The intentions of Yassir Arafat and his terrorist organizations is to grind down the Israelis until they no longer have the energy nor the will to fight back while at the same time talking peace and conciliation. (See also, German and Palestinians Terrorist Organizations)
"In the national struggle in which the Palestinian people are engaged, the point is to break the will of the Israelis to resist."
The above quote is from Hassan al-Kashef, director-general of the Palestinian Information ministry in an article in al-Hayat al-Jadida, official daily of the Palestinian Authority. - Translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI - http://www.memri.org/
"We will lose much, and the loss will be shameful and historic, if we agree [now] to restore calm with security measures requiring us to protect the occupation's soldiers, bases, and settlers. We will lose even more by agreeing to an interim solution that solves nothing and does not put an end to occupation. We will lose [the military] interaction with the Israeli society-an interaction that brings 1,000 Israeli [army] officers to take a stand and 14,000 Israelis to demonstrate in Tel Aviv." [Hassan al-Kashef]
"We will lose if we extricate [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon from the crisis he is in-a crisis that will cause him to end his life in political and military defeat. Economically and militarily, Sharon will bring Israel nothing but the worst [predicament] in its history." [Hassan al-Kashef]
The following includes generous quoting from an article by Efraim Karsh in Commentary Magazine in March of 2002 - EFRAIM KARSH is head of Mediterranean studies at King's College, University of London, and the author (with Inari Karsh) of Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923. His articles in COMMENTARY include "The Palestinians and the 'Right of Return'" (May 2001) Quotes used here are in compliance with the Fair Use Doctrine in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
".... While one can only speculate about Sadat's own ultimate intentions-he was assassinated in October 1981 for having gone as far toward peace with Israel as he did-there is little doubt that his successor, Hosni Mubarak, has never had any desire to transform the formal Egyptian peace with Israel into a genuine reconciliation. For Mubarak, peace is of no value in and of itself; rather, it is the price Egypt has had to pay for such substantial benefits as U.S. economic and military aid." (From Efraim Karsh, "Israel's War" in Commentary (March 2002)
"Over the decades, Mubarak has reduced interaction with Israel to the lowest possible level, while simultaneously transforming the Egyptian army into a formidable modern force. He has also fostered a culture of virulent anti-Semitism in Egypt, a culture whose premises he himself evidently shares. Here is his candid assessment of the lessons and consequences of the 1973 war:" [Karsh]
"Against us stood the most intelligent people on earth - a people that controls the international press, the world economy, and world finances. We succeeded in compelling the Jews to do what we wanted; we received all our land back, up to the last grain of sand! We have outwitted them, and what have we given them in return? A piece of paper! . . . We were shrewder than the shrewdest people on earth! We managed to hamper their steps in every direction. We have established sophisticated machinery to control and limit to the minimum contacts with the Jews. We have proven that making peace with Israel does not entail Jewish domination and that there is no obligation to develop relations with Israel beyond those we desire." [Mubarak]
"Mubarak made this impromptu statement in 1991 in the course of an address to students at Cairo University. His remarks were taken down by Ephraim Dowek, an Egyptian Jew then serving as Israel's ambassador to Egypt, and they appear in Dowek's book, Israeli-Egyptian Relations,
1980-2000 (2001). Apart from attending the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, Mubarak has never visited Israel." [Karsh]
Karsh also sums up the other major player in this process after the 74 war, Syria - which will not acknowledge the legitimacy of a non-Muslim, Jewish State of Israel.
"If this is the view of the leader of the largest and most powerful Arab state, other Arab players, with the partial exception of Jordan, have similarly never felt the need to acknowledge the Jewish state's legitimacy, and have declined even the most tempting offers in exchange for normalized relations. Four successive Israeli prime ministers, from Yitzhak Rabin to Ehud Barak, were willing to return the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace. The late Hafez al-Assad rejected every proposal, not because of petty squabbles over a few hundred yards of territory around the Sea of Galilee but out of a fundamental unwillingness to acquiesce formally in the very existence of the "neo-Crusader state," whose fate, Assad never tired of reiterating, would eventually be that of the medieval Crusader kingdom before it." [Karsh]
"As for the Palestinians, they too have persistently denied legitimacy to Israel, denigrated Jewish history, and even gone so far as to repudiate any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem or, by implication, to the land of Israel itself. All in all, and up until now, contractual peace with Israel has represented, for the Arab party, not a recognition of legitimacy but a tacit admission that, at least for the time being, the Arabs have been unable to defeat Israel by force of arms." [Karsh] "So long as the Arabs have a glimmer of hope to get rid of us.." --- V. Jabotinsky]
George Bush has given the Arabs a "glimmer of hope" which is just one more crack in the "iron wall" that does nothing to deter terror; it inspires Arabs to continue their terror war against Israel. George Bush has held out to Arabs more hope than any other president has expected of Israel, which to capitulate to terrorism (terrorism organizations) - and reward the terrorists with a state of their own.
