Another one who speaks on something he has never read; PA Charter ""Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. "" ""Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. "" ""Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal"" ""Article 30: Fighters and carriers of arms in the war of liberation are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people. "" OK folks, here it comes, nothing for a few hours then he will come back with a link to a site that shows how Clinton and Israel applaud the PA's pledge to change the charter yet realizes not that the Charter was never changed and, according to Abbas, who calls the Charter Palestine's most important document, it never will be changed..
I agree with the PA charter. Israel must be eliminated and their leaders should be hanged for crimes against humanity. We must all support Hamas as the rightful defender of the Palestinian Arab people. Nothing can justify the criminal ideology of zionism.
Those articles (among a number of others) were nullified by Arafat during the Clinton administration. Also, those statements are totally inconsistent with everything President Abbas has worked for during his entire tenure. His actions are far stronger evidence than any long discredited document you could dredge up. Most recently, Abbas demanded that joining his unity government required commitment to Israel's permanence and progress toward the goal of an independent Palestinian state through nonviolent means only. Frankly, you attempts to paint Abbas with decades old texts is disgusting. You are promoting the illegal behavior of Israel in its ethnic cleansing of West Bank, its illegal war with Gaza, it's military occupation, and it's apartheid government at home. You really need to back off of that. It's a truly disgusting position to take.
give the Palestinians all of the West Bank, minus 5% land swaps. also give them the Arab areas of Expanded Jerusalem.
REALLY? Seems that if he said he would roll over in the grave if this were not so that ol' 'pinwheel Yasser' must be doing a hundred RPMs per second as that is no longer the case; ""On anniversary, Abbas hails creation of PLO May 28, 2013 10:20 P.M. (Updated: June 1, 2013 12:59 P.M.) Facebook Twitter RAMALLAH (Ma'an) -- President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday hailed the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the most significant event in Palestinian people's history. "(Ahmad) Shuqeiri was asked to figure out what the Palestinians wanted, and he returned with the convention for the PLO," Abbas said at a meeting to mark the 49th anniversary of the PLO's founding. "We should remind ourselves that this is the most important and significant event in the history of the Palestinian people," the president added."" As for changing it; """"It will remain as is. It won't be subject to discussion," Azzam al-Ahmad, a senior Fatah leader, said. The charter calls for armed struggle "until the Zionist entity is wiped out and Palestine is liberated" "" Three years isn't exactly the Jurassic period for crying out loud. They declared it, they have the violent destruction of Israel as their official policy and when in war blockades are legal. You need to crack a book. This is like trying to tell a twelve year old that Santa doesn't really exist.
It's new to me, do you have something to share ? Yes there are and I named one Sorry if I offended you I merely being practicle, if you have what you want and all is going well and according to law - than you dont really need Israel approval for anything, you have Hamas and PLO which are peace loving and collaborating with joy - what are you waiting for? declare your indipendant state . Your point here is a core issue this proposal avoids, the Palestinian narrative and Israeli narrative cannot co-exist, we ofc dont see it as "stolen land" and if you insist on these terms than we go back to a no agreement, spare me this debate, be assured than in all the years I've been here I had this arguments many times and you wont get a "victory" , the power of this proposal is it avoids core issues that I dont think can be crossed at this time yet it gives a chance to normal lives and from there we can perhaps proceed to the core issues, if you think you can force Israel to comply with all the Palestinian demands now or make the Palestinians drop some of their demands - go ahead but dont cry on spilt blood in the process.
But your support is just whinning on every news web and media around the globe and your "fighters" are the ones that get hanged, you try to win trou misery not strength and yet you make threats....
I gave you links about the PLO - Hamas fued that show Hamas rejected the PA peace agreements signed with Israel (Oslo) - what do you have to prove they do suport Oslo ? Here are afew more links and qoutes, ill be a happy man if I knew they were lies and Hamas does seek true peace with Israel : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas Perhaps you meant this "peace" proposal ?
I do enjoy to observe how similar matters evolve [international territorial disputes]. Overall the Israel - Palestine matter is really peculiar as sample of geopolitical competition. What usually happens is that the most extremist actors on the scene [the "white or black" mindset individuals] tend to comment in a negative way, or even to reject, any attempt [worse if it's a moderate attempt!] to find a compromise towards a sustainable lasting solution. The proposal presented in the OP is a great gesture of good will: no West Bank, only a sector of Jerusalem as part of the future capital of Israel ... we all know the traditional Jewish stance: West Bank in Israel and Jerusalem [the whole Jerusalem] capital of Israel. So ... why is this proposal so annoying for the extremists of the other side? Because, to keep a political balances, they should concede something as well. For example: to renounce to erase Israel, to accept that a sector of Jerusalem, not the whole city, will be the capital of Palestine, to force Hamas to renounce to armed fight against Israel or to dismantle that party ... and so on ...
