The Palestinian unity government has finally been assembled, and with it comes an interesting set of opportunities.
I have to admit I was mistaken a year ago. I was quite convinced that the Hamas government would not be able to sustain itself against the massive opposition it faced.
With the EU, UN, and most of the Arab world joining Israel and the US in boycotting the Hamas government, and with Fatah working hard to both confront Hamas on the ground and undermine them in the government, I believed and predicted that the Hamas government would not survive the summer.
In fact, they did, and the unity government just assembled marks a major victory for them. Immediately after their election last year, Hamas called for a unity government with Fatah, an offer Fatah considered and refused. Fatah’s acceptance of it now shows they have given up trying to regain power by undermining Hamas or confronting it militarily, at least for the time being.
Fatah missed a golden opportunity in the past year. They had a real chance to position themselves to take control of the Palestinian government in the next elections, if only they would have actually addressed the issues of corruption and weakness that led to their defeat in 2006. But they did not reform their way of doing things, and so have done little to restore their once-dominant popularity.
According to an International Crisis Group report last month, Hamas has actually suffered in the public eye during their time in office. The obvious negative, of course, is the simple fact of international isolation. People may not blame Hamas for the response of the world to their election, but they still understand that the international community would be much friendlier to them if Hamas were not in power.
But more important, according to the ICG report, is the increasing favoritism Hamas has been showing to its own members in terms of distribution of goods and pay. And although Hamas has not embarked on a major campaign of Islamicization of Palestinian society (traditionally one of the most secular in the Arab world), there has been some move in that direction. Examples include a trend among restaurants away from serving alcohol, discouraging of belly dancers and a marked increase in women wearing head coverings (the recent attempt to ban a book from schools for perceived, but very light, sexual implications is another example).
Fatah completely failed to capitalize on these opportunities. If they continue to try to move forward without reforms to restore popular confidence in them, other secular parties will emerge to supplant them further, while Hamas and other Islamic parties will continue to grow in strength.
The significance of the unity government extends well beyond the Fatah-Hamas competition, of course. Israel’s response has been consistent and swift: the Olmert government has rejected any contact with the Palestinian cabinet or Legislative Council, although it is willing to continue to deal with Mahmoud Abbas.
But even this stance is going to be difficult for Israel to maintain. The international consensus on the ban of aid to the Palestinians is already cracking in significant ways. Norway immediately announced it was restoring normal relations with the PA and France called for an easing of the sanctions. While the rest of the European Union has indicated it is not about to follow suit, they have all welcomed the unity government and are considering ways to resume aid to the Palestinians. Even Britain has stated it will resume contacts with “some ministers.”
The Arab world, naturally, is united in support of the unity government. Brokered by Saudi Arabia, the call for support for this government and a lifting of the sanctions, is being led by Egypt, meaning the two closest Arab allies of the US are spearheading this attempt to end the PA’s international isolation.
The US is not even following the Israeli line completely on this one. Although it is standing firm on the ban on aid, the Bush Administration has indicated that it is considering resuming contacts with non-Hamas ministers in the government. The early attempts by Israel to paint the unity government as “Fatah joining Hamas,” implying that Fatah was adopting the Hamas ideology and therefore Israel would not even talk with Mahmoud Abbas have clearly failed.
But this is not the end of the challenge to Israeli intransigence on this issue. In fact, it’s only the beginning.
At the end of this month, the Arab League will meet in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. They are expected to re-issue the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan at that meeting. The plan is expected to be essentially unchanged from its 2002 version, and numerous voices within the Israeli mainstream have supported exploring talks on the basis of that plan. There will be a full analysis of the plan in this space once it is re-issued.
The new unity government represents a real opportunity for the Olmert government. As part of the unity platform, Hamas has agreed to let Abbas manage negotiations with Israel and abide by the decision of a referendum of the Palestinian people regarding any deal Abbas strikes.
The Olmert government has characterized this as a Hamas “veto power,” something it quite clearly is not. Instead, it means that Israel can negotiate a deal and know right away whether or not it has popular Palestinian support. An agreement which does not have such support is doomed to failure. Moreover, an attempt to push through a deal which is not popularly supported on either side runs the risk of igniting violence rather than stopping it.
