I’m reposting this because Mr. Elegant’s comparison of Palestine to Frankenstein’s monster is perfect. They are both confused and violent messes, straight from nightmares, who we are asked to sympathize with. The words “Palestine” and “Frankenstein” nearly rhyme too!

Upon reading this, I noted ‘Egyptian President Nasser” and a less populous Gaza. So I wrongly believed the paper predicted Black September. Thanks to Sabine at TTSUFI, I found the actual publish date was Sun, 19 September 1970. The paper is still accurate, even if not prolific.

I do not agree that militants have beautiful dreams. I’m not a Maoist. I believe in nonviolence. However, Elegant speaks of a fact that’s been hard to deny for 50+ years: Palestine is a threat to the entire Arab world. This identity is such a clear threat, that aside from scapegoating Israel and Zionism on Al Jazeera and Arab media outlets, Arab leaders have rarely aided these terrorist groups. Palestinian leaders hoard Billions. Today, terror orgs like Hamas and Islamic Jihad rely on Iran’s Islamist forces, Assad relies on Russia, and the idea that ‘Palestine is a good cause worth fighting for’ is propped by naive, faux-progressives, who would surely detest the misogynistic, homophobic Islamist society they chant for, G-d forbid it became sovereign.

This decades old post reminds me of the question I often ask, but never get an answer for: Which group are the supporters actually trying to free? Do they even differentiate the Arabs from different tribes, of different religions, wanting different political systems? There’s many warring terrorist orgs defining Palestine. Like, this post is so old, there is mention of the Christian Arabs. Today, an honest person might note that Christians are not part of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Martyr Brigade’s vision of eden, and actually have a lot to lose from a Palestinian state. Palestinians want to enforce sharia law (see PLO, Fatah and Hamas covenants), have led to the demise of Christians within Gaza, and are moving from an ethnic conflict to religious.

The author claims “moderate militants” are willing to accept an Israeli state while “radicals” will not. I’m not sure why he believes moderates, like Abbas, are honest when, once every few months, they backpeddle and acknowledge they need Israel’s help when fighting ISIL and “I cant believe it’s not ISIL” groups. Truly no modern Palestinian advocates give the disclaimer, “We only support the moderate militants! You can murder Jews in East Jerusalem and Ariel, but not in Tel Aviv or Beer Sheva.” On the contrary, Palestine supporters have become quantifiably more violent, chanting blood thirsty slogans about Islamic end time prophecies. If there ever really was a “moderate militant,” evidence of them is hard to find today.

While BBC and NPR label terrorist attacks in Tel Aviv as “resistance,” ask what is being resisted. The death cult claims they’re resisting “apartheid” and “genocide,” via murdering civilians. Fifty years ago people like Mr. Elegant wrote how violence does not soften, but rather solidifies, fear. Meaning, as this paper points out, the purpose of the Palestinian identity is to create fear and resist peace itself.

Found via “Time To Stand Up for Israel” (TTSUFI) LinkedIn. Please follow and like their works:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/ttsufi/
Article: https://timetostandupforisrael.com/2023/04/20/palestinian-guerrillas-must-be-faced-cannot-be-controlled/
Original text of republication in The Durham Sun from Durham, North Carolina: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/786626404/

I wanted an image for this repost. I found “Frankenstein in Baghdad” by Ahmed Saadawi, which is well worth a read. Source: https://readingproject.neocities.org/BookReviews/FrankensteinInBaghdad_AhmedSaadawi

Arabs Have Created Frankenstein

Palestinian Guerillas Must Be Faced. Cannot Be Controlled—

Author: Robert S. Elegant; Washington Post-Los Angeles Times News Service

CAIRO--The Arab states are discovering they have created a Frankenstein's monster. Whether there is peace or, more likely, war in the Middle East, Palestinian guerrilla organizations will be a new force Egypt, Syria, Iraq and, certainly, Jordan cannot control. The Palestinian revolutionaries actually will threaten those states.

The most unstable element in international -- or internal -- politics is human beings driven by volatile emotions and grand aspirations. Should peace come, the greatest irritant will be the irredentist Palestinian revolutionaries Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser created in his own revolutionary days.