They been feeding on Hamas propaganda for so long they do see Israel as a death star that must be eliminated and they do so from a liberal-humanitarian point of view - THAT'S the new anti-sematism, in the past ppl too were hunting Jews for the sake of humanity. exactly as you said, its not the flag that ppl wave or their agenda but their unconditional approach, black and white.
Unconditional and silly [when not suicide]. A part of the Palestinians [and who support the NJSS, No Jewish State Solution, which we could call "Final Solution", but this would remind something worse ...] should realize that if there is a concrete possibility to create an independent State of Palestine is thanks to the existence of the State of Israel. Without Israel [where in some days Italy will play VS Israel in the qualification tournament for the World Cup, btw ...] Palestine would be a region contended by the regional Arab powers. Jordan would have a piece, Saudi Arabia an other piece, Syria an other piece ... but no Arab power would even just imagine to concede to Palestinians an independent homeland.
Not according to the United Nations General Assembly or the United Nations Security Council. The West Bank and E Jerusalem have always belonged to the Palestinians regardless of what Jordan claimed and the Golan Heights still remain a part of Syria according to the only international organization (the United Nations) that has the authority to make those determinations. "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" as expressed by the UN Security Council in Resolution 242 prohibits any nation from acquiring or annexing territory as a result of war and that includes Jordan following the 1948-49 Zionist revolt against the people of Palestine and Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights and Palestinian territory following the 6-Day War of 1967. This declaration by the UN Security Council didn't originate in 1967 but instead originated with the end of WW II and the creation of the United Nations. https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136
The State of Palestine was recognized under Article 22 of the League of Nations and no other nation (e.g. Jordan, Syria, Egypt) was ever entitled to any portion of it. Not even the European immigrant Zionist Jews had any right to any of the Palestinian territory and the British Mandate for Palestine clearly established that by prohibiting the "European immigrant Zionist Jews" from violating the civil rights of the Palestinian people. Of course the Zionist Jews ignored that provision completely by revolting against the established nation of Palestine that fell under the authority of the United Nations when Britain withdrew as the "Mandatory" in 1948. In 1948 it shouldn't have been just the Arab nations that attempted to suppress the insurrection and revolt of the Zionist Jews in Palestine but instead it should have been the United Nations, lead by the United States, that should have interceded to suppress the Zionist revolt to ensure the survival of Palestine as an independent nation within the territory established for it in 1922. Effectively I blame the United States government for the existence of Israel today that's been in tyrannical military control of the Palestinians since 1967 because Israel should never have existed as a nation to begin with and the US, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, could have easily prevented it.
International law says otherwise. The UN, after all, is not the sole source of international law, and its approval on actions under international law is not necessary. You remain wrong.
The word "Palestine" is not found anywise in this article. You must be wrong. Disagree? Cite the text.
Predictable comment, easy to dismiss: that was something written by the powers who won WWI. It wasn't a shared attitude by the Arab regional powers [which were still in good part under European domain ...]. It didn't express the will of the Arab powers, but the interests of the European colonial powers. Then, the real mess is not a US issue [in this you show to be or not well informed from a historical perspective or a bit biased, but I prefer to think that you are not well informed], but a British issue. London did the mess. London is the source of the problems of the Israelis and the Palestinians. Not Washington.
While technically correct that is a highly and intentionally misleading statement. The following is from Article 22. Palestine was a part of a territory assigned to the British as a "Mandatory" under Article 22. It became formally recognized under the name of Palestine when Transjordan and Palestine were separated into independent political entities in 1922. So it is "recognized" by Article 22 as a part of the former Turkish Empire but could not be specifically named, nor did it even need to be specifically named in Article 22, but the national identity of Palestine unquestionably existed and that was established by Article 22. Many Israeli supporters resort to these types of word games with the dishonest intent of deceiving the ignorant but we're not ignorant people. The dishonesty of Israel, and it's supporters, is so blatant that it can't be ignored by anyone that's ever taken even a short time to review history.
International law is established based upon treaty agreements between the majority of world nations.... which has only occurred under the United Nations since it was formed. The Geneva Conventions, the NPT, and the current International Maritime Law are all addressed under the umbrella of the United Nations. In point of fact all disputes related to international law are subject to a single jurisdiction and that's the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that court exists under the umbrella of the United Nations. While no nation must submit to the jurisdiction of the ICJ if they don't then there's no other binding authority to enforce international law. Israel is a member of both the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions both of which establish international law because the vast majority of world nations are a party to both. Israel has repeatedly refused to comply with the International Laws it's agreed to by being a member of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions while also refusing to be a party to the ICJ knowing that to do so would lead to it's official condemnation for it's violations of International Law.