Israel has always expressed a fear that a peace agreement would only lead to their dropping their guard and being more vulnerable to attack. But a peace agreement approved by the Palestinian masses could not possibly be such a smokescreen (even if we allow that such a concern is credible). Thus, this arrangement should be exactly what Israel wants.
Despite maintaining a strong coalition at the moment, Ehud Olmert is as unpopular right now as any Israeli leader has ever been. His time in office has been marked by blunders and popular despair and hopelessness. An easing of the restrictions on the Palestinians, the commencement of negotiations and an acceptance of a truce that Hamas has proposed as a challenge to both sides to maintain quiet could boost his popularity. With his already declining support facing further erosion as more judgment is being passed on his handling of the Lebanon war last summer, Olmert has few other options to boost his popularity.
Olmert would be wise to take this opportunity, one it seems he is going to let pass by.
” . . .With the EU, UN, and most of the Arab world joining Israel and the US in boycotting the Hamas government . . ”
Let me see if I understand. The U.S., Israel and most of the E.U. has decided to withhold funding to the Arab government of Palestine. That is what is being referred to as a “boycott”? Am I missing something? Mr. Plitkick, I have decided NOT to send you any free money. Would I then be “boycotting” you?
BTW:
Ehud Olmert is finished and it doesn’t matter what he does. He only assumed control upon the incapacitation of P.M. Sharon and so his position is akin to Gerald Ford. BiBi is likely to take power next.
My personal opinion is that the offer made by P.M. Barak is probably still viable, less the $30 billion in aid offered up by Clinton. If Hamas is willing to swallow that pill, then, a chance for a peace deal exists. However, who is running what show is the least relevant of all the issues (at least until the next U.S. inauguration) though this subject occupies the largest portion of your post. Contrary to the popular feeling by the bloggers herein, the U.S. election may wind up being decided on the basis of who is the most Jew-friendly. And no, APAC will not be puppeteering this election either. The Support Israel has is mainly the result of “meat-and-mashed-potatoes” American voters, who do less double-speaking and more “Judge-Judy” listening and have repeatedly concluded that the Israelis deserve U.S. support on their merits.
I don’t support everything the Israelis do but enough of this charade. All they want is to be left to live a reasonable and peaceful life. That is all they have ever wanted. Are they audacious? Yes. Are they arrogant? Often. Are they annoying? Most of the time. Are they responsible for the sad state of the Mid East? NO. That was imposed on them and (with noted exceptions) the Israelis have been the bigger victims.
I would LOVE to see a peace agreement and even better, one that was adhered to. Why? For one thing to end the bitter suffering of all the people on the ‘front lines’. But as a close second, it would help to Aleve my relentless social-incarceration, as a hook-nosed, assertive so-called Jew. Being an Arab in the United States is presently unfashionable due to the events of 9-11. Being a Hebrew is unfashionable due to each-and-every other day. Which is the biggest reason why there may never be any peace agreement. Such would remove the primary stigma of being Jewish and hence, may not be in the world’s party-planner.
the offer made by P.M. Barak is probably still viable
Along the same lines (link courtesy of MJ Rosenberg at TPM Cafe):
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/839139.html
Let’s be clear. The boycott of the PA is not restricted to aid funds. Diplomatic contacts have all but disappeared. Tax monies due to the PA are being withheld by Israel. Banking contacts between the PA and other countries have been severely restricted. Imports and exports have been severely curtailed. As a result economic development is non-existent and the Palestinian population is being plunged ever deeper into a humanitarian morass. Israel, the USA and other countries have all described the sanctions as a boycott. Condaleezza Rice has referred to the boycott on many occasions:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/770820.html
Sounds like a boycott to me.
Mr. Plitkick, I have decided NOT to send you any free money. Would I then be “boycotting” you?
Some people have stopped giving to The United Way because it has in some cases cut off funding to The Boy Scouts. Those people have organized a “Boycott The United Way” campaign to urge others to do the same thing. The word means “to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with.” So, yes, the term applies to the situation with the PA.
Fred:
What Dr. Rice says only seems to make sense (or be truthful) to you when she (rarely) agrees with your position.
Of course the actions of Israel could correctly be described as a “boycott”. That point was never at issue.