If the war of attrition resumes, wearing down both Israel and the Arab states, the guerrillas could--presumably--be most useful to the Arab governments. The presumption is, however, somewhat flawed. Since the best organized and most dedicated Palestinians are true revolutionaries, they spontaneously threaten all established societies.

Despite Palestinian leaders commuting to Cairo and Egyptian subsidies flowing to the Palestinians, their ultimate interests and Nasser's are antipathetic. The Palestinians know Nasser would sacrifice their fundamental aspirations for a peace settlement on his terms. Cairo knows that Palestinian radicals want nothing less than total alteration of Arab society. Nasser, the great revolutionary and leader of all Arabs against Israel, thus finds his chief glories preempted.

A remarkable phenomenon has been creation of a highly politicized, Maoist, nucleus among the most bourgeois element in the Arab world -- the Palestinians. Legitimate grievances, exacerbated by hardship in refugee camps, have made idealistic Palestinian youths a new force which appalls their elders—as it does other Arabs. The force has not only found its outlet in terrorism, but has espoused an ideology dedicated to destroying all 'established societies.'

The immediate question of some 2.5 million Palestinians is but the cutting edge of the radicals' challenge to the entire Middle East. But it leads inexorably to the greater question of the future of the Arab world -- and Israel.

Ideologues abound among Palestinians, some pedestrian, some brilliant, but all highly articulate. Discussions with moderate and radical ideologues demonstrate both the issue's scope and its intensity.

The moderates' solution would be most acceptable to Cairo, if it were attainable. They envision a Palestinian state including: The Gaza Strip, with 360,000 inhabitants, the West Bank of the Jordan River, with 600,000 inhabitants, both conquered by Israel in 1967--and the present Hashemite kingdom of Jordan, with some 2.3 million, including 400,000 Palestinians.

The moderates, characteristically, do not explain how that state can be created without territorial unity, without dividing Israel's northern region from the Negev to create a connecting corridor, thus sundering the nation created in 1948. Unlike the radicals, the moderates accept Israel's existence. Like the radicals, they feel King Hussein's Jordan must be ingested by the Palestinian state.

The radicals go still further, territorially and ideologically. Their Palestinian state must include not only the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Jordan, but all present Israel. Their state would be socialist and pluralist--unlike capitalist., exclusive Israel.

"What of the Jews in Israel?" one asks.

The quick and plausible has been deeply pondered: "We envision true union with the Jews, a state in which Arabs—Moslem or Christian—and Jews will live in equality. Ours is the opposite of the aggressive Zionist mystique, which creates the anti-semitism it purports to dispel. Even our young children now understand. They say they hate Israel, but the Jews are their brothers."

Logic stumbles when one points out that Israelis are hardly enthusiastic about vague promises of security in a utopia run by their avowed enemies. "Then they must be forced to accept Israeli opinion must be softened by continuing pressure!{“} The ideologue finally dismisses the observation that pressure normally solidifies, rather than "softens" fear.

The ultimate rationale is a total change in "bourgeois state relationships, internal and external." By the same token, the Popular Front of the Liberation of Palestine excludes the "petty bourgeoisie" from the "revolutionary struggle" of "proletarian" guerrillas and demands "revolution" against the kingdom of Jordan. A Maoist state would, presumably, follow—itself rapidly becoming vested "bourgeois" interest.

The "Palestinian problem" is replete with ironies. The best educated, most "bourgeois" element, ensconced in banking, the professions and technology, has produced the most radical movement in the Arab world. The longer war continues, the stronger the radicals become, threatening not primarily Israel, but established Arab states. The Soviet Union, chief purveyor of arms to the Arabs, is considered "social imperialist," and the Chinese inspiration is clear. Finally, radical Palestinians envision an "Arab renaissance," though their doctrine specifically excludes such narrowly racist and nationalist concepts.

The ultimate irony: Jordan, doomed in any event, and Egypt, have both formally acknowledged Israel's right to exist within the boundaries established in 1948. But both have formally renounced responsibility for controlling the guerillas, who will not accept Israel's existence on any terms. If it were truly unable to control the guerrillas it created and still susidizes, Cario could not possibly offer any peace settlement Jerusalem could accept.