Official: Egypt turns back Hamas group with cash

[toomuchtime_]

An Egyptian security official says Egypt has stopped a Hamas delegation returning to the Gaza Strip from carrying $9 million and 2 million Euros with them in their suitcases. The official said the group initially refused to be searched by Egyptian authorities at the Rafah border crossing.



One member of the delegation stayed in Egypt with the money while the remaining members of the group went into Gaza. The delegation had been in Cairo for talks with Egypt about a long-term truce with Israel to end fighting in Gaza. (AP)

Official: Egypt turns back Hamas group with cash - Israel News, Ynetnews

 

[jillian]

One member of the delegation stayed in Egypt with the money while the remaining members of the group went into Gaza. The delegation had been in Cairo for talks with Egypt about a long-term truce with Israel to end fighting in Gaza

..... and fgured they'd pick up some cash to buy more missiles while they were there.....

 

[Shogun]

yea... because everyone knows that an arab with money is out to buy rockets... Kinda like how ******* are compelled to buy chicken and jews are always in the mood to buy diamonds... sure, jill. sure.

 

[Xenophon]

9 mil, not bad.

 

[Zein El Nour]

they don't need to buy missiles. they have learned to make them on their own, thanks to decades of oppression and occupation.

you don't get it do you, defenders of israel: israel occupies Palestine (illegally, just to make it clear). even the US had to go to the UN to legitimize its occupation of Iraq. i wonder how can you really defend that.

I wonder what would it have took to let Saddam go on occupying Kuwait for 40 years.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

they don't need to buy missiles. they have learned to make them on their own, thanks to decades of oppression and occupation.

you don't get it do you, defenders of israel: israel occupies Palestine (illegally, just to make it clear). even the US had to go to the UN to legitimize its occupation of Iraq. i wonder how can you really defend that.

I wonder what would it have took to let Saddam go on occupying Kuwait for 40 years.

So you support terrorist murderers, those that purposefully target and kill women and children. Figures. Remind me how much you like it when Israel shells Lebanon after Hezbulla launches missiles into Israel then explain why it is ok for Israel to be shelled, rocketed and mortared every day but not ok for them to respond.

 

[Zein El Nour]

So you support terrorist murderers, those that purposefully target and kill women and children. Figures. Remind me how much you like it when Israel shells Lebanon after Hezbulla launches missiles into Israel then explain why it is ok for Israel to be shelled, rocketed and mortared every day but not ok for them to respond.

Ok. So you support the occupation of a country by another. Let's go with that.

It is ok for Israel to be shelled rocketed and mortared for the same reason it was ok to bomb Iraq when it occupied Kuwait, for the same reason it was ok for the French to bomb and kill Germans when they occupied France, and for the same reason it was ok for the Americans to attack and kill the British when they occupied the US.

 

[Ravi]

I wonder what would it have took to let Saddam go on occupying Kuwait for 40 years.

He would have had to win the war. And then it wouldn't be an occupation.

 

[toomuchtime_]

they don't need to buy missiles. they have learned to make them on their own, thanks to decades of oppression and occupation.

you don't get it do you, defenders of israel: israel occupies Palestine (illegally, just to make it clear). even the US had to go to the UN to legitimize its occupation of Iraq. i wonder how can you really defend that.

I wonder what would it have took to let Saddam go on occupying Kuwait for 40 years.

If a nation of Palestine had ever existed, your comparisons might make some sense, but in 1948, when the UN dissolved its protectorate over the area after the Arabs had refused the offer of an Arab state, those lands west of the Jordan River that were not in the UN defined state of Israel became unincorporated territories belonging to no political entity. Today's disputed territories were captured by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 and occupied by those countries for 19 years without international recognition of any right to do so and then these lands were lost by Jordan and Egypt to Israel in 1967.

Palestine is a slogan, not a nation, that was created as a stratagem of deceit by Arab leaders to try to prevent the creation of a tiny Jewish state of Israel by the League of Nations and later the UN, and the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan ever recognized any inherent right of the "Palestinians" to statehood during the 19 years when they occupied the territories shows that the Arabs never took the concept of "Palestine" seriously when not using it as a pretext to attack Israel.

