Leading moderate Nabil Sha’ath rejects the idea of a Jewish and a Palestinian state living side-by-side
“We have never agreed, and we never will agree, under any circumstances, to recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people….. There is a chance of two states: a Palestinian [state] and a non-Jewish state of Israel……”
These are the words of Nabil Sha’ath, one of the most senior figures in Palestinian politics. He said this during an interview in June 2011 with the Israeli Arab newspaper Kul al-Arab.
Sha’ath is not a fringe figure. He is a leading voice in the ‘moderate’ wing of Palestinian society. He is a member of the Fatah Central Committee and responsible for its international relations, similar to a foreign affairs spokesperson. He is frequently interviewed and quoted in the international media, and is regarded as worldly and urbane.
We have published translated sections of Sha’ath’s eye-opening interview as a new Beyond Images Briefing.
Why? Because it is just the latest example of Palestinian rejection of Israel as a Jewish state. And it is one of the most brazen examples. As Sha’ath says elsewhere in the interview:
“We are prepared to recognise the State of Israel, if they say that the Israeli people includes those Muslim and Christian residents who are the true owners of the land….”
So that’s what the moderates mean when they say they agree to a two-state solution?
Sha’ath comments follow a pattern. In recent years Mahmoud Abbas, Salim Fayyad, Saeb Erekat and Yasser Abed Rabbo, leading voices in Palestinian moderate society, have each rejected the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. And so has the Fatah Revolutionary Council.
The rejection has been consistent, emphatic, and categorical. See the Beyond Images Briefings listed below, where we cite what they have said and rebut the arguments they use to back up what they say.
The Jews are a people, not a race or a religion, and the Jews have a legitimate right of national self-determination in a sovereign Jewish state, the State of Israel.
– Sha’ath completely rejects that right. His words need to be exposed and their implications understood. They are a flagrant contradiction to the idea of a “two state solution” – a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. Instead, while Sha’ath does accept two states, neither of them would be Jewish.
– Most mainstream diplomats and commentators around the world claim to support a two-state solution. If that is the case, they need to be highly concerned about Sha’ath’s comments, and the attitudes they represent. And, as friends of the Palestinians and supporters of their legitimate rights, they need to press Palestinian society to change.
– The vision articulated by Sha’ath is not ‘moderate’ at all. It is an unjust and unethical vision, which is an obstacle to peace. It reveals that the conflict is ultimately an ideological one, not a territorial one. And it panders to a one-sided Palestinian national narrative while ignoring the Jewish-Israeli national narrative.
And more:
1. Nation and Jerusalem? Israel became a nation by 1312 BCE, two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as Palestinians by 1967, two decades after the founding of modern Israel.
3. After the conquest of land by 1272 BCE the Jews ruled the country for a thousand years and they had a continuous presence there for 3,300 years.
4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in – 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.
5. For more than – 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they did it their capital and Arab leaders did not visit.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over – 700 times in the Bible and not once in the Koran.
7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem, Mohammed never came to.
8. Jews pray with their faces turned toward Jerusalem, Muslims pray facing Mecca. If they are between Jerusalem and Mecca so their faces and their backs to Jerusalem to Mecca.
9. Arab and Jewish Refugees? In 1948 – Arab leaders of the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel, promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
10. Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab countries because of violence, persecution and pogroms of the Arabs.
11. Number of Arab refugees who left in 1948 – Israel is estimated about 630,000. Number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.
12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed in the Arab countries, despite the huge area. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees in the world since World War II, they are the only team not absorbed or integrated into their countries. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no bigger than New Jersey.
13. The Arab – Israeli Conflict Arabs have eight states, not including Flstin. There is only one Jewish state. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.
14. The PLO’s Charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel has given Lflstinayem most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Authority, and has supplied them with weapons.
15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were moved and Jews were denied access to them. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.
16. Israel and the Arabs at the UN: Of the 175 Security Council resolutions 1990, 97 were against Israel.
17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions up to 1990, 429 were against Israel.
18. The UN was silent when destroyed 58 synagogues in Jerusalem by the Jordanians.
19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and Western Wall.
These are terrible times. We must ask ourselves what should be our role. What will we tell our grandchildren that we did as a turning point in Jewish destiny, an opportunity to influence?