You said:
“Banking contacts between the PA and other countries have been severely restricted.”
How so? What countries? What ‘restrictions’ (if any)?
You wrote:
“Imports and exports have been severely curtailed.”
Well, imports might be functionally curtailed for lack of (PA) spending money. That would NOT constitute a “boycott”. As far as exports: Do you have any specific examples? Again, not counting Israel — as I have acknoledged that their actions DO constitute a per-se “boycott”. Re: “Diplomatic contacts:” This sounds like jive talk. “Palestine” is not even a nation. Their officials still get way more then their share of air time and print in the U.S. media. The only “boycott” I keep hearing about is the “boycott” of Israel, which has been ongoing (by Arab and Muslim nations) since 1947 and promoted through a network of colleges throughout the entire world. Also encouraged by this web site. If you can show that exports from PA have been blocked by traditional customers, due to sanctions, then, you may have a point. If you can show concrete actions to prevent legitimate banking, then, you may have a point. Even then, if one or two odd countries were engaged in such official sanctions, you might only have a fractional point. So far, you only have provided “tag lines”.
Have a nice day.
Isador – Let’s start with banking. Since March 2006 the USA and Israel have cooperated in issuing regulations that forbid the transfer of funds to banks in the PA without government authorization. The sanctions not only deny aid monies from donors, and tax funds from israel due to the PA, but also thwart governments outside the Quartet, NGOs and businesses from transferring funds to PA banks. A recent Reuters report has the details:
http://www.alertnet.org/printable.htm?URL=/thenews/newsdesk/L14410573.htm
I also do business with the PA, and it has been extremely difficult since Israel refuses to allow funds to be transferred from Israeli banks to banks in the PA and vice-versa between legitimate businesses. Israel also imposes high tariffs on goods coming into the country from the PA, making the Palestinian economy captive to Israel by its control of imports and exports. Palestinians are therefor held hostage to the Israeli economy through the drain of scarce resources which flow to Israel.
Isador wrote: As far as exports: Do you have any specific examples?
yes I do. My Palestinian business partner and I have been consulting with a manufacturing company near Ramallah to try and help them distribute their products in Israel. However in view of Israel’s prohibitive import taxes, 60%, it seems to be near impossible to bring these products a few miles into Israel and be competitive with European imports. This story is true for countless other products in Palestinian areas. Israel imposes low tariffs on raw commodities such as quarried stone but high tariffs on finished stone products for example. This protectionist policy is strangling the Palestinian economy, along with the boycott and sanctions. It is also fueling smuggling across the Green Line which receives little attention from the media, and can only help create a climate of unlawful activity. Every day one sees unmarked Israeli trucks bouncing over dirt roads in o the West Bank to meet up with Palestinian counterparts smuggling canned goods, cigarettes, clothing, and other everyday trade goods. And no, the ‘Security Barrier’ does not stop this flow of goods.
The Palestinian economy shrunk 21% in the 4th quarter of 2006 as a direct result of these Israeli policies.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/830389.html
Isador wrote: Re: “Diplomatic contacts:” This sounds like jive talk. “Palestine” is not even a nation.
I think the ‘jive talk’ is in your court on this one. Palestinians may not have a sovereign state, but they Palestinian people are a nation. Also, accredited Palestinian officials have diplomatic status in most countries of the world including the USA. International diplomatic status is accorded many groups and peoples who do not represent a sovereign state. Vatican or UN officials for example. In addition to the PLO, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (go figure) is a non-member state with status at the UN.
Shabbat Shalom
“Palestine” is not even a nation.
Thanks to Israel. What chutzpah.
Lets clarify:
(If that is even helpful to the variety of Prop-Ministers)
The original statement by Mitchell Plitnick (from the above posting) which I took issue with said:
“With the EU, UN, and most of the Arab world joining Israel and the US in boycotting the Hamas government, . . ”
I challenged the accuracy of this allegation. I did not debate that Israel was engaged in an outright “boycott”. However, Mr. Plitnick had asserted that this alleged “boycott” (per-se) was also being conducted by the EU and the UN. Here is where I took issue and as of today, no one has provided much by way of details, that would refute my initial assertion.