To the Arabs and Iran and to some whacko western self defined enemies of Israel Palestine today is not a nation but a huge coliseum into which they thrust these hapless Arabs time after time to suffer in futile combat against an adversary they can never hope to defeat so that the Arab and Iranian peoples can cheer and scream catcalls and forget for a time that their real enemy is not Israel but their own leaders.

 

[Zein El Nour]

Palestine is a slogan, not a nation, that was created as a stratagem of deceit by Arab leaders to try to prevent the creation of a tiny Jewish state of Israel by the League of Nations and later the UN, and the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan ever recognized any inherent right of the "Palestinians" to statehood during the 19 years when they occupied the territories shows that the Arabs never took the concept of "Palestine" seriously when not using it as a pretext to attack Israel.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

Just because Arab leaders are corrupt, and denied inherent rights of Palestinians that means that Israel can do that too? (Anyway Israel is slowly becoming a corrupt "Arab" regime)

And by your logic if there is no Palestine, this leaves us with three options:
1. Israel still is occupying parts of Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza) - hence it is still an occupying force
2. Israel and Palestine are one state (bi-national) - hence it is an apartheid regime
3. Israel is so generous that it has decided to give the Palestinians a state of their own while they are attacking it - hence it is rewarding "terror"

 

[Sunni Man]

Let's face it

IsraHell is ruled by a demented and psychotic group of people who are nothing but vile criminals.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Palestine is a slogan, not a nation, that was created as a stratagem of deceit by Arab leaders to try to prevent the creation of a tiny Jewish state of Israel by the League of Nations and later the UN, and the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan ever recognized any inherent right of the "Palestinians" to statehood during the 19 years when they occupied the territories shows that the Arabs never took the concept of "Palestine" seriously when not using it as a pretext to attack Israel.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

Just because Arab leaders are corrupt, and denied inherent rights of Palestinians that means that Israel can do that too? (Anyway Israel is slowly becoming a corrupt "Arab" regime)

And by your logic if there is no Palestine, this leaves us with three options:
1. Israel still is occupying parts of Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza) - hence it is still an occupying force
2. Israel and Palestine are one state (bi-national) - hence it is an apartheid regime
3. Israel is so generous that it has decided to give the Palestinians a state of their own while they are attacking it - hence it is rewarding "terror"

Israel's relationship to the territories is whatever Israel decides it is since the territories returned to being unincorporated land after Jordan and Egypt declined to claim it when making peace with Israel.

Israel defines itself to be pre 1967 Israel plus Jerusalem plus the Golan Heights, and eventually plus the major settlement blocs, about 6% of the West Bank. The remainder of the territories is simply unincorporated land in which Israel is forced from time to time to deploy troops to prevent terrorist attacks against Israelis but does not govern. Since it does not attempt to govern these parts of the territories, it is not technically an occupying power. It would be correct to say Israel was the occupying power in the territories before the PA was created by the Oslo agreements, but its role there now is best described as undefined.

There will never be a Palestinian state unless the Palestinian culture radically changes so that peaceful coexistence behind defined borders becomes a reasonable expectation, and there is clearly no prospect of that happening in the foreseeable future. The future prospects for a Palestinian state will be determined not by Israel and the rest of the world but by the contest between Abbas and Fayyad on the one hand and Hamas and Iran on the other. Israel, like everyone else, will just have to wait and see if the Palestinians choose war or peace.

As long as the Palestinian problems can be contained within the territories, the status quo can continue indefinitely. If it cannot be contained, more likely than a one, two or three state solution, imo, is that Jordan will reabsorb the West Bank less Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs and Egypt will annex Gaza and these two Arab states will repress Palestinian complaints just as they repress the complaints of other groups within their borders.

