A Palestinian Communiqu Against Martyrdom Attacks

MEMRI ^ | 6-25-02

[SJackson]

On June 19, 2002, the Palestinian daily Al-Quds published a communiqu

[SJackson]

And the response Professor describe critics of martyrdom operations as “agents of the West ”

Occupied Jerusalem - A leading Palestinian academic in the West Bank has strongly criticized a group of leftist leaders who this week signed a petition calling for a reconsideration of martyrdom operations against Israel.

Prof. Abdul Sattar Qasem described the petition as “unbalanced” and “designed to please the West.”

“They said virtually nothing about Palestinian civilian victims of Israeli state terror. This alone undermines the credibility of this petition.”

Qasem, a professor of Political science at al Najah University in Nablus, accused the petitioners of being “more answerable to their European financiers than to the Palestinian public opinion.”

“I can say that those signers are among those who have not been harmed or tormented by the evil of the occupation. They can travel around, they can move freely, and many of them receive salaries from Western aid institutions, hence their views are not very credible.”

[DonQ]

This article indicates that the terms of the petition were revised. Evidently the first version condemned only attacks on Israeli "civilians" (a category that seems not to include whoever can be called a "settler") and only if the attack is within the 1948 borders - but expressly excluded criticism of killing Jews, of any age or condition, in the West Bank, Old Jerusalem, etc. This revised version appears to omit those specifications.

But, this is worth keeping in mind, it is not clear if the signatories who have been named would have approved of the removal of those restrictive expressions. In fact, it's not clear if this "revision" is the same text that's actually being circulated in the Arabic world or if it's just a sugar-coated version intended only for the Christian world to see.

[hchutch]

You know, it's sad that those with a conscience are dorwned out by the jihadists.

The only example left is for Israeli to completely roll in and to break down the current governing structure. At this point, a Palstinian state is not going to happen for thirty years at the minimum.

[goldstategop]

The communique does not condemn homocide bombings on principle. It condemns them only for political, tactical, and humane reasons. In other words the signatories are against homocide bombings not because they disapprove of the mass murder of Jews but because for the present it harms the Palestinians interests. The flip side of the coin it if it served Palestinian interests, no condemnation would have been issued. So contrary to the claims of the Israeli Extreme Left, Israel does not really have any "moderate" Palestinian peace partners. In any event the PLO leadership has disowned them.

[Hugin]

"Why don't you direct your arrows at the real causes of hatred and enmity? Or do you think we must agree to the occupation and its actions?... Oh signatories to the communiqué supported by the Euro – I remind you that the Palestinian people is supported by blood."

As usual, the Arabs love their grievances more than they love their children.

[SJackson]

The communique does not condemn homocide bombings on principle. It condemns them only for political, tactical, and humane reasons. In other words the signatories are against homocide bombings not because they disapprove of the mass murder of Jews but because for the present it harms the Palestinians interests.

And when they feel it serves their purposes again, the attacks will continue. It's a morally bankrupt position.

[SJackson]

The communique does not condemn homocide bombings on principle. It condemns them only for political, tactical, and humane reasons. In other words the signatories are against homocide bombings not because they disapprove of the mass murder of Jews but because for the present it harms the Palestinians interests.

And when they feel it serves their purposes again, the attacks will continue. It's a morally bankrupt position.

[SJackson]

The communique does not condemn homocide bombings on principle. It condemns them only for political, tactical, and humane reasons. In other words the signatories are against homocide bombings not because they disapprove of the mass murder of Jews but because for the present it harms the Palestinians interests.

And when they feel it serves their purposes again, the attacks will continue. It's a morally bankrupt position.