November 15, 1988, at the conference of the Palestinian National Council in Algiers. In the declaration of Palestinian independence drafted by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, it was stated, among other things, that the declaration was based on Partition Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947. The Palestinians recognized the right of the countries of the region to live in peace, but conspicuously did not mention Israel. In addition, they declared the continuation of the struggle until the end of the “occupation,” without clarifying whether the term referred to the territories of 1967 or beyond.
The announcement led the UN to invite Yasser Arafat to address the UN General Assembly (UN General Assembly Resolution 43/177). Unsurprisingly, 104 countries voted in favor of the resolution recognizing the Palestinian state unilaterally declared by Yasser Arafat. Only two countries voted against this recognition – the US and Israel.
The Palestinians understood that in order to have a basis for this type of decision, some sort of fact on the ground was required. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s gave them political-autonomous status for the first time in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accords were defined from the beginning as temporary interim agreements that were intended to lead to a permanent settlement of the two political entities living side by side in peace, security and prosperity.
After the peace talks with Israel at Camp David 2000, the Palestinians ignited a bloody intifada. After the failure of the negotiations in Annapolis in 2008 between Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Palestinians realized they had exhausted all the Israeli concessions they could obtain via regular negotiations. This was the reason for their appeal to the UN Assembly and their request to upgrade their status to a state on November 29, 2012.
Their request was approved due to the automatic majority that exists in anti-Israel resolutions at the UN. For the first time, a UN observer body that does not have either effective control over territory or defined borders was granted the status of a state (in this case, that of an observer state). One hundred thirty-eight countries voted in favor this time, with nine opposed and the rest abstaining. This step was directly contrary to the principles of negotiations the parties had signed in the Oslo Accords.
The vote on May 10, 2024 was the most recent step in the Palestinian journey towards an independent state without a binding border agreement with Israel. The vote was intended to grant the Palestinians various rights reserved for sovereign states recognized by the UN, even though the Palestinian Authority is still defined as an observer state. This time, 143 countries voted in favor, with nine voting against and the rest abstaining.
The role of the UN is supposedly to maintain peace and world order. Upgrading the status of the Palestinian Authority to a state despite its having neither effective control over territory nor clear borders – and in the process empowering a political entity whose majority population openly supports a terrorist organization, Hamas, that rapes women and murders children – will not add to world peace and stability, but will only deepen the war between Israel and the Palestinians. Nor will it create an incentive for the moderate elements in Palestinian society to strive for true peace with Israel.
Dr. (Lt. Col.) Shaul Bartal is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and a research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Lisbon. During his military service, he served in various roles in the West Bank. He has also taught in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies and the Department of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post The United Nations Is Against Peace first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Slammed by Progressives After Voting for Resolution Condemning ‘Global Antisemitism’
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has received an onslaught of criticism from anti-Israel progressives over her decision to vote in favor of a resolution “condemning the rise of global antisemitism.”
On Wednesday, Ocasio-Cortez supported House Resolution 1449, which affirms the State Department-endorsed “global guidelines for countering antisemitism.” The resolution passed the House by a 388-21 margin.
Ocasio-Cortez, who commonly goes by the nickname “AOC,” voted opposite three fellow members of the so-called “Squad” — a cohort of progressive Democrats with left-wing positions on issues ranging from foreign policy to economics. Reps. Cori Bush (D-MO), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) — all stalwart anti-Israel voices in Congress — voted against the resolution, along with a handful of Republicans.
In the face of progressive backlash, Ocasio-Cortez took to Bluesky, a social media website, to explain her decision to vote in favor of the resolution. She implored her followers to “read the text of this bill” and emphasized that it is not “an IHRA bill.” The left-wing congresswoman clarified that she would “NEVER vote for codifying IHRA.”
She added that a “subclause references a separate [State Department] guideline which noncomittally references IHRA” and that it is “nonbinding.” The congresswoman minimized the bill as a right-wing attempt “to get the left infighting.”
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel, adopted a non-legally binding “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and well over 1,000 global entities, from countries to companies. The US State Department, the European Union, and the United Nations all use it.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
IHRA provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.
Opponents of the IHRA definition of antisemitism assert that it exists as a pretext for governments and institutions to silence anti-Israel criticism and squash pro-Palestine activism.