Fred replied:
“Let’s start with banking. Since March 2006 the USA and Israel have cooperated in issuing regulations that forbid the transfer of funds to banks in the PA without government authorization. The sanctions not only deny aid monies from donors, and tax funds from Israel due to the PA, but also thwart governments outside the Quartet, NGOs and businesses from transferring funds to PA banks.”
But we are back to the original complaint I had made about the original allegation, namely that stopping of sending of CASH DONATIONS does NOT constitute a “boycott”, as it was being used in Mr. Plitnick’s posting.
The web link quoted by Fred stated:
“The Quartet — the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — has demanded that the Palestinian government recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by interim peace deals if it wants direct AID TO RESUME. The banking restrictions will make it difficult for Arab and European donors to SIDESTEP THE YEAR OLD AID EMBARGO and send money directly to the unity government, which is expected to win parliamentary approval on Saturday.”
This clip also DOES NOT describe a “boycott” in the traditional sense that the author of the web post intended it. Again, withholding of free cash payments is NOT a typical “boycott”. It is a denial of rewards and benefits. NOT a denial of basic liberties. Therefore, the word “boycott” was (in my opinion) being mis-applied.
Fred goes on to say that Israel has done ‘this’ and ‘that’, of which I have no factual dispute.
Fred further writes:
“The Palestinian economy shrunk 21% in the 4th quarter of 2006 as a direct result of these Israeli policies.”
But he is (again) arguing with someone other then myself.
Fred concludes:
“Palestinians may not have a sovereign state, but they Palestinian people are a nation. Also, accredited Palestinian officials have diplomatic status in most countries of the world including the USA. International diplomatic status is accorded many groups and peoples who do not represent a sovereign state. Vatican or UN officials for example. In addition to the PLO, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (go figure) is a non-member state with status at the UN.”
OK. Assuming this above statement is 100% accurate, where is the list of “denials” of “diplomatic” contacts, earlier alleged by Fred when he wrote:
“Diplomatic contacts have all but disappeared”
He provides no specifics, let alone any reference points.
I only debated part of the blanket allegation of an internationally led “boycott” of the PA. No one has succeeded is posting anything to refute my specific allegations. I could still be true, I just still doubt it and no proof has been offered to the contrary.
I have not heard of any denials of diplomatic (PA) relations involving the EU or Russia, nor have I heard of any specifics wherein the EU or Russia has stopped purchasing goods from the PA. They may have stopped sending cash in return for nothing but back to my first statement:
Cash for nothing is not a human right and therefore, would not constitute a standard “boycott”.
The PA should have well expected a “boycott” from Israel, so there is no surprise there, nor is there any debate from me. I was unhappy with the general tendency for Israel-bashers to habitually overstate their cases, while profoundly understating Israel’s rights and its case.
The truth will set you free.
Sadly, freedom may not be a goal on all your respective addenda’s.
I try to be precise and accurate. When I am not sure, I am clear that something stated is my belief and am open to being proven wrong (sometimes I would actually appreciate it). When wrong, I am willing to admit it. None of these methods seem to be in great abundance herein.
John Baker wrote:
“Thanks to Israel. What chutzpah.”
Do me a favor, if your not Jewish, please refrain from using Jewish vernacular.
When’s the last time you went up to a Black guy and said:
“Yeau blood . . word to the momma”?
Didn’t think so.
not Jewish
Former university instructor in Hebrew. You choose your words; I’ll choose mine.
…would not constitute a standard “boycott”.
Actually “boycott,” though appropriate, is too mild a term. It’s a euphemism. “Siege warfare” would be far more apt a description, considering that the economic reprisals fall in an overall context of oppression by Israel and considering the effect Israel intends these measures will have on people living in the occupied territories, namely the creation of a humanitarian crisis sufficient to cause surrender and “transfer” (Verlagerung).
John Baker:
1. “chutzpah” is Yiddish, not Hebrew.
2. Choose words as you like, I tell you that the words you choose are patronizing and therefore insulting.
3. If it were just me you were intending to insult, I could better understand and easier retort. You are insulting an entire culture. You could have easily said “gall” or “balls” or “audacity” or any other of dozens choices. Your selection of Yiddish was deliberate and can not be explained, except as an analog to a white guy using the term “wampum” when negotiating a business matter with a Native American.
