JEWSNEWS » The Japanese have some questions for ‘Palestine Supporters’…AND OH ARE THEY AWESOME

An interesting questionnaire for Palestinian Advocates By Yashiko Sagamori

If you are so sure that ” Palestine , the country, goes back through most of recorded history,” I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine :

1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

You are lamenting the “low sinking” of a “once proud” nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?

And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call “Palestinians” are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day “Palestinians” to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won’t work here.

The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel ; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it “the Palestinian people” and installed it in Gaza , Judea, and Samaria . How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the “West Bank” and Gaza , respectively?

The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called “Palestinians” have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel , and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation” — or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East . Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel ‘s ancient sovereignty over Gaza , Judea, and Samaria.

That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?

A7: Google Says Gush Etzion Residents Live in 'Palestine' Residents of Gush Etzion outraged to discover that, according to Google, they live in "Palestine".

Residents of Gush Etzion, located in Judea and just south of Jerusalem, were shocked recently to see that, according to Google, they live in "Palestine," according to a Wednesday report in the Yisrael Hayom daily.

Gush Etzion is the location of Jewish communities that existed before Israel was declared a state in 1948. However, the area was lost to the Jordanian Legion during the war. All but four of the 157 male defenders of Kfar Etzion (the women and children had been evacuated) were murdered in cold blood despite their surrender and the white flag they carried as they stood outside. The area was retaken by Israel in 1967 and many of the orphaned children of those defenders returned to live there.

The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel told Yisrael Hayom that it has been receiving a steady stream of complaints from Gush Etzion residents as of late.

Web users who live in the bloc have apparently been astounded to discover that while trying to log into Google to perform searches, the search engine has been redirecting them to google.ps, the Palestinian Authority handle, instead of google.co.il, as in the rest of Israel.

Shahar, a resident of one of the communities in Gush Etzion, responded to the geographical tangle, calling Google's apparent decision to include as “Palestine” the cluster of communities just south of Jerusalem "simply outrageous."

"It's unfortunate that the Google company, which is a business entity and not a political body, has decided that the residents of Judea and Samaria belong to the Palestinian Authority," the Legal Forum’s Director-General, Nachi Eyal, wrote in a letter to Google quoted by Yisrael Hayom.

"We are calling on you to remove this kind of proclamation," wrote Eyal.

Google spokesperson Nathan Tyler clarified that Google Israel -- the company has offices in Tel Aviv and Haifa – was not the one that made the decision to include the Gush Etzion bloc in the Palestinian Authority, adding that the search engine aimed to provide the "best experience" for all of its users.

A few weeks ago, Google decided to place the name "Palestine" on its search engineinstead of "Palestinian Territories", in recognition of the Palestinian Authority’sunilateral statehood bid at the United Nations.

The domain name www.google.ps now brings up a homepage with "Palestine" written underneath the Google logo.

Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin later sent a strongly worded letter to Google CEO Larry Page, in which he called on the internet giant to reconsider its decision.

In his letter, Elkin explained that Google’s move does not bring Israel and the PA closer to the negotiating table but in fact achieves the opposite, adding that such decisions further solidify the PA’s position, that by taking unilateral steps they will be recognized as a state without having to negotiate with Israel.

"Google's decision is puzzling," wrote Elkin, "especially given the fact that this is intervention by an international company in local politics, which does not serve the interests of either party in the long-term."

The Gush Etzion area includes the city of Efrat as well as Elazar, Alon Shvut (and the Har Etzion hesder yeshiva), Kibbutz Migdal Oz, Beitar, Neve Daniel and more.

“Palestine” Does Not Qualify as a “State”

Back in 2005, after Israel removed every soldier and settler from Gaza, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced that “from this day forward, there will be no security turmoil and weapons chaos and abductions, which are not characteristic of our culture.” He proved a poor prognosticator regarding Palestinian culture: given the chance to live “side by side in peace and security” with Israel, the Palestinians demonstrated they could not do so even with themselves. 

Abbas was expelled from Gaza in 2007; there have been no parliamentary or presidential elections since 2006; no functioning Palestinian legislature exists; Abbas is entering the 95th month of his 48-month term; he cannot set foot in half of his purported state (in the words of Israel’s UN ambassador, he cannot even see it with binoculars); he has refused to negotiate with Israel for more than four years; he demands recognition of a Palestinian state while refusing to recognize a Jewish one; and he now seeks admission to the UN as a non-member state even though “Palestine” meets none of the four requirements under international law for a state. 

Under the Montevideo Convention (1933), a state “should possess the following qualifications”: (1) a defined territory; (2) a government; (3) capacity to enter into relations with the other states; and (4) a permanent population. 

“Palestine” lacks a “defined territory.” A “defined territory” cannot include an area whose status and borders can only be defined, under longstanding international agreements, by negotiations. To have a defined territory, “Palestine” has to negotiate it with Israel; until then, its self-definition of territory is not a “defined territory” under the law; it is simply a negotiating position. 

“Palestine” lacks a “government.” It is ruled half by a terrorist group and half by an unelected administrative entity. Its last election occurred nearly seven years ago, and it has no capacity (much less inclination) to hold a new one. The government of each half considers the government of the other half illegitimate, and both are correct: one regime took power by a coup, and the other remains in power four years after its term expired. There is no legal governing body in either half of the purported state, much less one that governs both. 

“Palestine” lacks the “capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Abbas has no capacity to bind the rulers of Gaza, nor even to implement his own commitments in the area in which he can at least set foot. While in office, he failed to implement his prior obligations, including Phase I of the Roadmap (which mandated the dismantling of Hamas and other terrorist groups), and he is currently an unelected official, unrecognized by half his putative state, with no capacity to bind “Palestine” to anything. 

“Palestine” lacks a “permanent population.” Most of the population considers themselves not putative citizens of a new state but perennial “refugees” — an inherited status under the unique definition applicable to Palestinians — who reject any suggestion they should form the permanent population of a new state. They consider themselves instead to be temporary residents (and UNRWA, the UN agency devoted to caring for them, is legally a “temporary” UN body) who seek to “return” to a different state, not to be permanent residents where they currently live. 

When you refuse to negotiate a defined territory (and demand instead that it be conceded before you deign to “negotiate”); when you lack a government that controls your purported territory (and instead have multiple regimes each lacking legitimacy); when you lack the capacity to enter into relations with other states (and ignore the agreements you already signed); and when you have residents who reject permanent residence and assert instead a “right” to “return” to another state, you meet none of the requirements for a state. 

The irony is that between 2000 and 2008, the Palestinians received three formal offers of a state, and rejected them all — the modern equivalent of the Three Nos. Now one group of Palestinians seeks UN recognition as a “non-member state,” when they fail to qualify as a state at all, and they ignore the fact they could already have been a member-state three times over (or more), had they simply said yes. As Stephen J. Rosen notedlast year, they have: 

two incompatible presidents, two rival prime ministers, a constitution whose most central provisions are violated by both sides, no functioning legislature, no ability to hold elections, a population mostly not under its control, borders that would annex territory under the control of other powers, and no clear path to resolve any of these conflicts. 

Once again, “Palestine” is all set to be a failed state, no more ready for statehood than it was a year ago. Article 10 of the Montevideo Convention provides that the “primary interests of states is the conservation of peace.” The Palestinian gambit at the UN is not intended to produce peace, but to provide a platform for law-fare. It will do nothing to bring the Palestinians closer to the state they could have had long ago, if a state were really what they wanted, and it will in fact put peace further away.