Despite Ocasio-Cortez’s reassurances that she does not support the definition, anti-Israel progressives still condemned the congresswoman for “normalizing” it. They also blasted the lawmaker for her previous overtures to the Jewish community, such as participating in an online event with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a liberal pro-Israel organization.
“This absolute goddamn fraud voted for HR 1449 tonight, which further cements criticism of Israel as antisemitic under the law, and will encourage more mass arrests on campus, defunding charities, and strangling aid to Gaza,” wrote one X/Twitter user about Ocasio-Cortez.
“AOC’s vote for HR 1449 hurts. This definition of antisemitism — one that condemns accusations of Israel as ‘racist’ or ‘colonial’ — leaves no room for anti-Zionist Jews,” wrote another X/Twitter user.
Meanwhile, the virulently anti-Israel publication The Electronic Intifada published a story on Ocasio-Cortez’s vote with the headline, “AOC votes to back Israel lobby’s bogus ‘antisemitism’ definition.”
Over the past year, Ocasio-Cortez has stoked ire from anti-Israel progressives over her attempts to balance her harsh repudiations of the Jewish state with expressions of empathy for victims of antisemitism. She sparked outrage from progressives in August when she posed for a photo with the parent of an American taken hostage by the Hamas terrorist group during its massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.
However, Ocasio-Cortez also drew outrage for pro-Israel activists on Sunday when she denounced the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, as an “overly influenced by a special interest group pushing a wildly unpopular agenda.” Her commentary on AIPAC, which came a couple weeks after US Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss in the presidential election, drew accusations of antisemitism from some critics.
The global guidelines endorsed by HR 1449 praise the IHRA definition as “an important internationally recognized instrument” and urge governments and political leaders to take certain steps to address the global surge in antisemitism since Hamas’s invasion of Israel last October.
The post Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Slammed by Progressives After Voting for Resolution Condemning ‘Global Antisemitism’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Columbia University Locks Down Campus Amid Anti-Hillel Protest
Columbia University locked down its campus on Thursday, following an anti-Hillel protest staged by a front group for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) outside the Kraft Center for Jewish Student Life.
“SIPA, SIPA, you can’t hide, you invest in genocide!” the mob chanted, according to The Columbia Daily Spectator, as they held signs calling for the university to “abolish” the Birthright Israel program, which grants Jewish students a free trip to their ancient homeland.
As The Algemeiner previously reported, this assault on Columbia’s Jewish life, perpetrated by a group which calls itself the Palestine Working Group (PWG), appears to have been prompted by an event held by the university on Thursday, in which Israeli journalist Barak Ravid spoke as a guest of the Kraft Center — where the Hillel chapter serving both Columbia and Barnard College students is located — and the School of International and Public Affairs’ (SIPA) Institute of Global Politics (IGP).
Reputed to be the largest Jewish collegiate organization in the world, Hillel International is a “home away from home” for the 180,000 students at over 850 colleges who avail themselves of its religious services, relationship building opportunities, and recreational activities. PWG, along with another group called Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), insists, however, that “Hillel is complicit in manufacturing propaganda and consent for the Zionist entity’s imperialist and colonial projects.”
On Friday, Columbia University — which has come under fire for its alleged failure to combat the incubation of antisemitism and jihadist extremism on its campus — denounced the attacks on Hillel.
“The Kraft Center for Jewish Student Life, the home of Columbia and Barnard’s vibrant Hillel, is a vital part of our campus, providing a welcoming space for our students to explore and celebrate Jewish culture and identity,” Columbia University said in a statement that was not attributed to any one official. “We appreciate the many contributions the Kraft Center and Hillel and make to supporting our Jewish community and building our university community. Any efforts to intimidate the Kraft Center, Hillel, and our Jewish community and all forms of antisemitism are unacceptable and inimical to what we stand for as a university.”
Columbia Apartheid Divest hit back at the university hours later, charging that it “directly engages in the colonization and destruction of Palestinian life and land through the construction of their ‘Tel Aviv Global Center’ on stolen land,” linking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the popular left-wing issue of gentrification in urban cities. Such messaging continues a pattern of blaming Israel, the lone Jewish state, for the world’s problems.
“On top of the centuries of continuing gentrification and displacement of Harlem residents, the entire campus is illegally isolated solely to punish and hide the brutality Columbia inflicts on us for fighting for Palestinian liberation,” the group continued.
