Moments after the most recent of the brutal bus bombings targeted against Israelis, the one that has so far claimed eight innocent lives and wounded over 60, the Palestinian prime minister issued a statement.
In three terse sentences, this is what Ahmad Qurei’, better known as Abu ‘Ala, said.
Sentence # 1:
“We denounce this act which was carried out by Palestinians and which harmed innocent civilians.”
Sentence # 2:
“This attack caused damage to Palestinian interests generally, and it was particularly [damaging] due to its timing, prior to the discussions of the International Court of Justice in the Hague.”
Sentence # 3:
“We call on the government of Israel to take immediate steps to attain a cease-fire, and to put an end to the violence.”
The statement was not intended for internal Palestinian or Arab world distribution. It was a formal statement sent to the foreign and Israeli press corps. It was issued for diplomatic purposes so that the United States and Europe could see that Palestinian leadership had officially denounced the terrorist attack.
But did they really?
Ever since he was appointed, I have been following the statements and evaluating the message sent out by Prime Minister Qurei’. I have yet to figure out why he has not yet even been called to task, let alone censured by the international community, for his absurd public statements.
Let’s analyze the official Palestinian reaction to an act of terror carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber within Israel.
On first read, the first sentence sounds as if it really is a total rejection of the bus bombing. The words “denounce” and “innocent” are used, even if “bus” or “suicide” are not. But also missing are several very important words, words that would have made the statement more meaningful like “terror”, “horror”, “murder”, “killed”, words that would have been appropriate to the context of the “act” which was after all, a bomb that not just “harmed” but murdered eight people.
The second sentence uncovers the motivation behind the statement. The PA is not expressing a rejection of the murder of innocents because it is intrinsically wrong, rather, they “denounce this act” only because it damages Palestinian interests. Their interests have been done “damage”, the statement makes clear, in two ways, in general and in specific. The timing was bad. Specifically, the prime minister actually says that the eve of discussions at the Hague was a bad time to murder Israelis. The conclusion, the clear implication, from this part of the statement is reprehensible. Is there a better time to murder innocents? Obviously, if you are the Palestinian prime minister, yes, there is. Also note the use of the word “this” – this act, not “any” act – as an indicator of true feeling and outlook.
And then there is the third statement, “We call on the government of Israel…” This statement actually calls on Israel to take steps to end the violence and attain a cease-fire. Does he just think that the rest of the world is easily fooled?
Israel is doing everything it can to prevent terrorists from murdering innocents – Israelis, Arabs, foreign workers and tourist visitors – in its cities. They have been remarkably successful, but still, terrorists slip in and turn Israel’s streets into war zones.
The irony is that the PA, i.e Abu ‘Ala i.e. Arafat, actually believes that this statement is a compromise and that they are fulfilling the expectations of the Western world by condemning “the act”, or at least, by mouthing the words.
Never ever to this day has the Palestinian Authority publicly expressed rejection of an attack because it is wrong.
Even independent Palestinian intellectuals have been reluctant to call for the immediate cessation of the murder of individuals. In the summer of 2002, 100 Palestinian intellectuals signed an ad printed in Palestinian papers calling for terror to stop. Why? Because, they wrote, it does not help achieve our aims. Talk about intellectual dishonesty!
Talk about political doublespeak and hypocrisy! The world’s eyes have to be open, so do their ears – and then, perhaps, we will hear their collective voice.