 

[Shogun]

Everyone LOVES to get Canaanized! Who on earth WOULDN'T roll over for some hot "carve zion from your land" action? Hell, all we'd need is some mossad wannabe like toomuchtime_ to field the cyber front and claim that palestine is a myth while insisting that jews enjoy a status in israel that they would scream bloody fucking murder if faced with in New York City!

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
Palestine is a slogan, not a nation, that was created as a stratagem of deceit by Arab leaders to try to prevent the creation of a tiny Jewish state of Israel by the League of Nations and later the UN, and the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan ever recognized any inherent right of the "Palestinians" to statehood during the 19 years when they occupied the territories shows that the Arabs never took the concept of "Palestine" seriously when not using it as a pretext to attack Israel.

Palestinian dehumanization of the jewish people:

European jews (Israel's founders) are nothing but caucasians converted to Judaism. Russians, Poles and Ukrainians don't have any legitimate claim to Palestine since they have only an extremely diluted genetic link to the ancient semitic people who inhabited that part of the world (if any).

Jewish dehumanization of the palestinian people:

The palestinian national identity is a political stratagem devised by the arab League to delegitimise the state of Israel. Arabs in Palestine don't have any separate national identity. They are just Egyptians, Jordanians (some would say they are just "generic arabs" who can be shunted from one country to another).

As I said before, the opinions expressed by this poster, as well as his palestinian counterparts, trying to delegitimise each other's right to live in their homeland, are part of the problem in Palestine, not of the solution.

 

[Zein El Nour]

and the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan ever recognized any inherent right of the "Palestinians" to statehood during the 19 years when they occupied the territories ...

Israel's relationship to the territories is whatever Israel decides it is since the territories returned to being unincorporated land after Jordan and Egypt declined to claim it when making peace with Israel.

Israel defines itself to be pre 1967 Israel plus Jerusalem plus the Golan Heights, and eventually plus the major settlement blocs, about 6% of the West Bank. The remainder of the territories is simply unincorporated land in which Israel is forced from time to time to deploy troops to prevent terrorist attacks against Israelis but does not govern. Since it does not attempt to govern these parts of the territories, it is not technically an occupying power. It would be correct to say Israel was the occupying power in the territories before the PA was created by the Oslo agreements, but its role there now is best described as undefined.

Please don't try to convince me that you believe that? or at least that nothing is wrong with this logic.

So it is up to Israel to decide whether it is an occupation or not?

Come on!

Which country in the world admits to being occupying another country?

They always try to find a spin or straw to hold on to to justify going on with such an outrageous act. And worse than that is that seemingly intelligent people repeat this mantra without a flinch.

Every country in the world including the US admits that Israel is an occupier. Not even the deceased Oslo agreements didn't change this status. Every international body including the UN have asserted time and time again that Palestine is an occupied territory. That means under international law, Israel is the occupying power today.

I can only guess what your position towards the UN might be. And I am pretty sure that it is negative, at least when it comes to Israel. But this is usually the case for someone defending an injustice in front of the whole world.

And I'd like to hear your ''explanation" for the occupation of the Syrian Golan, and what kind of justification you have for that. I can't wait.

 

[DiveCon]

and the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan ever recognized any inherent right of the "Palestinians" to statehood during the 19 years when they occupied the territories ...

Israel's relationship to the territories is whatever Israel decides it is since the territories returned to being unincorporated land after Jordan and Egypt declined to claim it when making peace with Israel.

Israel defines itself to be pre 1967 Israel plus Jerusalem plus the Golan Heights, and eventually plus the major settlement blocs, about 6% of the West Bank. The remainder of the territories is simply unincorporated land in which Israel is forced from time to time to deploy troops to prevent terrorist attacks against Israelis but does not govern. Since it does not attempt to govern these parts of the territories, it is not technically an occupying power. It would be correct to say Israel was the occupying power in the territories before the PA was created by the Oslo agreements, but its role there now is best described as undefined.

Please don't try to convince me that you believe that? or at least that nothing is wrong with this logic.

So it is up to Israel to decide whether it is an occupation or not?

Come on!

Which country in the world admits to being occupying another country?