The campaign to kick Hillel chapters off college campuses is not new. The campus group National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) launched the initiative, titled “Drop Hillel,” in October, just weeks after the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.
“Over the past several decades, Hillel has monopolized for Jewish campus life into a pipeline for pro-Israel indoctrination, genocide-apologia, and material support to the Zionist project and its crimes,” a social media account operating the campaign said in a manifesto published in concurrence with its launching. “Across the country, Hillel chapters have invited Israeli soldiers to their campuses; promoted propaganda trips such as birthright; and organized charity drives for the Israeli military.”
The idea has already been picked up by pro-Hamas student groups at one college, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, according to The Daily Tar Heel, the school’s official student newspaper. On Oct. 9, it reported, a member of SJP unveiled the idea for “no more Hillel” during a rally which, among other things, demanded removing Israel from UNC’s study abroad program and adopting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. Addressing the comments to the paper days later, SJP, which has been linked to Islamist terrorist organizations, proclaimed that shuttering Hillel is a coveted goal of the anti-Zionist movement.
The #DropHillel campaign comes amid an unprecedented surge in anti-Israel incidents on college campuses, which, according to a report published in September by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), have reached crisis levels.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Columbia University Locks Down Campus Amid Anti-Hillel Protest first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Half of French People Adhere to Over 6 Antisemitic Prejudices, 12% Happy to See Jews Leave Country: Survey
Hostility toward the Jewish people has surged to alarming levels in France, where half the population adhere to more than six antisemitic prejudices and nearly one in five young people want to see the departure of Jews from the country, according to a new survey.
Ipsos, a market research and consulting firm, conducted the survey of the French public for the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF), the main representative body of French Jews, to examine the country’s attitudes toward the Jewish community amid a surge in antisemitic hate crimes over the past year.
The findings, unveiled by CRIF on Thursday and first reported by the French news magazine Le Point, revealed a surge in antisemitic attitudes across France.
Among France’s general population, 12 percent of people are happy to see Jews leave the country, up from just 6 percent in 2020, according to the survey.
“It’s a terrifying figure,” CRIF president Yonathan Arfi told the radio station Europe 1 when asked about the finding.
The number goes up among people under the age of 35, of whom a striking 17 percent think that the departure of Jews from France would be good for the country.
“It is contrary to the historical trend,” Arfi told Le Point. “Young people are more receptive to antisemitic, Islamist, and conspiracy theories, which are invading social networks.”
As for people aged 18 to 24, only 53 percent think that the majority of Jews are well integrated into the population, compared to 84 percent of French people more broadly, the survey found.
Overall, nearly half (46 percent) of French people today adhere to more than six anti-Jewish prejudices, compared to 37 percent in 2020, according to the results. Meanwhile, almost a quarter of those surveyed think that Jews are not really French like the rest of their countrymen, an uptick of more than six points.
The numbers increase among backers of France’s main far-left and far-right political parties. Indeed, the survey found that 52 percent of those who support the far-right Rassemblement National (RN — “National Rally”) and 55 percent of those who support the far-left La France Insoumise (LFI — “France Unbowed”) adhere to at least six antisemitic stereotypes. And a third of LFI supporters indicated they adhere to at least nine such prejudices.
LFI is the largest member of the New Popular Front (NFP), an anti-Israel leftist coalition of political parties that came to power in France’s snap parliamentary elections in July. The coalition gained the most seats of any political bloc but not enough for a majority. Its leader, Jean-Luc Melenchon, has been lambasted by French Jews as a threat to their community as well as those who support Israel.
“It seems France has no future for Jews,” Rabbi Moshe Sebbag of Paris’ Grand Synagogue told the Times of Israel following the ascension of the NFP in July’s elections. “We fear for the future of our children.”
According to the survey, 20 percent of LFI supporters consider the departure of Jews from France desirable, compared to 15 percent of those who back RN.
Similarly troubling, the results showed that 25 percent of LFI supporters have “sympathy” for Hamas, and 40 percent refuse to label the Palestinian Islamist group as a terrorist organization.
