PA daily op-ed: The “Israeli state of organized terrorism” has a policy of making continual war
Op-ed by Adel Abd Al-Rahman, regular columnist for Al-Hayat Al-Jadida
“During his meeting with [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas, Canadian [Foreign Affairs Minister John] Baird raised an illegitimate question: What if Hamas refuses [to accept] the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders? This [question was illegitimate] because the essential question the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs should have asked the Israeli Prime Minister and his colleagues among the senior Zionist officials was: ‘Are you, or are you not willing [to engage in] a political settlement process and the two-state solution along the 1967 borders?
How long will the Israeli state of organized terrorism continue to sink into one war after another and arouse the hostility of the nations of the region? What is Israel’s current interest and what is the strategy behind its remaining inside the cycle of violence and war? Does this policy serve the development of the Israeli state? Does such an aggressive policy allow for coexistence and free life within the Arab and Islamic environment of the greater Middle East?’
As foreign minister, Baird knows or should know that the various Palestinian political forces, including Hamas, support the two-state solution according to the 1967 borders. Even if they wouldn’t support this option, it would be incumbent on the various world powers, especially the leaders of the Quartet, to obligate Israel to [honor] the commitments of the political settlement, and not ask first whether this or that force supports the two-state solution. The Palestinian people has been injured for 65 years, and has sought a political solution with the aim of establishing an independent and sovereign national state and ensuring the return of the refugees to their homes from which they were expelled in 1948. The logical thing would thus be to address the questions to the Israelis, not the Palestinians, since the Palestinians long to see their rights realized at a minimal level.
Baird made a mistake harmful to the Canadian people, and, what is more, aroused, with his position, the hostility of the Palestinian people, its living forces and all forces of peace, including the Israeli ones, because he strove and continues to strive against the regional and international current, making things even more difficult and complicated with his condemnable action – his insistence on meeting [Israeli Minister of Justice Tzipi] Livni in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem. The Palestinian leadership and the political forces must denounce, both together and individually, the Canadian action which contradicts [Palestinian] national interests, and to urge the friendly Arab, Islamic and international leaders to take punitive measures to curb the extremist Canadian policy, which is opposed to peace.”
“During his meeting with [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas, Canadian [Foreign Affairs Minister John] Baird raised an illegitimate question: What if Hamas refuses [to accept] the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders? This [question was illegitimate] because the essential question the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs should have asked the Israeli Prime Minister and his colleagues among the senior Zionist officials was: ‘Are you, or are you not willing [to engage in] a political settlement process and the two-state solution along the 1967 borders?
How long will the Israeli state of organized terrorism continue to sink into one war after another and arouse the hostility of the nations of the region? What is Israel’s current interest and what is the strategy behind its remaining inside the cycle of violence and war? Does this policy serve the development of the Israeli state? Does such an aggressive policy allow for coexistence and free life within the Arab and Islamic environment of the greater Middle East?’
As foreign minister, Baird knows or should know that the various Palestinian political forces, including Hamas, support the two-state solution according to the 1967 borders. Even if they wouldn’t support this option, it would be incumbent on the various world powers, especially the leaders of the Quartet, to obligate Israel to [honor] the commitments of the political settlement, and not ask first whether this or that force supports the two-state solution. The Palestinian people has been injured for 65 years, and has sought a political solution with the aim of establishing an independent and sovereign national state and ensuring the return of the refugees to their homes from which they were expelled in 1948. The logical thing would thus be to address the questions to the Israelis, not the Palestinians, since the Palestinians long to see their rights realized at a minimal level.
Baird made a mistake harmful to the Canadian people, and, what is more, aroused, with his position, the hostility of the Palestinian people, its living forces and all forces of peace, including the Israeli ones, because he strove and continues to strive against the regional and international current, making things even more difficult and complicated with his condemnable action – his insistence on meeting [Israeli Minister of Justice Tzipi] Livni in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem. The Palestinian leadership and the political forces must denounce, both together and individually, the Canadian action which contradicts [Palestinian] national interests, and to urge the friendly Arab, Islamic and international leaders to take punitive measures to curb the extremist Canadian policy, which is opposed to peace.”