Lastly, while on the subject:
To quote from Shimon Perez:
“I told the Mufti he can have his Palestinian State” (quote Circa — 1946).
You said:
“Thanks to Israel. What chutzpah.”
The Mufti was a close Ally to Adolph Hitler and was clearly in favor of worldwide Jewish eradication. In any other set of conditions, (involving ethnic groups OTHER then Jews) he would have been summarily hung. He was in fact on the list of Nuremburg war criminals. Instead, the Jews offer him peace, forgiveness, forget-ness and his very own ‘Palestinian-Arab’ state where none had ever existed before and where according to international treaty law, all of that land belonged to the Jewish people of the region.
Real “Kühnheit,” Professor.
Khutspe is Yiddish. Chutzpah is Hebrew (and English). It fits. You denigrate and dismiss Palestine for not yet being a nation, yet Israel has done everything it possibly could to prevent that very thing from happening. Chutzpah.
Get over the Mufti, OK? He was a jerk but no war criminal. He was no more “a close ally” to Hitler or Himmler than was Yitzhak Shamir. Wannabe Nazi collaborators, both of them. The Mufti was not listed in the index of war criminals at Nuremberg. Unknown. You are repeating one of Dershowitz’s fabrications. If he was a war criminal why didn’t the Israelis abduct him and put him on trial like Eichmann? Don’t believe everything you read in Dershowitz’s book.
John Baker:
I have not read Dershowitz’ new book, but I have read many others on the subject. Quotes will be forthcoming.
You wrote:
“yet Israel has done everything it possibly could to prevent that very thing from happening.”
Israel has done everything it could to facilitate it, except for including Israel itself in that Arab state.
Many many WW2 war criminals were never procecuted due to various factors, including the need for the “West” to co-opt some of these people. 900 Japanese were hung for war crimes on Guam alone. How many people were tried in Nuremburg?
I have read many others
Ah yes, the sources Dershowitz plagiarized no doubt. Spare us, please. There is no “there” there. No one cares about the Mufti, for crying out loud. Stop derailing the thread.
John Baker Wrote:
“No one cares about the Mufti, for crying out loud. Stop derailing the thread.”
John, in case you hadn’t noticed . . . There is no thread. This is the “thread”. Also, thanks (again) for speaking on behalf of all cyberspace. You are a ‘Cybernetic Hero’, just like ‘robot’ in “Lost in Space”. And equally lost.
Guys like yourself are experiencing profuse PMS right about now because your “Great Black hope”, namely Barrack Obama is beginning to answer questions about his position on Israel and its not ringing happy in your ears. Heck, by election day, I may vote for him while you boycott, because in your mind Nader is a ‘Reactionary’ too. Chavez already has a job, so he is outa the running for U.S. President. So I empathize and understand your intense frustration. Nonetheless, you should not hate ME for it.
Back to business.
The Mufti is pertinent because he was the first Arab official to be offered a 2-State solution and the first to reject it. It pertains EXACTLY to your statement about Israel being the party responsible for the denial of such a solution. Many other such offers have been made by Israel and each has been rejected by the Arabs.
In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world.
The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”1
In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches….The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely….the Jews….” Hitler replied:
“Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine….Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle….Germany’s objective [is]…solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere….In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2”
In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.
The Husseini family continued to play a role in Palestinian affairs, with Faisal Husseini, whose father was the Mufti’s nephew, regarded until his death in 2001 as one of their leading spokesmen in the territories.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
It should be noted that the reference above states that both the Mufti and Hitler were aware of the already existing legal status of the Jewish National Homeland, prior to the end of WW2.
Also see:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/mufti.html
and
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitq2.html
&
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mufti.html
and lastly:
http://www.truthpeace.zoomshare.com/album/TruthPeace%2006-2006%20WANY%2c%20HIMMLER/images/8da776cea39cb740e9db9d7ba823dd82_11532256250/:album?css=/lib/style/type_album.css&css=/lib/style/couriernew.css
What the Israelis are engaged in is “counter genocide”, not genocide. While the two concepts may have certain inherent similarities (as do many mirror-opposites), it takes a creative mind (like yours) to fully confuse them.