This whole direction of argument is bogus. Abbas has proven to be dedicated to the formation of a nation alongside a permanent Israel with secure borders. He has demanded that this be achieved exclusively by peaceful means. He is considered by the IDF to be their key partner in security. He has applied to the UN, including the courts where his actions may be examined. Yet, YOU come along and point to some dead document that, if you were actually right (which I do not concede) are counter to the actions of this leader since he rose to power after Arafat's death. And, even Arafat was amenable to negotiation (although he certainly made a catastrophic mistake in not signing the best deal that was achieved through negotiation). So, all you are doing is attempting to justify Israel's dedication to unending unnegotiable war as a "solution" for Gaza and continuing ethnic cleansing as a "final solution" for West Bank. And, that is pure moral depravity. Israel is the stronger of the two parties and must switch it's policy to something that is morally and legally defensible.
Abbas: We Welcome Every Drop of Blood Spilled in Jerusalem http://www.wsj.com/articles/abbas-we-welcome-every-drop-of-blood-spilled-in-jerusalem-1445209820
Arguably correct and, in fact, Britain literally lied to the Arabs to gain their support during WW I. That is not to state that the League of Nations didn't have the best interests in the people that had lived under the oppression of (non-European) colonialism in the Middle East. Both true and false. It is true that the selection of Great Britain as a "Mandatory" over the Middle East territories and people of Transjordan and Palestine was one of the greatest blunders in history. Great Britain was a nation based upon WASP Male Supremacy and colonialism that didn't build nations up but instead subjected the people of foreign nations to the tyrannical rule of WASP Male Supremacy. How anyone could have possibly believed that Great Britain could develop a modern government in Palestine is beyond belief. Of course Britain never even attempted to create a unified modern Palestinian government and didn't even follow the provisions of Article 22 it it's efforts. The British Mandate for Palestine is a clear example because it was not in the best interests of the people of Palestine and they were even denied any say related to that Mandate. It was nothing but the typical WASP Male Supremacy of the British in dictating what the "inferior" Palestinian people must accept from their European tyrants. Be that as it may by the end of WW II the British realized that their failure was so great that they just wanted the hell out of Palestine. By then the welfare of the former Turkish colonies and the authority over the "Mandatory" authority had been assumed by the United Nations With Great Britain's withdrawal it left the role of "mandatory" to the United Nations or to a nation designated by the UN. In 1948 the United States was still the sole military super-power in the world that arguably could have enforced the UN authority over Palestine once the British withdrew. We failed to do that and it wouldn't have require much from the US to end the Zionist insurrection against the lawful authority over Palestine when the British pulled out. So it's really a combination of the two. The British, because they were unqualified to be a Mandatory, created the mess by allowing European Jewish immigration to Palestine against the will of the Palestinian people but the US allowed the mess to become far worse by not intervening when the British withdrew but suppressing the Zionist insurrection. Of course that was in 1948-49 and not today. In 1948-49 it was about foreigners allowed into Palestine against the will of the Palestinian people that created an internal civil war. That was two generations ago and most Jews in Israel today were born there and are not foreigners. That's why the conditions have changed. The Palestinian Authority no longer calls for the foreign Jews to leave Palestine because there are so few of them remaining. Today only a two-state solution exists for those born in Palestine regardless of whether they're Jews living in Israel or Arabs living in the rest of Palestine. The only problem is that Israel continues to reject the only peace proposal that's both pragmatic and equitable for both sides as enumerated in UNSC Resolution 242.
That is true and Eretz Israel encompasses all of Palestine which is why the "Zionists" don't want a lasting peace with the Palestinians because they'd have to give up any hopes of ever acquiring the rest of Palestine as a part of Israel. Their only hope to keep fostering wars where they hope to acquire more territory. The 1967 War was an intentional act by the Zionist in an attempt to secure more of Palestine in their ultimate goal of securing all of the land of Eretz Israel. Lord Moyne was absolutely correct of course and recent genetic mapping indicates that roughly 80% of today's Jews are of Eastern European descent and not from the Middle East. They have literally no connection with the ancient Jewish people that lived in "Eretz Israel" except for adopting the culture and religion of the Jewish people many, many centuries later.
There IS a war going on. Israel has been advancing, kicking families out of their homes before they can remove their belongings and then bringing in the bulldozers, expanding areas illegally, stealing water rights, etc. Opposing those actions with force does not imply illegality or terrorism. The same is true in Gaza. Israel IS waging war on Gaza and has been now for nearly a decade. You can't expect them to never carry out missions against Israel, regardless of what Israel does.
Ha ha ha, I'm just quoting you, and having fun doing it. He surely "has demanded that this be achieved exclusively by peaceful means"
In no way does that mean that Palestine has no interest in defending itself in time of war. The remarkable thing here is that Abbas has worked hard against violence even when Israel is carrying out ethnic cleansing and stealing land, water rights, etc.
