CILR Petition and a Summary of Two State Story
Following the Canadian government’s vote in the UN against Israel, we issued a petition. Below is a short update but the story isn’t over. It is urgent to keep up the pressure as the vote on the same issue, claiming Jews don’t have a right to Jerusalem and spreading lies about Arab access to their Holy Sites is coming up again in the General Assembly this month. Let your MP know that Canada must stand firm with Israel.
Petition to Canadian Government
The CAEF petition to Prime Minister Trudeau and Cabinet has garnered over 1350 signatures to date and been forwarded to the PM and Cabinet. We thank all who signed. The letter and petition have also been sent to all members of government, in an effort to raise concern across the House, that voting against Israel is contrary to the values of our Canadian society. Promises to support our ally Israel are disingenuous if the government now votes with the enemies of democracy. See the petition here
Much confusion and disinformation is propagated about a two state solution that is a failed notion. Independent Israeli journalist, Arlene Kushner, outlines the history clearly and concisely so with her permission we include her latest Blog, which points out that the two state solution was always a nonstarter, the goal of the Palestinian Authority has always been to have the Jewish state disappear.
A history of the Two State Solution and the Arab Subterfuge
This article was written and published by independent journalist, Arlene Kushner in her Blog, Arlene from Israel. It is reproduced here by CAEF as it provides a concise history, dates included, of the moribund “two state solution” supported by various countries, political parties, and Islamists such as the Palestinian Authority. Kushner points out how the Palestinian Authority has undermined every effort to establish peace.
From Arlene Kushner On Friday December 6, the US House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution supporting the “two state solution.” This caused considerable consternation among supporters of Israel. But, in fact, it is not terribly surprising: The House is controlled by the Democrats. And they are responding to the very appropriate and long-overdue November 18 announcement by Sec. of State Pompeo that the US government has cancelled the Hansell Memorandum and reversed its policy regarding Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria: the US position now is that the settlements in Judea and Samaria are not inconsistent with international law.
We were bound to see a pushback on this from the left. And I think that this provides us with an excellent opportunity to examine that so-called “two state solution.” My position is that it doesn’t exist: The germ of the “two-state” idea can be found with the Oslo Accords, which had been vigorously promoted by the left in Israel. For the success of the accords, it was deemed important to involve the PLO, which was considered the representative of all Palestinian Arabs. Thus, Chairman of the PLO Yasser Arafat and his inner circle were brought from Tunis. Whatever image Arafat wished to project, he and his associates were unrepentant terrorists. The naïve optimism within certain quarters of Israel at that time was that with new circumstances Arafat would move beyond his previous method of operating. Once that notion took hold, and Israel was committed to working with Arafat, a blind eye was turned, again and again, to the reality of how he functioned.
Israel and the PLO signed on the first stage of Oslo, the Declaration of Principles, in 1993. Israeli Prime Miniser Yitzhak Rabin, President Bill Clinton and PLO Chair Yasser Afafat This established the Palestinian Authority and set out a five year interim period of self-government for the Palestinian Arabs. A supplementary agreement was signed on May 4, 1994, stipulating that this self-government would begin with Gaza and the Jericho area. An elected council was to be responsible for education, culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation and tourism within the Palestinian Arab areas; a police force would be maintained for internal security. Israel retained control over roads, borders, security for areas of Jewish residence. Negotiations on the permanent status of the Palestinian areas were to begin by the third year of this interim period and were to conclude by 1999. Among the issues to be determined within these negotiations were Jerusalem, borders, settlements and refugees. Permanent status: Nothing was said in this agreement about a full, sovereign Palestinian state.
On May 10, 1994, mere days after the Gaza-Jericho agreement had been signed, Arafat gave a speech in a mosque in Johannesburg, South Africa, at the invitation of Nelson Mandela. His talk, given in English, was supposed to be off the record, but a South African journalist secretly recorded it and then publicized it. That speech includes this: “The Jihad will continue…” “This agreement I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammad and Quraysh.” Arafat was referring to Muslim history: In 628, Muhammad, who assessed his following as not yet sufficiently strong to take Mecca in battle, forged a ten-year peace treaty—the Hudaibiya Pact—with the polytheistic Quraysh tribe that held the city. The pact “agreed to remove war from the people for ten years…" Two years after signing, when he had garnered considerably more strength, Muhammad abrogated the treaty and attacked the Quraysh with a force so overwhelming that they surrendered without a fight. Muhammad did this by first quietly preparing while the Quraysh guard was down and then finding a pretext for battle. Desperate entreaties by the Quraysh did nothing to dissuade him. In Islamic law, the way in which Muhammad conducted himself is viewed as a model of proper behavior when dealing with non-Muslims. The term for this is hilam – “by stratagems you will make war.”
In 1974, after the Yom Kippur War, it became evident to the Arabs that Israel could not be “liberated” in one operation. The PLO then adopted the “Strategy of Stages,” that spelled out a tactic for weakening Israel slowly in stages, towards the aim of ultimate destruction. Any subterfuge was considered permissible in service of this goal. One key subterfuge was a pretense of moderation. Another was a manipulation of public perception that would deprive Israel of legitimacy. Dennis Ross, who had served as special envoy during the Clinton administration, later said this about Arafat: Every agreement he made was limited and contained nothing he considered irrevocable. He was not, in his eyes, required to surrender any claims….he never prepared his public for compromise. Instead, he led the Palestinians to believe the peace process would produce everything they ever wanted… https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/11/think-again-yasir-arafat/ Read more here