John Baker Wrote:
“No one cares about the Mufti, for crying out loud. Stop derailing the thread.”
John, in case you hadn’t noticed . . . There is no thread. This is the “thread”. Also, thanks (again) for speaking on behalf of all cyberspace. You are a ‘Cybernetic Hero’, just like ‘robot’ in “Lost in Space”. And equally lost.
Guys like yourself are experiencing profuse PMS right about now because your “Great Black hope”, namely Barrack Obama is beginning to answer questions about his position on Israel and its not ringing happy in your ears. Heck, by election day, I may vote for him while you boycott, because in your mind Nader is a ‘Reactionary’. Chavez already has a job, so he can’t run for U.S. President. So I understand and empathize with your intense frustration. Nonetheless, you should not hate ME for it.
Back to business.
The Mufti is pertinent because he was the first Arab official to be offered a 2-State solution and the first to reject it. It pertains EXACTLY to your statement about Israel being the party responsible for the denial of such a solution. Many other such offers have been made by Israel and each has been rejected by the Arabs.
In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world.
The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”1
In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches….The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely….the Jews….” Hitler replied:
“Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine….Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle….Germany’s objective [is]…solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere….In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2”
In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.
The Husseini family continued to play a role in Palestinian affairs, with Faisal Husseini, whose father was the Mufti’s nephew, regarded until his death in 2001 as one of their leading spokesmen in the territories.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
It should be noted that the reference above states that both the Mufti and Hitler were aware of the already existing legal status of the Jewish National Homeland, prior to the end of WW2.
Also see:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/mufti.html
and
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitq2.html
&
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mufti.html
and lastly:
http://www.truthpeace.zoomshare.com/album/TruthPeace%2006-2006%20WANY%2c%20HIMMLER/images/8da776cea39cb740e9db9d7ba823dd82_11532256250/:album?css=/lib/style/type_album.css&css=/lib/style/couriernew.css
What the Israelis are engaged in is “counter genocide”, not genocide. While the two concepts may have certain inherent similarities (as do many mirror-opposites), it takes a creative mind (like yours) to fully confuse them.
John Baker Wrote:
“No one cares about the Mufti, for crying out loud. Stop derailing the
thread.”
John, in case you hadn’t noticed . . . There is no thread. This is the
“thread”. Also, thanks (again) for speaking on behalf of all cyberspace.
You are a ‘Cybernetic Hero’, just like ‘robot’ in “Lost in Space”. And
equally lost.
Guys like yourself are experiencing profuse PMS right about now because your
“Great Black hope”, namely Barrack Obama is beginning to answer questions
about his position on Israel and its not ringing happy in your ears. Heck,
by election day, I may vote for him while you boycott, because in your mind
Nader is a ‘Reactionary’. Chavez already has a job, so he can’t run for
U.S. President. So I understand and empathize with your intense
frustration. Nonetheless, you should not hate ME for it.
Back to business.
The Mufti is pertinent because he was the first Arab official to be offered
a 2-State solution and the first to reject it. It pertains EXACTLY to your
statement about Israel being the party responsible for the denial of such a
solution. Many other such offers have been made by Israel and each has been
rejected by the Arabs.
In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler,
Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted
to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world.
The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy
to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to
declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. Furthermore, “they
accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the
problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in
accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the
question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”1
In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his
foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a
declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not
right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had
always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he
had given clear expression in his public speeches….The Arabs were
Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany,
namely….the Jews….” Hitler replied:
“Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally
included active opposition to the Jewish national home in
Palestine….Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs
involved in the same struggle….Germany’s objective [is]…solely the
destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere….In that
hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world.
The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2”
In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his
role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in
the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention
in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and
later Beirut. He died in 1974.
The Husseini family continued to play a role in Palestinian affairs, with
Faisal Husseini, whose father was the Mufti’s nephew, regarded until his
death in 2001 as one of their leading spokesmen in the territories.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
It should be noted that the reference above states that both the Mufti and
Hitler were aware of the already existing legal status of the Jewish
National Homeland, prior to the end of WW2.
