We are all well aware by now that the Palestinian narrative is nothing but that – a narrative, and a fictional one at that. You will therefore not be surprised to learn that Palestinian condemnations of terror attacks are also nothing but a pack of lies, as we are told by arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat’s former bodyguard:
As Palestinian Authority president, Yasser Arafat’s public condemnations of terror attacks against Israeli civilians were lies born of Egyptian pressure, his ex-bodyguard said.
In an interview with BBC Arabic last week, newly translated by media watchdog group MEMRI, Muhammad Al-Daya said that Arafat “would condemn the bombing in his own special way, saying: ‘I am against the killing of civilians.’ But that wasn’t true.”
The denouncements were not issued of Arafat’s own volition, Al-Daya explained, but were rather the result of badgering by the then-Egyptian president.
“This would happen due to pressure, especially by President Hosni Mubarak,” he said. “Mubarak would call Arafat and say to him: ‘Denounce it, or they will screw you.’ Arafat would say to Mubarak: ‘Mr. President, we have martyrs. The [Israelis] have destroyed us. They have massacred us.’ But Mubarak would say to him: ‘Denounce it, or they will screw you.’”
These lies were in no way opposed to Islamic law, Al-Daya continued.
“Islam allows you to lie in three cases: In order to reconcile two people,” he said. “If your wife is ugly, you are allowed to tell her she is the most beautiful woman alive. The third case is politics. You are allowed to lie in politics.”
Someone else who proves that a Palestinian’s words mean what they want them to mean, rather than their proper meaning, is the Black September terrorist hijacker Leila Khaled who in an interview quite openly pushed for taking the deadly intifada to “a new level”. How it could have been any worse is a mystery to me but read her vile words:
The leader of the 1970 ‘Black September’ airline hijacking, Leila Khaled, who has become a global terror icon, said the failure of the violent Intifada, called as a reprisal against Israel at the end of the 2000 peace process, was only because its leaders were “not brave enough” to take their violence to the next level.
In an interview flagged by blogger Elder of Ziyon on Tuesday, Khaled, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, was asked , “what does peaceful and non-violent resistance means for someone like yourself, who chose armed resistance as a mean for liberation?”
She responded: “Resistance takes more than one face. It can be all kinds of resistance. Non violent and violent. I am ok with those who choose non-violence. We are not going to liberate our country by armed struggle only. Other kinds of resistance are necessary. The political one, diplomatic one, the non violent one. We need to use whatever we have got.”
“We chose armed struggle. We did not achieve our goals. Then the Intifada broke out and the whole world took us seriously. We gained the support of people all over the world. Still, we did not reach our goals because the leadership was not brave enough at that time to escalate the Intifada, to take it to another level.”
Khaled led the 1970 midair hijacking of El Al Flight 219, on which her accomplice, Patrick Arguello, killed a passenger and was ultimately shot to death by Israeli Sky Marshals. Khaled and Arguello brought handguns and grenades onto the flight, brandishing both as they attempted to break into the captain’s quarters. Rather than give in to their demands, the Israeli captain sent the Boeing 707 into a nosedive, forcing the two terrorists, who were standing, to lose their balance, allowing the crew and passengers to subdue them. Khaled was arrested, but then released in a prisoner exchange for the 310 civilian hostages kidnapped by her fellow PFLP members, who had hijacked four other planes they landed at air strips in Jordan, and in Cairo. As a show of strength, they subsequently blew up the three empty jets.
Elder of Ziyon described the interview as shameless. The interviewer, he said, “has not the slightest discomfort when Khaled says that blowing up buses and restaurants was not enough for her.”
“But at least we learned one thing from the terrorist Khaled,” the blogger wrote. “When ‘pro-Palestinian activists’ say ‘popular resistance’ it does not necessarily mean ‘non-violent resistance.’”
