Abbas welcomes 'comrade' Putin in Ramallah

Russian leader signals he's ready to resume Moscow's role as Palestinians' chief patron

JERUSALEM -- In what could mark the rebirth of a Cold War alliance of interests, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered aid and military equipment yesterday to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who welcomed the Russian leader as "a precious friend and comrade."

Capping off his historic tour of the Middle East, which included the first visit by a Russian or Soviet leader to Israel and the Palestinian territories, Mr. Putin made it plain that he wants Moscow to resume its historic role as chief patron to the Palestinians.

Mr. Putin, who was greeted in Ramallah by a crowd chanting his name, offered helicopters and communications equipment to Mr. Abbas. He also promised help in training Palestinian security forces, and said Russia would aid in rebuilding the impoverished Gaza Strip after the planned withdrawal of Israeli soldiers and settlers this summer.

"Today, when the Palestinian people -- under your leadership -- have a real chance of finding solutions to the problems they have faced for many decades, we all have to make additional serious and energetic efforts in order to support you," Mr. Putin told Mr. Abbas during a joint news conference. The Russian leader is the first foreign head of state to visit Mr. Abbas since his election.

The two helicopters would be primarily used to transport Mr. Abbas, replacing the one that belonged to his predecessor, the late Yasser Arafat. The Israeli military destroyed Mr. Arafat's helicopter in 2001.

Mr. Putin made no public mention of 50 armoured personnel carriers that he reportedly plans to give Mr. Abbas to help him confront militants challenging his rule. That deal effectively died when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon informed Mr. Putin during their meeting on Thursday that he would not allow the vehicles to cross Israeli-held territory.

The left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported yesterday that Israel has also rejected a proposal from the United States to arm the Palestinian police.

"If we expect Chairman Abbas to fight terrorism effectively, he can't do it with slingshots and stones. We must understand this," Mr. Putin said.

Tensions were high in the West Bank and Gaza yesterday, a day after Mr. Abbas pledged to use an "iron fist" to enforce a ceasefire reached earlier this year. Palestinian security forces arrested two members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in connection with rocket attacks this week on Israeli settlements in Gaza.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union provided political, economic and military support to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Arab countries hostile to Israel, which was backed by the United States.

Many analysts suggested that Mr. Putin's goal on his Middle East trip is to help Russia regain that historic influence and rebuild his reputation as a statesman after a string of foreign-policy disasters, including the recent pro-Western popular uprisings in the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.

The upbeat talks in Ramallah followed a rockier visit to Jerusalem, where Mr. Putin jousted with Israeli leaders over his government's decision to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and its continuing support for Iran's nuclear program. The Russian leader also visited Egypt.

Mr. Abbas, who made the Kremlin his first overseas stop after his election, seemed keen to embrace Russia as a potential broker in the region and threw his support behind Mr. Putin's suggestion that a Middle East peace conference could be held this fall in Moscow. Israel and the United States have rejected the idea.

"We are glad to see our precious friend and comrade," said Mr. Abbas, who speaks some Russian and studied at Moscow State University. "Your visit is a historic event reflecting the deep historical connection, strong friendship between the peoples of Russia and Palestine."

The two men spent a moment of silence together at Mr. Arafat's tomb, where Mr. Putin laid a wreath.

Palestinian commentators were hopeful that Moscow, although no longer a superpower, could somehow balance Washington's perceived pro-Israeli policies.

"We say to Putin and his policy: Welcome to a country whose people still suffer from the occupation's injustice and that of the U.S. monopoly over deciding the world's destiny," columnist Muhammad al-Nubani wrote in the al-Quds newspaper.

"...a country whose people still suffer from the occupation's injustice..."

In politics words matter and, unfortunately, the misuse of words applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict has shaped perceptions to Israel's disadvantage. As in the case of the term "West Bank," the word "occupation" has been hijacked by those who wish to paint Israel in the harshest possible light. It also gives apologists a way to try to explain away terrorism as "resistance to occupation," as if the women and children killed by suicide bombers in buses, pizzerias, and shopping malls were responsible for the plight of the Arabs. Given the negative connotation of an "occupier," it is not surprising that Arab spokespersons use the word, or some variation, as many times as possible when interviewed by the press. The more accurate description of the territories in Judea and Samaria is "disputed" territories.

In fact, most other disputed territories around the world are not referred to as being occupied by the party that controls them. This is true, for example, of the hotly contested region of Kashmir.

Occupation typically refers to foreign control of an area that was under the previous sovereignty of another state. In the case of the West Bank, there was no legitimate sovereign because the territory had been illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Only two countries — Britain and Pakistan — recognized Jordan's action. The Palestinians never demanded an end to Jordanian occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state.

