Economist: Abbas has “rejected violence” since 2005

The Economist weighed in on the US president’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital with a Dec. 7th article titled  “Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital makes peace less likely”.  The piece reinforced the media’s gloom and doom narrative over the the implications for the peace process following US recognition, suggesting that Palestinians may now feel they have ‘no alternative’ than to engage in violence.

This leaves the Palestinians isolated, a sentiment palpable on the streets of East Jerusalem this week. They feel abandoned not only by America but by the Arab world and even by their own senior leaders. Jawad Siam, a local leader in Silwan, an Arab neighbourhood of Jerusalem, has harsh words for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. “Abbas is always saying there is still a chance for diplomacy and now Trump is making Abbas very small in front of his people.” Ever since his election in 2005, Mr Abbas has rejected violence and called upon his people to pursue statehood through diplomacy. Now the calls from within the Palestinian national movement for a return to intifada, ie, a violent uprising, are growing.

The claim that Abbas has “rejected violence” for the past 12 years mirrors a popular but completely erroneous media theme about the Palestinian movement since the death of Yasser Arafat – one repeated recently by former Secretary of State John Kerry.

However, the facts tell a different story.

Whilst his Fatah Party, and countless Palestinian officials, continually incites terror against Jewish civilians, Abbas himself, despite calling for peace at times in English, routinely (in Arabic) glorifies Palestinian terrorists who committed deadly attacks, and has sent messages to Palestinian society encouraging more violence.

Here are just a few examples:

In 2014, he gave a speech promoting violence in the name of Islam.

That same year, he told Palestinians to use any means necessary to prevent Jews from “defiling” Muslim holy places.

In September, 2015, Abbas hailed Palestinian rioters on the Temple Mount, saying any blood spilled in “defense” of the holy site was “pure.”

The following month, Abbas gave a speech justifying violence related to the Temple Mount, including the murder of Israelis, as a legitimate ‘defense’ of al-Aqsa.

In 2016, he praised as a “martyr” a young Palestinian woman who attempted to kill an Israeli soldier in a car ramming attack, writing “We see in her a martyr who watered the pure earth of Palestine with her blood,”

In July 2017, he encouraged ongoing violent rioting over al-Aqsa, even after Israelis removed controversial metal detectors from the Temple Mount which were installed following a deadly terror attack on the compound.

Bottom line: The Economist’s claim that the Palestinian President has “rejected violence” since 2005 fails to pass even the most minimum critical scrutiny. 


Categories: Economist

Tagged as: ,

44 replies »

  1. The Economist believes murder of Israelis is non-violence, War is Peace, Hate is Love. Orwell would be proud.

  2. Abbas seems to be of the mind if he says one thing in English it doesn’t mean the same thing in Arabic and after all he can lie to infidels and be righteous. Why would anyone believe him? Sure liberals want to believe he’s two faced and lying in Arabic; idiots.

  3. Jerusalem has always been the capital city of Israel, and the USA recorded such many years ago. So what’s the problem? Mrs May, for example, get with the programme. muslims will never agree to peace until they rule the world; if they have days of rage, so what, that’s what they do? muslims are violent, deceitful and followers of some deity who thinks he’s akhbar. Well, they’re in for a very warm introduction to reality. But for most of them it’s not too late for them to repent and recognise Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. That’s not the same as becoming a Roman Catholic or Church of England Protestant, it means being a follower of what our Lord taught when he was alive.

  4. “Now the calls from within the Palestinian national movement for a return to intifada, i.e., a violent uprising, are growing.”

    The PA called for 3 days of rage. You know, these idiots at these British newspapers are under the illusion that they are siding with “the people,” i.e., “the little guy,” when in fact they’re just helping these malevolent leaders lead them down the path to destruction and violence.

  5. Obviously, the Economist feels that incidents regarded as Terrorism elsewhere in the world, should be regarded as noble acts of resistance when the victims are Israeli.

    That’s not to say the Economist is an anti-Semitic shitrag or anything. I’m just suggesting they’re a bit misguided.

  6. Not a word about the extensive security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority? Your ‘reporting’ is as selective as the Economist’s.

  7. Palestinian/Arab/Muslim ‘rage’ is just so awful. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed in Syria/Iraq/Yemen over the past 5 years. No ‘days of rage’. No ‘million-strong’ demonstrations of ‘outraged Muslims’ on London streets..

    As a group, Palestinian/Arab/Muslims are such hypocrites.

  8. Abbas has worked for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Arab state for his entire career. This is a far more salient point than the suspect claim that he rejects violence.

  9. When I lived in Israel, there were regular calls for Days of Rage, i.e. riots. There were also calls for Days of Prayer, Reflection, Learning, and Cooperation but these rarely received media coverage and sometimes were canceled due to threats of violence. These days of rage are nothing new. They produce nothing but dead bodies. And the caravan moves on.