PA on the edge as opposition to talks with apartheid Israel widens

[P F Tinmore]

Security forces loyal to the Western-backed Palestinian Authority (PA) on Friday stormed the southern West Bank town of Dura, assaulting civilians and laying siege to two large Mosques.

The forces, which were riding brand-new vehicles "donated" by the United States, and carrying the official trademark of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) prevented people from accessing the Grand Mosque in town Center, before storming the mosque in order to prevent Sheikh Nayef Rajoub, a popular Islamic leader, from giving the traditional pre-sermon dars or homily.

The storming of the town of Dura and assault on the mosques has infuriated local citizens who called PA troops "servants of Israel" and "Dayton soldiers."

Rajoub, a former Minister of Wakf and Islamic Affairs, is one of the most popular Islamic leaders in the West Bank. His popularity however, has been a source of anxiety to the Fatah-controlled government whose Wakf Minister, Muhammed al Habbash, last week issued an order barring Rajoub from preaching or giving Islamic lectures at the Mosques.

Rajoub rejected the order, calling it "incompatible with Islam."

During the 2006 elections, Rajoub received more votes than any other candidate in the Hebron District.

However, due to his popularity, the Israeli occupation authority targeted him with harsh persecution, throwing him in jail for nearly 50 months on concocted charges, such as supporting a militant organization.

Some Palestinian and Arab experts are convinced that American and Israeli satisfaction with the PA depends largely on the extent to which the PA is willing to impose restrictions on Islamic activism in occupied Palestine.


On Wednesday, PA security forces violently thwarted a meeting in Ramallah organized by liberal and leftist intellectuals who were planning to hold a press conference to declare their opposition to what they view as a capitulation by the Ramallah leadership to American and Israeli dictates.

The violent repression of dissent, which has been stepped up in recent days and weeks, is being viewed as a bad omen by most Palestinians.

Palestinians are worried that the PA might resort to harsh tactics to impose an unpopular "peace deal" with Israel that would effectively liquidate the Palestinian cause by selling out or sacrificing such paramount Palestinian rights as Jerusalem and the right of return for million of Palestinian refugees uprooted from their homes and villages in what is now Israel.

PA on the edge as opposition to talks with apartheid Israel widens

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are simply amazing. You are worse then a terrorist. You spout bullshit about peace and then post this. You do not want peace, you want Israel to be destroyed and do not want Palestinians to come to any peace deal.

Any time it even comes close you do as the terrorist do and attack the process. Fuck you and your dumb ass ignorant views. You should go join up and put your body where your mouth is you coward.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The important part of the article is the Palestinians are getting tired of Abbas and his gang. Abbas has already been kicked out of Gaza and his popularity is taking a dive in the West Bank. His policies are those of Israel and the US and those policies are a detriment to the rights of the Palestinians. There is a growing call for his removal.

Abbas is an important part of the occupation. The US has given him hundreds of millions in money, training, and weapons for the purpose of working in coordination with Israeli forces. If, probably when, Abbas is removed all that will be turned loose in Palestine, free for the taking.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The important part of the article is the Palestinians are getting tired of Abbas and his gang. Abbas has already been kicked out of Gaza and his popularity is taking a dive in the West Bank. His policies are those of Israel and the US and those policies are a detriment to the rights of the Palestinians. There is a growing call for his removal.

Abbas is an important part of the occupation. The US has given him hundreds of millions in money, training, and weapons for the purpose of working in coordination with Israeli forces. If, probably when, Abbas is removed all that will be turned loose in Palestine, free for the taking.

In other words you want war. You do not want peace. You are advocating for the Pals to dominate. You WANT war and the destruction of Israel. So much for your claims of peace and wanting a resolution. You simply do not want a peace that does not include the destruction of Israel.

Thanks for proving it.

 

[georgephillip]

Facts are stubborn things...

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with "minor and mutual modifications," to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas). A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend the session. The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar.

"There was one important and revealing break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Clinton recognized that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any Palestinians. That December, he proposed his "parameters": imprecise, but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, while expressing reservations."

If you became convinced the above quote was historically accurate, would that change your opinion regarding which side in this conflict truly wants peace?

A Middle East Peace...

 

[rhodescholar]

Facts are stubborn things...

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with "minor and mutual modifications," to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas). A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend the session. The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar.

"There was one important and revealing break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Clinton recognized that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any Palestinians. That December, he proposed his "parameters": imprecise, but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, while expressing reservations."

If you became convinced the above quote was historically accurate, would that change your opinion regarding which side in this conflict truly wants peace?

A Middle East Peace...

Uhhhh, did any of those "offerings" include the transfer of 5 million arab descendants of the original arab muslims who left the area during the 1948 war?

Why let facts get in the way of your fucking BS?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The important part of the article is the Palestinians are getting tired of Abbas and his gang. Abbas has already been kicked out of Gaza and his popularity is taking a dive in the West Bank. His policies are those of Israel and the US and those policies are a detriment to the rights of the Palestinians. There is a growing call for his removal.

Abbas is an important part of the occupation. The US has given him hundreds of millions in money, training, and weapons for the purpose of working in coordination with Israeli forces. If, probably when, Abbas is removed all that will be turned loose in Palestine, free for the taking.

In other words you want war. You do not want peace. You are advocating for the Pals to dominate. You WANT war and the destruction of Israel. So much for your claims of peace and wanting a resolution. You simply do not want a peace that does not include the destruction of Israel.

Thanks for proving it.

The fact that Israel is in Palestine and the Palestinians do not want it there has been the major, or perhaps the only, source for the conflict.