They always try to find a spin or straw to hold on to to justify going on with such an outrageous act. And worse than that is that seemingly intelligent people repeat this mantra without a flinch.

Every country in the world including the US admits that Israel is an occupier. Not even the deceased Oslo agreements didn't change this status. Every international body including the UN have asserted time and time again that Palestine is an occupied territory. That means under international law, Israel is the occupying power today.

I can only guess what your position towards the UN might be. And I am pretty sure that it is negative, at least when it comes to Israel. But this is usually the case for someone defending an injustice in front of the whole world.

And I'd like to hear your ''explanation" for the occupation of the Syrian Golan, and what kind of justification you have for that. I can't wait.

what country is Israel occupying?
and where are its borders

 

[toomuchtime_]

and the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan ever recognized any inherent right of the "Palestinians" to statehood during the 19 years when they occupied the territories ...

Israel's relationship to the territories is whatever Israel decides it is since the territories returned to being unincorporated land after Jordan and Egypt declined to claim it when making peace with Israel.

Israel defines itself to be pre 1967 Israel plus Jerusalem plus the Golan Heights, and eventually plus the major settlement blocs, about 6% of the West Bank. The remainder of the territories is simply unincorporated land in which Israel is forced from time to time to deploy troops to prevent terrorist attacks against Israelis but does not govern. Since it does not attempt to govern these parts of the territories, it is not technically an occupying power. It would be correct to say Israel was the occupying power in the territories before the PA was created by the Oslo agreements, but its role there now is best described as undefined.

Please don't try to convince me that you believe that? or at least that nothing is wrong with this logic.

So it is up to Israel to decide whether it is an occupation or not?

Come on!

Which country in the world admits to being occupying another country?

They always try to find a spin or straw to hold on to to justify going on with such an outrageous act. And worse than that is that seemingly intelligent people repeat this mantra without a flinch.

Every country in the world including the US admits that Israel is an occupier. Not even the deceased Oslo agreements didn't change this status. Every international body including the UN have asserted time and time again that Palestine is an occupied territory. That means under international law, Israel is the occupying power today.

I can only guess what your position towards the UN might be. And I am pretty sure that it is negative, at least when it comes to Israel. But this is usually the case for someone defending an injustice in front of the whole world.

And I'd like to hear your ''explanation" for the occupation of the Syrian Golan, and what kind of justification you have for that. I can't wait.

The facts and logic I presented are accurate and valid, but the question of justice is really a subjective issue. To have a meaningful discussion, it is necessary to distinguish between what is legal and what you believe is just.

First, being an occupying power is not illegal under international law. In fact, international law prescribes the responsibilities and limitations of occupying powers. However, since Israel does not assert the authority of government over the territories or deny that authority to the PA, it does not technically qualify as a occupying power although in some respects it does occupy the West Bank and control the borders of Gaza. This is quite apart from whether you or I believe Israel's actions with regard to the territories are necessary or just. We can specify, if you like, that I think Israel's actions, for the most part, are necessary and justified by Israel's need to defend the state and people of Israel against attacks by Palestinian militants.

I don't know what you mean by Palestine. Do you mean the territories or do you mean the territories and Israel? And I don't know what agency of the UN you are referring to or asking my opinion of, so I can't respond to that issue.

As to the Golan Heights, under Security Council 242, the parties involved in the 1967 war are to withdraw behind safe and secure borders as a part of a peace treaty, but since Syria still considers itself at war with Israel, Israel is under no obligation to withdraw, and even within the context of peace negotiations, the strategic importance of the Golan plateau makes the issue of what border would be safe and secure for Israel unclear.

As to the legal status of the Golan Heights, under the authority of 242, Israel is the legitimate occupying power until there is a peace treaty between Israel and Syria that redefines the border and under the authority of Israel's Golan Heights Law, Israel is the legitimate government of the Golan Heights. In either case, the issue will only be finally resolved in a final peace treaty between Israel and Syria, and as long as Syria remains allied with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, all of which are committed to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, such a peace treaty is unlikely, so for all practical purposes, the Golan Heights will remain a part of Israel for the foreseeable future.