Hamas, which has been designated internationally as a terrorist group, launched the war in Gaza with its invasion of southern Israel last Oct. 7. During the onslaught, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, mostly civilians, wounded thousands more, and kidnapped 251 hostages while perpetrating rampant sexual violence, including torture and gang rape.
The survey noted that one in two French people now suspect their Jewish fellow citizens of “double allegiance” to Israel — a reality that Arfi blamed in part on LFI’s fierce anti-Israel opposition.
“LFI has given antisemitism a political endorsement,” he told Le Point. “We observe this toxic porosity between criticism of Israel and the ostracization of French Jews. The Palestinian cause becomes a license to hate.”
The findings also showed that, among the French people surveyed, 64 percent believe that Jews have reason to be afraid of living in France, and 70 percent believe that the country has experienced an increase in antisemitism.
The survey results came as France has experienced a record surge of antisemitism in the wake of Hamas’s atrocities last Oct. 7, amid the ensuing war in Gaza. Antisemitic outrages rose by over 1,000 percent in the final three months of 2023 compared with the previous year, with over 1,200 incidents reported — greater than the total number of incidents in France for the previous three years combined.
This year, anti-Jewish hate crimes and demonstrations in France have continued to skyrocket.
Earlier this month, for example, a monument honoring victims of the Nazis located in eastern France was vandalized with graffiti reading “Nique Israël,” or “F—k Israel” in English.
Last month, a man wearing a sports jersey with the words “Anti-Jew” written in French was photographed riding the Paris metro, prompting an investigation by law enforcement and outcry from Jewish leaders who lamented what they described as public indifference to surging antisemitism in France.
Days earlier, a visibly Jewish teenager was assaulted by two youths as he was leaving a metro station in the northwest suburbs of Paris.
That incident followed three men brutally attacking a Jewish woman at the entrance to her home in Paris on the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities. The victim stated that the assailants threatened her with a box knife, made antisemitic threats, and mentioned the events of last Oct. 7.
In September, a kosher restaurant in Villeurbanne, near the eastern city of Lyon, was defaced with red paint and tagged with the message “Free Gaza.”
The incident came days after French police arrested a 33-year-old Algerian man suspected of trying to set a synagogue ablaze in the southern French city of la Grande-Motte.
Two months earlier, an elderly Jewish woman was attacked in a Paris suburb by two assailants who punched her in the face, pushed her to the ground, and kicked her while hurling antisemitic slurs, including “dirty Jew, this is what you deserve.”
In another egregious attack that garnered international headlines, a 12-year-old Jewish girl was raped by three Muslim boys in a different Paris suburb on June 15. The child told investigators that the assailants called her a “dirty Jew” and hurled other antisemitic comments at her during the attack. In response to the incident, French President Emmanuel Macron denounced the “scourge of antisemitism” plaguing his country.
Around the same time in June, an Israeli family visiting Paris was denied service at a hotel after an attendant noticed their Israeli passports.
In May, French police shot dead a knife-wielding Algerian man who set fire to a synagogue and threatened law enforcement in the city of Rouen.
One month earlier, a Jewish woman was beaten and raped in a suburb of Paris as “vengeance for Palestine.”
Such incidents are part of an explosion of antisemitic outrages across France that has continued since last Oct. 7.
In August, then-French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin warned that incidents targeting the country’s Jewish community spiked by about 200 percent since Jan. 1.
“Two-thirds of anti-religious acts … are against Jews,” he added, according to French broadcaster BFM TV.
Darmanin’s comments followed him stating weeks earlier that antisemitic acts in France have tripled over the last year. In the first half of 2024, 887 such incidents were recorded, almost triple the 304 recorded in the same period last year, he said.
Despite widespread concern among French Jews, senior officials including Macron have repeatedly said they are committing to combating antisemitism and supporting the country’s Jewish community.
According to Arfi, a whole-of-government response is needed to combat the surge in antisemitism, which he largely attributed to people spreading misleading information about the Israel-Hamas war and blaming Jews worldwide for false allegations leveled against Israel.
“The hysteria of the debate on Gaza has blown the last barriers,” Arfi observed, adding that elected officials are making the Palestinian cause “an electoral business” and using it for “criminal instrumentalization.”
“We need a systemic response,” he concluded.
The post Half of French People Adhere to Over 6 Antisemitic Prejudices, 12% Happy to See Jews Leave Country: Survey first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login