In 2007 the US armed Fatah to the teeth in Gaza so that Abbas could remove the elected government and put the losers (Fatah) back in power. The US coup failed leaving all those weapons in the hands of Hamas.

Now the US is arming Fatah again in the West Bank to keep Abbas in power even though his term in office expired in Jan, 2009. Virtually every political faction in the West Bank is moving away from Abbas now that they are seeing who he really is.

It seems that the retards in our government are too stupid to learn from their own mistakes. Who is going to get all those weapons when Abbas gets the boot?

 

[georgephillip]

Facts are stubborn things...

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with "minor and mutual modifications," to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas). A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend the session. The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar.

"There was one important and revealing break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Clinton recognized that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any Palestinians. That December, he proposed his "parameters": imprecise, but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, while expressing reservations."

If you became convinced the above quote was historically accurate, would that change your opinion regarding which side in this conflict truly wants peace?

A Middle East Peace...

Uhhhh, did any of those "offerings" include the transfer of 5 million arab descendants of the original arab muslims who left the area during the 1948 war?

Why let facts get in the way of your fucking BS?

The right of Palestinians to return to their homes or receive compensation for their loss was written into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (12/10/1948) and then spelled out more explicitly in UN Resolution 194 that passed unanimously the next day.

If you're still confused...ask Hillary.

 

[rhodescholar]

The right of Palestinians to return to their homes or receive compensation for their loss was written into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (12/10/1948) and then spelled out more explicitly in UN Resolution 194 that passed unanimously the next day.

Asshole, how many of those displaced in 1948 are still alive?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The right of Palestinians to return to their homes or receive compensation for their loss was written into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (12/10/1948) and then spelled out more explicitly in UN Resolution 194 that passed unanimously the next day.

Asshole, how many of those displaced in 1948 are still alive?

They do have heirs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Facts are stubborn things...

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with "minor and mutual modifications," to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas). A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend the session. The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar.

"There was one important and revealing break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Clinton recognized that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any Palestinians. That December, he proposed his "parameters": imprecise, but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, while expressing reservations."

If you became convinced the above quote was historically accurate, would that change your opinion regarding which side in this conflict truly wants peace?

A Middle East Peace...

Uhhhh, did any of those "offerings" include the transfer of 5 million arab descendants of the original arab muslims who left the area during the 1948 war?

Why let facts get in the way of your fucking BS?

The right of Palestinians to return to their homes or receive compensation for their loss was written into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (12/10/1948) and then spelled out more explicitly in UN Resolution 194 that passed unanimously the next day.

If you're still confused...ask Hillary.

The Palestinians say that any peace agreement must comply with international law and UN resolutions.

Israel will have no part of that.

 

[georgephillip]

Israel and the US prove once again that war is a racket that will only end when all unearned war profits are taxed into extinction.

I don't see the slightest possibility of that happening as long as Republicans and/or Democrats control the US congress.

Wall Street Rules.

 

[hipeter924]

She comes in peace.

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe she just found her name in the King's Torah (Torat Ha'Melech)

"As soon as it was published late last year,Torat Ha'Melech sparked a national uproar. The controversy began when an Israeli tabloid panned the book's contents as "230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew."

According to the book's author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, "Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations." "If we kill a gentile who has inner or has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

Sieg Heil!

How to Kill Goyim...

 

[rhodescholar]

They do have heirs.

Nope, douchebag asshole. The UN official definition of a refugee does not include their CHILDREN or descendants. Sorry ****, but no special rights or privileges for the fakestinians.

 

[rhodescholar]

Israel and the US prove once again that war is a racket that will only end when all unearned war profits are taxed into extinction.

I don't see the slightest possibility of that happening as long as Republicans and/or Democrats control the US congress.

Wall Street Rules.

And yes, idiot, it is wall street that is driving the endless, mindless islamist violence and terrorism. You are mentally ill

 

[P F Tinmore]

They do have heirs.

Nope, douchebag asshole. The UN official definition of a refugee does not include their CHILDREN or descendants. Sorry ****, but no special rights or privileges for the fakestinians.

No special rights at all. People can inherit property from their parents.

 

[rhodescholar]

No special rights at all. People can inherit property from their parents.

Wrong ****:

Refugee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The major exception is the 4,600,000 Palestinian refugees under the authority of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), who are the only group to be granted refugee status to the descendants of refugees according to the above definition.[3]"
---------------------------------------------

Caught in another lie, you fucking turd....

 

[P F Tinmore]

No special rights at all. People can inherit property from their parents.

Wrong ****:

Refugee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The major exception is the 4,600,000 Palestinian refugees under the authority of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), who are the only group to be granted refugee status to the descendants of refugees according to the above definition.[3]"
---------------------------------------------

Caught in another lie, you fucking turd....

Inheritance is not mentioned in your link.

 

[georgephillip]

Israel and the US prove once again that war is a racket that will only end when all unearned war profits are taxed into extinction.

I don't see the slightest possibility of that happening as long as Republicans and/or Democrats control the US congress.

Wall Street Rules.

And yes, idiot, it is wall street that is driving the endless, mindless islamist violence and terrorism. You are mentally ill

Or maybe "the endless, mindless (Islamic) violence and terrorism is a response to Wall Street speculation in killing people and breaking their shit?

If current events are too threatening for a Tool like you to deal with, try some historical context.

During World War I (the War to End All Wars) the cost to US taxpayers (and their childrens' childrens' children) was put at $52,000,000,000.

Who got rich, Tool?

"Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

"Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

"Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

"There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

"Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

"Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period."

So yes, Tool, War is a Racket

Even Hillary isn't mentally ill enough to be confused about that.

Apparently you are.