Also see:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/mufti.html
and
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitq2.html
&
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mufti.html
What the Israelis are engaged in is “counter genocide”, not genocide. While
the two concepts may have certain inherent similarities (as do many
mirror-opposites), it takes a creative mind (like yours) to fully confuse
them.
the Mufti…the Mufti…the Mufti…the Mufti
Zzzzzzzzzz
John:
REVOLE Sleeping beauty!
“In a speech delivered before American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists in Chicago, {Sen. Barak} Obama revealed a strongly pro-Israel platform. He said the US must preserve “total commitment to [its] unique defence relationship with Israel,” and work to stop Iran’s nuclear programme even if military action is necessary
According to YnetNews.com, a news monitoring blog, in a powerfully pro-Israel speech, Obama said that Israel and the United States do not have the luxury to ignore the exhortations of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and “no option, including military action, (should be taken) off the table” in the effort to stop Iran’s nuclear armament. Regading the Middle East peace process, Obama declared that Israel should never feel “dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table” by the United States.
He told an audience of hundreds of AIPAC lobbyists, “The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment programme and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.”
Even though all options were on the table, Obama said, the utmost efforts should be devoted to “sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions”. He stressed the importance of preventing Iran’s nuclear armament, which could lead weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorists, inevitably causing other Middle East nations to join the race for nuclear weapons. “To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy,” he said.
Obama also said pressure must be applied to Egypt to crack down on the smuggling of weapons and Iranian money into the hands of terrorists in the Gaza Strip. “We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defence relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defence programmes. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza,” he said.
Obama said that “when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself”. He said, “For six years, the administration has missed opportunities to increase the United States’ influence in the region and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security she needs. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities.” He added that in the end, “we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests”.
–End of quote
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p1age=2007%5C03%5C07%5Cstory_7-3-2007_pg7_7
Old news, bad link. Here’s the link you want:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3371763,00.html
I don’t know where you’re going with this Obama story, but at least you’re off of the Mufti and the Arabs=Nazis meme.
John:
It may be “old news” to you but I have been making my (observational) statements (on the subject) for weeks, unknowing that confirmation was available through a well targeted web search. Feel free to disbelieve me (I would likely disbelieve you were the roles reversed) but my earlier “PMS” comments were complete conjecture, which is why I did not post any quotes or links with them. Later, I checked the news section of the Jewish Virtual Library and found nothing on point. A broader web search uncovered the pertinent story. But I had felt the effects of the news before I knew of the story, per-se. Just as (it is my contention) that certain Jews can sense their own hatred, it is almost as easy to sense that hatred begin to abate.
It is done through a daily ‘tally’ of the facial expressions and eye contacts one experiences and also, some fine tuned perception of whom these expressions and contacts are with. In my explanation, the ‘test group’ were mainly younger people (college to 30) and especially ‘hippy’ types. I knew something significant had changed. (I also saw a recent TV picture of Jimmy Carter who looked like he just saw a ghost.)
And the story in question is significant indeed.
A portion of Obama’s support base was due to people who’s sole rationale was his almost assumed “crackdown” on those evil Hebrews.
After all, Mr. Jesse Jackson was behind him, as was Mr. Al Sharpton. He was the darling of the far left. He has both a Middle-Eastern name and (partial) Muslim heritage.
Lets see if this support begins to erode. Let’s see if Ralph nadir changes his promise that used to be: If Hillary winds the primary, he will run. Lets see if he now (either) includes Mr. Obama or else, (just as effective) starts the process anyway, before the Democratic primary.
Moreover, to certain groups of people, there is NO OTHER news story of any importance, except for the alleged genocide of the Palestinian-Arabs and the alleged continued confiscation of their rightful homelands – at the hands of the World’s puppet-masters, Israel and its U.S. (fifth column) double ‘secret agents’, “AIPAC”. To this group (of mainly indoctrinated college students) a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would only rate a passing mention. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan might briefly catch their attention. But the loss of Mr. Obama from their one-and-only worthwhile cause? A complete reorientation of reality. (BTW: do you know anyone like that John?)
To this I only say:
Thank-ya — Halleluiah Jeeeeeesus!
I had a dream . . . and when I woke, it was real.