The habit of lying for political gain continues in the form of lawfare and BDS. The latest weapon with which the anti-Israelis hope to delegitimize Israel is the Myth of the Thirsty Palestinian, which is thoroughly analysed and debunked by Akiva Bigman of the Mida news site, writing in the Tower. It’s a fairly lengthy article from which I’ll only post a small excerpt. Read it all and save it for use against the lying propagandists:
According to critics of Israel, the Jewish state selfishly exploits the area’s water supplies and denies access to the local population. In doing so, the critics say, Israel is not only abandoning its responsibilities to the West Bank Palestinians, but ruthlessly and illegally abusing the natural resources of the occupied territory. This idea has become extremely widespread in the international media, and was recently voiced from the Knesset plenum by the President of the European Parliament, Herman Schultz, causing a minor scandal in Israel and abroad.
As with all attacks on Israel, the truth is much more complicated and, to a great extent, precisely the opposite of what the critics claim. When one examines the relevant data, it becomes clear that, under Israeli rule, the Palestinian water supply has become larger, more technologically sophisticated, of higher quality, and much easier to access; almost entirely due to Israeli efforts.
The truth is, most of the claims made against Israel on this issue are nothing but empty propaganda. They are based on claims that are simply untrue and/or based on a lack of basic knowledge of the topography of Israel and the West Bank. The latter in particular often creates total confusion in regard to everything connected to the legal issues surrounding West Bank water sources, and especially its important underground aquifers.
To avoid such confusion, this article is largely based on statistics published by the Israeli Water Authority, and research by Professor Haim Gvirtzman, a hydrologist from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Hopefully, it will give a much more accurate picture of one of the most contentious disputes in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In terms of per capita consumption, there has also been substantial improvement. In 1967, per capita consumption stood at 93,000 liters per year. In 2006, it stood at 129,000 liters per year, close to the average in Israel proper—170,000 liters per year.
Even after the Oslo Accords, Israel continued its involvement in the Palestinian water system. According to the Accords, Israel is required to supply 31 million cubic meters per year to the Palestinians. It seems, however, that Israel has exceeded this by a considerable degree. According to statistics published by the Israeli Water Authority in 2012, Israel has added no less than 53.3 million cubic meters per year to the Palestinian water supply.
Read the rest of the statistics which clearly prove Israel’s case. Bigman concludes:
The issue of water rights, supplies, and infrastructure, is perhaps the most glaring example of illegitimate criticism. On this issue, fact and context have been entirely dispensed with in order to make Israel look as bad as possible. In fact, as has been demonstrated above, Israel’s record on water issues is a good one; it has consistently acted within its rights and according to accepted legal conventions. Moreover, it is clear that the Palestinians’ record is a bad one; and it is they, not Israel, who have failed to live up to their obligations under international law.
That Israel is so consistently blamed for this problem is especially problematic because it makes it less likely that the Palestinians will deal with it themselves. As shown above, the Palestinians have the ability to both live up to their obligations under international law and solve their existing water problems in doing so. The money, technology, and knowledge they need all exist and are available to them from both foreign and Israeli sources. That the Palestinians have either chosen not to avail themselves of such aid or cannot do so effectively due to internal problems is tragic, but it is not the fault of the State of Israel.
A similar finding was reached in the thesis of Lauro Burkart, the Swiss graduate of the Institute of International and Development studies in Geneva, who concluded that the Palestinians use the water issue as a political weapon:
The facts disseminated by the Palestinians, international organizations and donors about the root causes of the water scarcity in the West Bank are incorrect.
Burkart writes: ‘It is not the Israeli occupation policy but the Palestinian political resistance against joint management and cooperation that is responsible for the relatively slow development of the Palestinian water sector and the deteriorating human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories’ and ‘There is convincing evidence of mismanagement within the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA).’
Again, I recommend you read the entire article.
In fact I wrote about the subject of Palestinian water theft and false accusations of Israeli water theft back in 2012. I mentioned an article by the pro-Israel activist organization CoHaV who wrote a water report which is still recommended reading today.
This all leaves us the huge problem of having to explain ourselves and defend ourselves in the international courtroom against completely fabricated charges. With the ears of a willing world happily attuned to the Palestinians’ lies, what should or can Israel do? Is ignoring them all an option?