WE'VE MOVED! IsraPundit has relocated to Click here to go there now.
News and views on Israel, Zionism and the war on terrorism.

May 01, 2003


Abu Mazen was careful to say that he will confiscate "illegal" weapons,
which sounds good enough.

However, Abu Mazen's call would not include weapons issued by the PA to the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad as per an agreement that the PA reached with both organizations on May 9th, 1995.

While the Voice of Israel Radio had reported at the time that the PA was going to confiscate their weapons, the agreement reached at the time was that the weapons in the hands of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be defined as "legal", so long as they were registered with the Palestinian
Authority. When then-PA minister of Justice Freich Abu Meidan was asked about the dangers of the Hamas or Islamic Jihad using the weapons against Israel, his answer was that he hadgotten "assurances that they would keep their weapons at home".

When Abu Mazen also called for the end of Israeli settlements, something which rings well with the west and with some of those in Israel who advocate the idea of "territories for peace", he also invoked the PLO definition of "illegal" settlements, to include all "illegal" settlements that replaced Arab villages and Arab neighborhoods that were lost in 1948.

Abu Mazen made that clear by specifically mentioning the "right of return" to these villages in the platform that he presented to the PLC...

That definition of "illegal settlements" would include Shderot, Kibbutz Metzer and most of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Abu Mazen's denunciation of "terror" fell far short from calling from a call to Arabs to stop murdering Israelis. Throughout the years, the PLO has never defined its actions as acts of terror.

And when Abu Mazen referred to Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian State, he madespecific reference to all of Holy Jerusalem, and not to the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.

We might call this the Abu Mazen Double Entendre - He provides the buzz words for the world to think that he is a reasonable man of peace and compromise, while providing the substance of a message for his people who understand every word of compromise in a totally different context.