“It may be “old news” to you but I have been making my (observational) statements (on the subject) for weeks”
In fact, I believe it was mentioned by Michael several threads back. Anyway, as far as not “imposing a solution” (= making Israel listen to reason), don’t get your hopes up. Bush seems poised to do just that now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/world/middleeast/25diplo.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Let me see if I can fix all this italics text which started with my post
Is that better?
This is way off topic but a fascinating aside into Israeli politics.
Apparently our very own government fascist, Minister Avigdor Lieberman, has proposed that Israel extends the right to citizenship and possession of an Israeli passport to Jews abroad who have never stepped foot into the country. he’d like to start with some of his wealthy cronies in Russia. I wonder what non-Jews in the USA would make of a phenomenon of American Jews snapping up Israeli passports while still living in the USA? Full story at:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=841464&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1
“we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests.”
Bush, OTH, appears poised to do just that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/world/middleeast/25diplo.html_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
A portion of Obama’s support base was due to people who’s sole rationale was his almost assumed “crackdown” on those evil Hebrews.
Huh? Sez who? Seriously, you are in Fantasyland.
Obama’s support base is mostly made up of people who, in contradistinction to the one-and-only-issue members of AIPAC, have almost no interest in his positions on Israeli-Palestinian policy but are interested instead in what Obama can do for the U.S.A. in terms of getting us out of Iraq, protecting us from terrorists, saving our environment, helping Americans get health insurance for their kids, and keeping illegal immigrants from over-running the borders. He is after all running for President of the United States, Isidore. Hello?
You apparently saw his Islamic name and starting making assumptions based on that. (Aha. Muslim background. Must be a Jew-hater, etc.)
Now, God help him if he ever utters a word of criticism against Israeli policy.
Fred, the article says the people in question are ineligible for Israeli citizenship according to current law. Why is that?
John – Like most countries, Israel currently requires Jews to take up permanent residence in Israel before granting citizenship. Unlike most countries, anyone (Jewish) who does take up residence is eligible for an Israeli passport almost immediately. I obtained my passport after living here for less than a month. Of course this right is not extended to non-Jews.
Lieberman’s proposal would extend the right to hold an Israeli passport to Jews who do not intend to live in Israel.
As a result, de-facto, every Jew in the world would hold dual nationality. This is essentially the case right now, but residence in Israel is a requirement.
Fred
I see. Thanks.
So, Lieberman has this in mind as a way to beat “the demographic demon”? (“…de-facto, every Jew in the world would hold dual nationality.”)
John:
I wrote:
A portion of Obama’s support base was due to people who’s sole rationale was his almost assumed “crackdown” on those evil Hebrews.
You replied:
“Huh? Sez who? Seriously, you are in Fantasyland.”
You actually deny that there are one-issue voters, who’s one issue is the perceived persiquition of Palestinian-Arabs by none other then the Israelis and their agents in the form of American Jewery?
Do you further deny that Mr. Obama, due to several reasons, was their darling?
Me in fantacy land? You are likely one of the people so described.
The reasons, BTW are not limited to his name. His partial Muslim heritage, which I mentioned on an earlier subject and one of your JVP vultures instantly injected that I had (allegedly) said that this fact should disqualify Mr. Obama from running. Of course, I never said that. But the fact that it would seem to be a natural correlation runs both ways. If the logic works for me (who never said it at all) then it should certainly work for one who DID say those words.
Moreover, Mr. Barak is a ‘liberal’ African-American from (of all places) Chicago, where anti Jewish and anti Israeli feelings traditionally run DEEP. Chicago, BTW was the unoffical HQ for the American Nazi party prior to WW2. Its also where famous anti-Jew reverand Cogland was from, where Robert Novak is HQ and many other, similar examples.
Jesse Jackson wasted no time embracing Mr. Barak.
For all these reasons and others, I contend that the average Obama supporter would have assumed that he was going to shun AIPAC, basically mirror the sentiments of Jimmy Carter and tell those uppity Hebrews whatfore. Its not a scientific conclusion but a sensible one nonetheless.
As for Bush-W: He may be feeling like a ‘jilted lover’ on his own clock and I did not read the Times article because it requires a subscription and I frankly don’t care what the NY Times has to say, as they will soon enough be out of business, just like Bush.