FRESNO ZIONISM
Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 at 10:12 am
The Palestinians are so confident that their program will succeed that they have stopped trying to hide its real nature:
In case there is any question about what he means by ‘separation’, here is a snippet from an interview with Areikat last year in Tablet (big h/t to Challah Hu Akbar):
There is a word for separation on racial/ethnic grounds — apartheid.
One could ask Areikat if his argument doesn’t also imply that Arab citizens of Israel must pick up and leave, or if it doesn’t invalidate the alleged ‘right of return’ for Arab refugees to Israel, but you already know he doesn’t think so.
Mahmoud Abbas also said something similar recently, but he didn’t use the word ‘Jew’. He said that “not one Israeli” would remain in the Palestinian state. No antisemitism here, it was suggested. Well, now there’s no doubt.
So the UN will vote for a declaration of an explicitly antisemitic, apartheid state, in effect validating the third major ethnic cleansing of Jews in the last 100 years — while at the same time they will be holding a conference condemning ‘racism’ (except of course that the conference will ignore racism and condemn the Jewish state).
Areikat was also asked whether homosexuals would be allowed in ‘Palestine’. “Ah, this is an issue that’s beyond my [authority],” he responded. No wonder Hitler is a hero to so many Palestinians.
Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Maen Areikat tells reporters that Palestine will be free of Jews
By Oren Dorell, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Jews.
After 44 years of Palestinian-Israeli conflict, “it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated,” PLO Ambassador Maen Areikat says.
“After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated,” Maen Areikat, the PLO ambassador, said during a meeting with reporters sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. He was responding to a question about the rights of minorities in a Palestine of the future.
Such a state would be the first to officially prohibit Jews or any other faith since Nazi Germany, which sought a country that was judenrein, or cleansed of Jews, said Elliott Abrams, a former U.S. National Security Council official.
In case there is any question about what he means by ‘separation’, here is a snippet from an interview with Areikat last year in Tablet (big h/t to Challah Hu Akbar):
Q: When you imagine a future Palestinian state, do you imagine it being a place where Jews, if they wish to become Palestinian citizens, could own property, vote in elections, and practice their religion freely?
A: I remember in the mid-’90s, the late [PLO official] Faisal Husseini said repeatedly “OK, if Israelis choose to stay in a future Palestinian state, they are more than welcome to do that. But under one condition: They have to respect and obey Palestinian laws, they cannot be living as Israelis. They have to respect Palestinian laws and abide by them.” When Faisal Husseini died, basically no Palestinian leader has publicly supported the notion that they can stay.
What we are saying is the following: We need to separate. We have to separate. We are in a forced marriage. We need to divorce. After we divorce, and everybody takes a period of time to recoup, rebound, whatever you want to call it, we may consider dating again.
Q: So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—
A: Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.
Q: Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?
A: Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.
There is a word for separation on racial/ethnic grounds — apartheid.
One could ask Areikat if his argument doesn’t also imply that Arab citizens of Israel must pick up and leave, or if it doesn’t invalidate the alleged ‘right of return’ for Arab refugees to Israel, but you already know he doesn’t think so.
Mahmoud Abbas also said something similar recently, but he didn’t use the word ‘Jew’. He said that “not one Israeli” would remain in the Palestinian state. No antisemitism here, it was suggested. Well, now there’s no doubt.
So the UN will vote for a declaration of an explicitly antisemitic, apartheid state, in effect validating the third major ethnic cleansing of Jews in the last 100 years — while at the same time they will be holding a conference condemning ‘racism’ (except of course that the conference will ignore racism and condemn the Jewish state).
Areikat was also asked whether homosexuals would be allowed in ‘Palestine’. “Ah, this is an issue that’s beyond my [authority],” he responded. No wonder Hitler is a hero to so many Palestinians.