 

[Zein El Nour]

The facts and logic I presented are accurate and valid, but the question of justice is really a subjective issue.

First, being an occupying power is not illegal under international law. In fact, international law prescribes the responsibilities and limitations of occupying powers. However, since Israel does not assert the authority of government over the territories or deny that authority to the PA, it does not technically qualify as a occupying power although in some respects it does occupy the West Bank and control the borders of Gaza. This is quite apart from whether you or I believe Israel's actions with regard to the territories are necessary or just. We can specify, if you like, that I think Israel's actions, for the most part, are necessary and justified by Israel's need to defend the state and people of Israel against attacks by Palestinian militants.

I don't know what you mean by Palestine. Do you mean the territories or do you mean the territories and Israel? And I don't know what agency of the UN you are referring to or asking my opinion of, so I can't respond to that issue.

As to the Golan Heights, under Security Council 242, the parties involved in the 1967 war are to withdraw behind safe and secure borders as a part of a peace treaty, but since Syria still considers itself at war with Israel, Israel is under no obligation to withdraw, and even within the context of peace negotiations, the strategic importance of the Golan plateau makes the issue of what border would be safe and secure for Israel unclear.

As to the legal status of the Golan Heights, under the authority of 242, Israel is the legitimate occupying power until there is a peace treaty between Israel and Syria that redefines the border and under the authority of Israel's Golan Heights Law, Israel is the legitimate government of the Golan Heights. In either case, the issue will only be finally resolved in a final peace treaty between Israel and Syria, and as long as Syria remains allied with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, all of which are committed to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, such a peace treaty is unlikely, so for all practical purposes, the Golan Heights will remain a part of Israel for the foreseeable future.

Trust me, I haven't even begun to touch on the subject of justice. We are still very much talking legal aspects here.

1. Regarding whether Israel is an occupying power or not I'll refer you to the definition:

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

So you see it is not about what Israel claims, but rather the facts on the ground.

2. I was asking about the UN in general, but if you want to be more specific: how about the General Assembly, Security Counsel, Social and Economic Counsel, Commission on Human Rights.... They all attest that Israel is an occupation force.

3. When I talked about Palestine, I did so in the context of UNSC Resolutions, meaning the West Bank and Gaza, and not historic Palestine (that has a completely different story)

4. As for the Golan, I don't know which UNSC Resolution 242 you are talking about. Here is an exert:

"The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

http://http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/7d35e1f729df491c85256ee700686136!OpenDocument

So you see the prerequisite for peace is Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Golan and not annexation, pending the enforcement of new facts on the ground.

5. And I think you are the one mixing political and legal aspects here when you say that Syria should stop supporting Hamas and Hezbullah to have peace with Israel. First let us implement international law and resolutions, and then can talk politics.

6. As long as Israel continues to occupy Arab land (Palestinian and Syrian) it will shall not live in peace, since any people under occupation have right to "regain its rights by all means". And believe me that the Palestinians will continue to apply this right for as long as it takes.

7. Please mind that I have not began to discuss illegal Israeli practices in the occupied territories, and believe me when I say there are volumes on that.

I will get some of the rationales used to justify previous occupations and crimes against humanity. They look very similar to what you are trying to do here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Israel exercises no military control currently over the West Bank or Gaza. It has not since at least 2005. Thus your argument fails miserably. The recent hostilities were not an occupation either, as Israel was exercising its legal rights to self defense against an active enemy attacking the Country. Any action they take against Gaza in retaliation for unprovoked missile attacks is nothing more then the right of Israel to defend itself under INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Further in order to be an occupier one must have seized said land from some other Country. Please name the Country that Gaza and the West Bank belong to? Neither Jordon or Egypt claimed them when offered and no "Country" exists to this day that claims them. The Palastinian Authority may be a government but it is NOT a Country. And the Hamas actions of seizing Gaza from the PA would then also qualify as occupiers as well if you are claiming the PA as a legit source for a Government under the UN terms.

