A former member of the Palestinian National Council and the PLO Central Committee has come out in favor of Yossi Beilin’s ‘Geneva Initiative’ – because he believes it would enable the destruction of Israel.
Na'im Al-Ashab’s article, entitled “How to Deal With the Geneva Accord,” appeared in today’s (Thursday) edition of the Palestinian weekly ‘The Jerusalem Times’.
In the article, Al-Ashab accepts the Geneva Accord as a means to bring about Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 border, but makes it clear that the true goal of a “return of the refugees” can only be brought about through “war and victory.” Al-Ashab, known also by his nom de gaur, Abu Bashar, assures readers that the final war launched against Israel would not be “like the current intifada” but would rather result in complete victory over Israel.
He makes it clear that all Israelis must be gotten rid of because “the entire Jewish society in Israel is Zionist, except maybe some hundreds or thousands in the best conditions. This society, left and right, views the return of the Palestinian refugees as elimination to the Zionist project and destructive to the state of Israel.”
The article itself reads:
“Regarding the relationship between the powers and the political solutions, we might think that if the Arab armies in the 1973 war, could expel the Israeli forces even from Sinai and the Golan, it would be logical to return to call for the implementation of the partition resolution for the year 1947. The expulsion of these forces by military force from those areas could have led to a basic amendment in the balance of forces in the region. Basing on this realistic and responsible realization, the Palestinian National Council, in its 19th session 1988 agreed on the Security Council resolutions No. 242 and 338, calling for an independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian land that was occupied on June 4th 1967. On the other hand, it seems that the issue that arises more discussions and differences in the "Geneva Accord" that talks about an independent Palestinian state within the borders of the 4th of June, including the return of basic parts of the Arab Jerusalem and the sovereignty on the Holy Sanctuary -it is the first of its kind to take place with an Israeli side at this level- We say: May be the issue arousing more discussions in this accords is the issue of the refugees.
“This is logical and understandable. But it is completely clear that guaranteeing the right of the refugees in the return, as we want, to the areas that became Israel, cannot be accomplished through the political track, the negotiations. Rather, it can take place through another track, the track of war and victory. Such a war is different from the current Intifada. It is a war that results in military defeat to Israel. That is simply because the entire Jewish society in Israel is Zionist, except maybe some hundreds or thousands in the best conditions. This society, left and right, views the return of the Palestinian refugees as elimination to the Zionist project and destructive to the state of Israel. In other words: In order to return the refugees, in the way we want, to their lands that they were expelled from in 1948, we should provide the power that is capable to impose that on Israel by force....”
Na'im Al-Ashab’s article, entitled “How to Deal With the Geneva Accord,” appeared in today’s (Thursday) edition of the Palestinian weekly ‘The Jerusalem Times’.
In the article, Al-Ashab accepts the Geneva Accord as a means to bring about Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 border, but makes it clear that the true goal of a “return of the refugees” can only be brought about through “war and victory.” Al-Ashab, known also by his nom de gaur, Abu Bashar, assures readers that the final war launched against Israel would not be “like the current intifada” but would rather result in complete victory over Israel.
He makes it clear that all Israelis must be gotten rid of because “the entire Jewish society in Israel is Zionist, except maybe some hundreds or thousands in the best conditions. This society, left and right, views the return of the Palestinian refugees as elimination to the Zionist project and destructive to the state of Israel.”
The article itself reads:
“Regarding the relationship between the powers and the political solutions, we might think that if the Arab armies in the 1973 war, could expel the Israeli forces even from Sinai and the Golan, it would be logical to return to call for the implementation of the partition resolution for the year 1947. The expulsion of these forces by military force from those areas could have led to a basic amendment in the balance of forces in the region. Basing on this realistic and responsible realization, the Palestinian National Council, in its 19th session 1988 agreed on the Security Council resolutions No. 242 and 338, calling for an independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian land that was occupied on June 4th 1967. On the other hand, it seems that the issue that arises more discussions and differences in the "Geneva Accord" that talks about an independent Palestinian state within the borders of the 4th of June, including the return of basic parts of the Arab Jerusalem and the sovereignty on the Holy Sanctuary -it is the first of its kind to take place with an Israeli side at this level- We say: May be the issue arousing more discussions in this accords is the issue of the refugees.
“This is logical and understandable. But it is completely clear that guaranteeing the right of the refugees in the return, as we want, to the areas that became Israel, cannot be accomplished through the political track, the negotiations. Rather, it can take place through another track, the track of war and victory. Such a war is different from the current Intifada. It is a war that results in military defeat to Israel. That is simply because the entire Jewish society in Israel is Zionist, except maybe some hundreds or thousands in the best conditions. This society, left and right, views the return of the Palestinian refugees as elimination to the Zionist project and destructive to the state of Israel. In other words: In order to return the refugees, in the way we want, to their lands that they were expelled from in 1948, we should provide the power that is capable to impose that on Israel by force....”