It is also important to distinguish the acquisition of territory in a war of conquest as opposed to a war of self-defense. A nation that attacks another and then retains the territory it conquers is an occupier. One that gains territory in the course of defending itself is not in the same category. And this is the situation with Israel, which specifically told King Hussein that if Jordan stayed out of the 1967 war, Israel would not fight against him. Hussein ignored the warning and attacked Israel. While fending off the assault and driving out the invading Jordanian troops, Israel came to control the West Bank.

By rejecting Arab demands that Israel be required to withdraw from all the territories won in 1967, the UN Security Council, in Resolution 242, acknowledged that Israel was entitled to claim at least part of these lands for new defensible borders.

Since Oslo, the case for tagging Israel as an occupying power has been further weakened by the fact that Israel transferred virtually all civilian authority to the Palestinian Authority. Israel retained the power to control its own external security and that of its citizens, but 98 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza came under the PA's authority. The extent to which Israel has been forced to maintain a military presence in the territories has been governed by the Palestinians' unwillingness to end violence against Israel.

More about the "Occupation"

Revisiting the Six-Day War/ Joseph Farah, Feb 3, 2003

Occupation, occupation, occupation.

If you listen to Arabs, that's the cause of the conflict with Israel – occupation.

They blame all their ills – from refugees living in squalor for the last 50 years to Yasser Arafat's bad breath – on the so-called Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Arabs say the Israelis grabbed this real estate in a war of aggression in 1967. In fact, Israel did not start that war. Israel did not want that war. Israel merely defended itself – very, very effectively – from coordinated attacks by Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Arafat's terrorists.

This is not opinion. This is fact. A friend of mine, Sol Jacobs, did something very simple – something very obvious – to document this fact, which seems to elude so many today. He went back and looked at what newspapers were reporting about the crisis before June 5, 1967 – before there was any alleged "Israeli occupation."

Here's what he found on his month-long timeline leading up to the Six-Day War:

On May 7, the New York Times reported Syria had shelled the Israeli village of Ein Gev.

On May 17, the New York Times reported that the Palestine Liberation Organization, headed by Arafat, pledged to "keep sending commandos" into Israel.

On May 19, the Los Angeles Times reported Egypt stood accused of using poison gas in Yemen.

On May 19, the New York Times reported Egypt had deployed its forces along the Israeli border.

On May 20, the New York Times reported Egypt forced U.N. peacekeeping troops to leave the Sinai Desert in anticipation of its attack on Israel.

On May 21, the New York Times reported Egyptian soldiers were massing in the Sinai.

On May 22, the New York Times reported that the PLO would be stepping up its attacks in Israel, that Cairo was calling up 10,000 reserves and that Iraq would be sending aid to battle Israel.

On May 23, every newspaper in the world reported that Egypt took the provocative action of closing the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel.

On May 24, every newspaper in the world reported that the U.S. declared Egypt's military blockade of the gulf "illegal."

On May 25, the New York Times reported that Jordan would admit Saudi and Iraqi forces into its country to do battle with Israel.

On May 27, every newspaper in the world reported Egypt's fiery threats to destroy Israel.

On May 29, the New York Times reported the Egyptian buildup of military forces in the Sinai was continuing.

On May 29, the Washington Post reported that despite all of this provocation, Israel was still reluctant to have a showdown with its enemies.

On May 29, the New York Times reported new Syrian attacks on Israel.

On June 3, the New York Times reported that Britain declared the Egyptian blockade could lead to war. It also reported that four Syrian commandos were intercepted in Israel.

On June 5, 1967, the Six-Day War began. Israel rolled up all of its enemies faster than anyone would have believed. It took control of East Jerusalem from Jordan. It took control of Judea and Samaria on the west bank of the Jordan River from Jordan. It took control of the Golan Heights from Syria. And it took control of the Gaza Strip and Sinai Desert from Egypt.
You can read these news reports for yourself thanks to the work of Sol Jacobs.

Clearly, the so-called "occupation" of these territories came about as a result of Arab war-making on Israel. Israel merely defended itself well. Israel also proved it was willing to give these territories back to neighbors who would live in peace with the Jewish state, as demonstrated with the return of the Sinai to Egypt.

All of this raises a few questions: If Israel is occupying those territories today, who was occupying them until 1967? If the West Bank and Gaza belong to "Palestinians," why were they under the control of Jordan and Egypt until June 5, 1967? If Arab "Palestinians" just want their own state, why didn't they ask for it before 1967?

And, lastly, why is it, according to many of these articles written in 1967, that when the Arabs talked about "occupied territories" then, they meant all of Israel?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.