Arabs were offered a sweat heart deal in 1948. They could have had most of the land in that region, splitting Israel into 3 separate sections with only small corridors connecting. However the Arab States ORDERED the Arabs living there NOT to form a Government and then ordered them out or risk being shot as Jewish sympathizers as the 5 Arab Armies INVADED to illegally seize the land from a legally recognized State. They failed and the Arabs that fled gave up any right to the land in present day Israel as they could then be considered enemies of the State for siding with 5 invading Armies.

None of the Arab States had any intention of creating a new Country, they intended to seize the land for themselves. And Egypt and Jordon REFUSED to creat such a separate State for the entirety of the time they controlled those territories.

So Was Jordon and Egypt occupiers as well? If so why no UN action against them? Why not outrage at the fact these two Arab Muslim Countries subjegated the poor Pal refuges living in those Territories? Why no demands to create this fictional home land when the Arab Countries controlled the territories?

 

[Zein El Nour]

Israel exercises no military control currently over the West Bank or Gaza. It has not since at least 2005. Thus your argument fails miserably. The recent hostilities were not an occupation either, as Israel was exercising its legal rights to self defense against an active enemy attacking the Country. Any action they take against Gaza in retaliation for unprovoked missile attacks is nothing more then the right of Israel to defend itself under INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Since you posted the same argumnet here as well, I'll post the same reply for this point:

You must be joking! or at least in a state of denial that is so destructive. Israel has no military control? Hmmm let me see.

In 2009:

1. 500 checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank
2. 11,000 Palestinian prisoners
3. Land and property confiscation and destruction
4. Complete control over all border crossings to the outside world (west bank and Gaza, including partial control over Rafah)
5. Complete (military) control over airspace
6. Complete (military) control over sea

This is only part of it!!! I am pretty sure that this amounts to military control.

In addition the whole world, including Israel admit that they maintain military control over the territories... Get a grip on reality.

(And by the way, if you really think that Gaza is a sovereign country, then it too has the right for self defense, thus the Hamas rockets can be portrayed as such.)

Further in order to be an occupier one must have seized said land from some other Country. Please name the Country that Gaza and the West Bank belong to? Neither Jordon or Egypt claimed them when offered and no "Country" exists to this day that claims them. The Palastinian Authority may be a government but it is NOT a Country. And the Hamas actions of seizing Gaza from the PA would then also qualify as occupiers as well if you are claiming the PA as a legit source for a Government under the UN terms.

Where did you see the "must have seized said land from some other Country" bit in the definition of occupation? Please go back to definition I posted before and don't invent definitions that suit your purposes.

PS. Hamas are Palestinians - Palestinians commit atrocities against each others, but it can never be an occupation (again go back to the definition).

Arabs were offered a sweat heart deal in 1948. They could have had most of the land in that region, splitting Israel into 3 separate sections with only small corridors connecting. However the Arab States ORDERED the Arabs living there NOT to form a Government and then ordered them out or risk being shot as Jewish sympathizers as the 5 Arab Armies INVADED to illegally seize the land from a legally recognized State. They failed and the Arabs that fled gave up any right to the land in present day Israel as they could then be considered enemies of the State for siding with 5 invading Armies.

None of the Arab States had any intention of creating a new Country, they intended to seize the land for themselves. And Egypt and Jordon REFUSED to creat such a separate State for the entirety of the time they controlled those territories.

So Was Jordon and Egypt occupiers as well? If so why no UN action against them? Why not outrage at the fact these two Arab Muslim Countries subjegated the poor Pal refuges living in those Territories? Why no demands to create this fictional home land when the Arab Countries controlled the territories?

Again. Egypt and Jordan refused to allow a Palestinian state to emerge. You can call them occupation (you already do) but the fact of the matter is that the Palestinians didn't, rightfully or wrongfully. And that is what matters, and that is why the UN didn't act against them.

But again I would like to thank you for showing how Israel is acting in the same way as corrupt authoritarian regimes in Egypt and Jordan.