Do you see the picture of the Arab leader circled in the photo below, taken when Dublin's lord Mayor (also circled) attended the conference in Ramallah recently?
It is the figure who inspires the Palestinian so called "resistance" movement, Arafat's uncle, the notorious Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Husseini.
Now, I want people to focus on something this leader said a few weeks before his death in 2001. He said:
"... One must draw a distinction between the strategic aspirations of the Palestinian people, who would not surrender one grain of Palestinian soil, and their political striving, based on the balance of power and the nature of the current international system … Our eyes will continue to be focused on the strategic goal — a Palestine from the River to the Sea — and nothing that we take today can make us forget this supreme truth..."
So, the question I have is - does the Palestinian "resistance" movement, encompassing the boycott movement as well as the terrorist organisations on the ground, and their sponsors in the middle east and Europe, actually perceive their "political striving" in the above terms?
Ok, people on here may be familiar with my own critical views on the boycott movement, spearheaded today by BDS. - I look highly critically to such statements made by BDS as "... What we want is not actual economic divestment from Israel. Everyone knows that the U.S. will never pull investments out of Israel like that. Instead, we are looking to shift the dialogue to whether or not to divest from Israel, without extraneous discussion of the basics. We hope that in 10, 20 years the public will just take for granted the premises that Israel is an Apartheid state, and then we can move from there...”
Also, it is very clear to me that BDS have a long-term vision of Israel's elimination. - Norman Finkelstein puts this very succinctly in this interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iggdO7C70P8
You know, everything I have seen coming from this boycott movement (example) corroborates the opinion that BDS seek to indoctrinate and imbue people with an abiding hatred of Israel and its people, so as to fortify them for attacks on Israel and her people by Hamas, Hizbollah, the PA, and other terrorist entities.
That worries me as an Irishman.
Note that what the Mufti said in the quote above merely corroborates the official stated PLO strategy that " ... [we] should seize whatever territory Israel is prepared or compelled to cede to them and use it as a springboard for further territorial gains until achieving the "complete liberation of Palestine..." (Source).
People on here may protest that that document is from 1974. But is not the Mufti corroborating it above in 2001? And Arafat in 1993 also corroborated it saying in Arabic to his own people, right during the signing of the Oslo accord:
"... Do not forget that our Palestine National Council accepted the decision in 1974. It called for the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian land that is liberated or from which the Israelis withdrew. This is the fruit of your struggle, your sacrifices, and your jihad … This is the moment of return, the moment of gaining a foothold on the first liberated Palestinian land … Long live Palestine, liberated and Arab..." (Source)
Now, in highlighting the above, my intention is not to be overly partisan. - It is to question the assumptions that are apparently held by our representatives who are pushing this bill through. - What if they are wrong assumptions, and we are unwittingly helping to reinforce a strategy which can only lead to more war and suffering?
Do we need some serious perspective here? For example, that Israeli settlements cover only about 2% of the area of the West Bank. Or that 80 percent of the recent expansion has been in the existing settlement blocs everyone knows Israel would retain in any conceivable peace agreement. Or that many settlements in the West Bank like Gush Etzion and Hebron have had Jewish communities sometimes for thousands of years.
(I made a thread on here questioning the assumption that the settlements were central to this conflict, before).
Why does none of the above never enter any of the debate? Why does the fact of all of these discussion points never, ever entering the debate actually receive a bloody standing ovation?