"The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict over the past century vindicates Jabotinsky's stark prognosis. It has been Israel's technological edge, the performance of its armed forces, the commitment and resilience of its society, and, above all, its decisive military victories that have gradually driven the Arabs toward the path of politics and a grudging acceptance. Every Arab defeat, every military setback, has meant an increased acquiescence in the reality of Israel. By contrast, every perceived crack in Israel's "iron wall" has meant a revival of the old dream of destroying the state utterly." [Karsh]
"IN THE 1990's, the Oslo accords, the biggest of all cracks in the "iron wall," provided the ultimate proof of Jabotinsky's thesis. Here was Israel extending the hand of friendship and inviting Yasir Arafat back from exile. And here was the PLO, the "sole representative of the Palestinian people," ostensibly saying it was willing to shed its historic commitment to the destruction of Israel, to renounce the use of violence as a political tool, and to accept a territorial compromise based on a two-state solution. But as the actual behavior of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority over the past decade reveals, beneath the rhetoric of compromise lay the old commitment to violence and to victory, now fueled by Israeli accommodation." [Karsh]
Treaty of Hudaibiya
"Yasir Arafat himself testified as much within months of the September
1993 ceremony on the White House lawn when, at a closed meeting with South African Muslim leaders, he asserted that the Oslo agreements fell into the same category as the Treaty of Hudaibiya signed by the Prophet Muhammad with the people of Mecca in 628, only to be reneged on a couple of years later when the situation tilted in Muhammad's favor. In the year 2001, the prominent Palestinian "moderate," Faisal al-Husseini, was even more explicit, describing the Oslo process as a "Trojan Horse" designed to promote the strategic goal of "Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea"-that is, to a Palestine in place of Israel." [Karsh]
"While speaking the language of peace to Israeli and Western audiences, Arafat, from the moment of his arrival in Gaza after his years of exile in Tunisia, began to lay the ground for an eventual confrontation with Israel. Hence his failure to disarm the terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad as required by the Oslo accords, and his tacit approval of the murder of hundreds of Israelis by these groups; hence the creation of a far larger Palestinian army (the so-called police force) than was permitted by the accords; hence the frantic acquisition of prohibited weapons; hence the reluctance to abrogate those clauses in the Palestine National Covenant calling for Israel's destruction; hence the systematic indoctrination of the Palestinian public, especially schoolchildren, with violent anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda; and hence the Palestinian Authority's resort to outright mass violence, first in September 1996 with a view to discrediting the then newly-elected Benjamin Netanyahu and then in October 2000 as a means of turning the tables on Netanyahu's successor, Ehud Barak." [Karsh]
Arafat is still in control. He and his gang of terrorists control the PA police and have no intention of reigning in and dismantling Palestinian terrorist organizations and he also has the sympathy of many in the international community where he is perceived as the underdog. It is delusional for Israel to expect normalcy.
"What enabled Arafat to pursue his war preparations was a combination of international sympathy for his cause and Israeli self-delusion. Fatigued by decades of fighting, and yearning for a normalcy that would allow them at last to enjoy their recently won affluence, many Israelis clung to the Oslo process as to an amulet, turning a blind eye to the evolving danger at their doorstep. Even Netanyahu, for all his scathing criticism of Oslo, proved unable to win from Arafat the reciprocity he demanded, and was reluctantly forced to follow in the footsteps of his two predecessors, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, in surrendering territory to the Palestinian Authority without any tangible return." [Karsh]
"In this light, Arafat's rejection of Barak's generous territorial concessions during the Camp David summit of July 2000, followed by his launching of the al-Aqsa intifada in October of the same year, made perfect sense. Indeed, not only did the international community react to the renewed violence by pressuring Israel to moderate its response, and be still more "forthcoming" to Palestinian demands, but the Barak government itself succumbed to Palestinian military pressure. In January 2001, during a summit meeting at the Egyptian resort of Taba, Israel's prime minister ceded virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, together with some Israeli territory, and made breathtaking concessions over Jerusalem and the question of Palestinian refugees." [Karsh]
Break the Will of the Israelis to Resist
Had Arafat chosen to accept the remarkable and far reaching Israeli concessions the Palestinians would today have their state. The Israeli concessions were even more remarkable considering the fact that they were made to a defeated enemy which no one has ever done before. It should be quite clear to anyone who is a witness to their perfidy and their acts of terrorism, and for those who listen to the words of the Palestinian leadership - that it is not now nor has it ever been their intention or desire to reconcile and live in peace with Israelis. They don't want a state which is next to Israel because they do not want a Jewish state anywhere. The Arabs and Arafat and his PA and all those terrorist organizations, in particular, only want to "break the will of the Israelis to resist."