by Dr. Reuven Berko
Israel erred when it accepted Umm al-Fahm from Jordan in 1949 • Proof of that lies in a 2006 manifesto from the Israeli Arab leadership and the ongoing murderous ideology of the city's native son, Raed Salah of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement.
Sheikh Raed Salah of the
outlawed Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement
|
Photo credit: Yoav Ari Dudkevitch  |
Sheikh Raed Salah of the Islamic Movement,
whose nerve center is in the city of Umm al-Fahm in northern Israel, was
arrested this week for the umpteenth time after inciting to bloodshed
at Al-Aqsa mosque. This activity, alongside the subversiveness of many
senior members of the Joint Arab Party, threw a spotlight on the city's
central role as a hotbed of terrorists and Islamic State recruits, most
of whom belong to the Jabarin clan -- three members of which were
responsible for the murder of two Border Police officers at Al Aqsa on July 14.
There is no difference between Salah's
movement and other Islamist terrorist organizations throughout the
world. They all operate according to the Muslim Brotherhood's
interpretation of Islam, and their message is clear: slaughtering
minorities, Jews, and Christians; rape; and the destruction of mosques
and churches. Salah's operational code called for the Islamic State
model to move from Raqqa in Syria to Israel; Umm al-Fahm was supposed to
become an isolated military city from which offenses were launched; and
Jerusalem was supposed to look like the ruined Damascus. We got a
glance of that scenario at the funerals of the Al-Aqsa murders, and from
the terrorists and Islamic State volunteers from Umm al-Fahm who were
raised on the diet of violence fed to them by Salah and his people.
One of the main purposes of the nation-state bill
is to prevent the democracy being exploited for purposes of
subversiveness and incitement, which come both from the Islamists and
from the political wing of the Israeli Arab leadership. The bill aims to
protect the identity of the country and protect it from those who hate
it.
As a representative of those who seek to erase
Israel from the regional map and make it into another Palestine like
the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Jordan, MK Yousef Jabareen from Umm
al-Fahm has taken a stance against the bill. In an orderly legal
document, MK Jabarin argued that "the bill increases inequality between
the [Jewish and Arab] populations, and subjugates the Arab minority to
the interests of the Jewish majority and ignores the ties of the
Palestinian people to the homeland of their birth. The bill throws the
legitimacy of Israel as a democracy into question in Israel and abroad."
It turns out that Jabarin and his colleagues
want to establish a "Palestine" that is "clean" of Jews in Judea and
Samaria, but demand that Israel forgo its symbols, its flag, its menorah
emblem and its national Jewish holidays and become a state "of all its
citizens." His argument is based on U.N. Resolution 181, which addresses
the establishment of two states, one Arab and one Jewish. According to
Jabarin, a two-state constitution is supposed to "give every member of
the opposing minority equal rights and protection under the law." But
according to that citation, the equality applies only to "every person"
and not to giving legitimacy to isolationist organization in the other
state, as his hostile belief system calls to do.
Indeed, "The Future Vision of the Palestinian
Arabs in Israel" manifesto of 2006, brought to us by the National
Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel, and
whose legal chapter Jabareen wrote, demands "isolation as a group, a
nation, autonomy, Palestinian in every aspect of life in the state," as
well as a demand for enforced equality and an influence on the main body
of government in Israel and its institutions, far beyond their
demographic representation.
You have to read it to believe it
The arguments in the "Future Vision" and
Jabareen's letter are worse than the demands themselves. You need to
read them to believe them: they are based on "the Arabs of Israel being a
'native' minority to be protected, and should benefit from affirmative
action," given the perception that "the Palestinian Arabs of Israel are
the landlords and the Jews who invaded are the result of Western
colonialism," as well as "the Jews forced a Jewish character on the
state and prevented the natives, who are oppressed and who hold the true
rights, from being able to conduct popular activity and a public
struggle."
And that's not all: "Israeli citizenship was
forced on the Arabs to keep them oppressed," and "Israel intentionally
prevents physical and spiritual national contact with Palestinians in
the territories, enforces a culture of occupation, and treats the Arabs
like a minority ethnic group and not as a single national Arab
minority." Therefore, Jabareen concludes, "the Arab Israeli leadership
refuses a Jewish, democratic Israel, as a wall that keeps Arabs from
achieving equality."
The documents also reject the nation-state
bill and call to "rebuild Israel's political, social, and economic
institutions by turning into an ordered democracy." The change, the
documents say, will ensure "that both nation groups in the state will be
balanced partners in government," and from a "balanced place at the
table, the Jews will divide resources, land, and decision making and
national symbols with the national Palestinian elected body, including a
mutual veto." Under this arrangement, the Palestinians would be paid
reparations, have equal rights to move to Israel, the "domestic
refugees" would be able to return to their cities and villages, and the
Muslim Waqf and the Christian and Muslim holy sites will be under the
exclusive control of the Palestinians."
A short-lived partnership
These ideas unite Arab MKs who are atheists,
communists, militants, and radical leftists with Salah's Islamist
agenda, despite the knowledge that most of the Arab population rejects
the Islamist regression, its laws, its dress code, and its takeover, and
it's clear that this partnership is short-lived.
But most of the Arab MKs, who swore an oath of
allegiance in the Knesset, hypocritically incite to enact this Islamist
agenda, which actually threatens both the Palestinian Authority and the
moderate Arab states. They support Hezbollah, Hamas terrorism, rioting,
propaganda (Al Jazeera), fanning the interreligious conflict at
Al-Aqsa, and international condemnation of Israel. In doing so, they
also create Arab antagonism to the Palestinian issue.
It's amazing: representatives of the Arab
minority, which makes up some 20% of the population, are trying to
enforce their wishes on the country's solid 80% majority. If the
"native, oppressed" people of the Triangle region of Arab towns "on whom
citizenship was forced," wanted to implement their vision, they would
unite their homes, their land, and their property with their brothers in
the Palestinian Authority and build their own "native" majority state.
Without oppression, without "apartheid." But the oppressed refuse to do
that. They don't want to build a state; they want to destroy one.
There are also some who dream of "resistance"
as a whitewashed term for terrorism. The blow that the rioters of
October 2000 sustained quelled that desire a bit. If the Arab MKs and
Salah manage to kick up riots similar to the "October events," it would
be a Pyrrhic victory for their voters.
Israel erred when it accepted Umm al-Fahm from Jordan in
1949, and when it included the villages around Jerusalem in the
municipality. A withdrawal and "transfer to Israel" will fix that. Yes,
under the "Umm al-Fahm first" plan, Israel is to withdraw -- as it did
from Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip -- and close the city's western
border. In doing so, Israel will help make the "Future Vision" a
reality.
Dr. Reuven Berko
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=44739
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment