Khaled Meshaal and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyyeh Gaza, Palestine December 7, 2012 (photographer unknown via Haniyyeh’s twitter feed)
[T]he Nov. 21 cease-fire agreement that ended an eight-day clash with Israel emboldened Meshaal to make a victory lap through the seaside territory…..
“I say I’m returning to Gaza even though I have never been before because it’s always been in my heart,” he told the crowd, fighting back tears.
The visit underscores Hamas’ rising political clout in a Middle East reshaped by the “Arab Spring.”
……
On Friday, he was greeted like a king. Flag-draped streets were lined by masked, armed Izzidin al-Qassam Brigade fighters.
Mashaal praised the people of Gaza and the political factions in his first ever speech on Palestinian soil. “We politicians are in debt to the people of Gaza,” he said.
The leader was briefly tearful as he was welcomed by Gaza’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.
Mashaal said his visit to Gaza was his “third birth” referring to an assassination attempt by Israeli Mossad agents in 1997 as his previous “re-birth.”
“I pray to God that my fourth birth will come the day we liberate Palestine,” he said, clearly moved by his reception, with uniformed police breaking ranks to try and kiss his hand.
“Today is Gaza. Tomorrow will be Ramallah and after that Jerusalem then Haifa and Jaffa,” he said.
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyyeh’s tweet of Meshaal’s: “moment arriving in the land of Palestine“
Local Fatah leaders are due to attend – the first time the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas’s faction has taken part in such an event since at least 2007, when it fought a brief civil war with Hamas in Gaza that Hamas won.
“Meshaal’s speech will outline the priorities of the Hamas movement in the coming future, and especially the implementation of reconciliation [with Fatah],” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters.
Clearly aware of the yearning among ordinary Palestinians for an end to the divisions that have weakened their cause on the world stage, Meshaal repeatedly returned to the subject during his many stops around Gaza on Friday.
“With God’s will … reconciliation will be achieved. National unity is at hand,” Meshaal shouted through a microphone at the ruins of one house destroyed last month by an Israeli air raid that killed 12 civilians, including four children.
“Today is Gaza. Tomorrow will be Ramallah and after that Jerusalem then Haifa and Jaffa,” he said.
But didn’t he also just say the he, “Accepts a State on the 1967 borders”?
Maybe he meant 1947 borders.
maybe he would accept a state on the 1967 borders but prays for all of palestine to be liberated.
Define “LIBERATED”…… when he mentions clear…. “”Today is Gaza. Tomorrow will be Ramallah and after that Jerusalem then Haifa and Jaffa,” he said……
Lets hear your understanding of what he and his Hamas leadership think and have in mind, when they mention clear. “Jerusalem then Haifa and Jaffa”……..
Lets hear your understanding of what he and his Hamas leadership think and have in mind, when they mention clear. “Jerusalem then Haifa and Jaffa”……..
liberated from zionism. equal rights for all the people and the return of the refugees. when people say the time for 2 states has passed (which more and more people believe), this is the most hopeful option that remains.
it seems to me israel will never allow 2 states, and the sumud of palestinians being what it is, i’d say the chances of one state of equal rights materializing as the most likely outcome becomes more realistic as time goes on.
@ yrn
It sounds as if the Gazans should excuse themselves for wanting to return to Haifa and Jaffa. Why should they? Most of the Gazans are refugees. It’s their own land they want to return to, right? Any objections?
Define “LIBERATED”…… when he mentions clear…. “”Today is Gaza. Tomorrow will be Ramallah and after that Jerusalem then Haifa and Jaffa,” he said……
To tell you the truth, all that indicates to me is the hope that one day Israel will live up to its commitments regarding freedom of movement and the right of transit that were guaranteed by the UN partition plan and pre-existing international treaties.
So, Annie, is it fair to say that your vision matched Meshaal’s vision? Yes or no?
hops, i’m not palestinian so i wouldn’t begin to say our visions match.
i am an american hops, i am a civic nationalist born and bred on the ideals of the melting pot, equality and freedom. i am 9 generations american and have no relatives who have had their land and home brutally ripped away from them. i have not been exiled or oppressed. i have been raised in the most opportune time and geographic area in history, for a woman. so my visions are not the same as his.
i have linked to my essay ‘the trap’ time and again so i won’t do it again, wouldn’t want to bore everyone. but in that comment section i expanded on what i think is likely to occur. i don’t have any faith israel will allow 2 states. so it’s kind of irrelevant what they might look like if the option becomes impossible. i do think the best course of action for palestinians is to go thru these formal hoops of 2SS efforts just to prove to the world they made the effort and it’s israel refusing to play ball in any meaningful way to bring about 2 states.
i think, like our civil right movement, the region will self adjust. i think one state is an inevitable outcome. i could be wrong but i doubt it. for me to be wrong you wouldn’t be online here hops, you’d be spending your precious time arguing with rightwing israeli hardliners. and you’re not doing that, you think i’m the problem. we’re the problem.
i hope that answers your question.
i will say tho i do believe his political vision is much closer to an american vision of freedom as compared to zionist ideology. iow, he ‘shares our values’ politically more than not. i think our political values are probably similar in many ways.
So, Annie, is it fair to say that your vision matched Meshaal’s vision? Yes or no?
Hophmi, it doesn’t look like freedom and justice for all when the US Courts freeze $1.3 billion in Palestinian Authority and PLO assets as a result of lawsuits involving Jews who were the targets of Hamas attacks, while tossing out lawsuits against Israelis brought by Palestinians who have been permanently disabled or had loved ones killed as a result of Israeli attacks. When was the last time Meshaal dropped a one-ton bomb on a residential apartment building in Haifa at midnight, in a so-called “targeted” assassination? When was the last time he killed 1400 Israel’s and destroyed 28,000 Israeli homes in a two-week long military incursion?
*Palestinian Authority’s US assets are frozen
link to boston.com
*Matar et al v. Dichter
link to ccrjustice.org
“i will say tho i do believe his political vision is much closer to an american vision of freedom as compared to zionist ideology.”
That’s an interesting point of view given the way Hamas has governed. It is a dictatorship.
“you’d be spending your precious time arguing with rightwing israeli hardliners. and you’re not doing that, you think i’m the problem. we’re the problem.”
I spend much more time debating right-wing hardliners than I do here, or than you do debating antisemites in your community. Far more.
” i am a civic nationalist born and bred on the ideals of the melting pot, equality and freedom.”
All well in good. Can you admit, then, that Israel is the most religiously and racially diverse country in the region, and that not a single Arab state (or European one, for that matter), thinks of themselves as a “melting pot?”
” i am 9 generations american and have no relatives who have had their land and home brutally ripped away from them.”
No. You simply benefit from those who ripped land away from others. Well, guess what. Most Israelis have relatives whose property and land were taken away from them, the political vision of Khaled Meshaal is predicated on the idea of dispossessing the current Israelis, despite your Western superimposition of democratic ideals on his violent vision of taking over Tel Aviv.
“i don’t have any faith israel will allow 2 states.”
The question is, do you have any faith that the Palestinians will allow 2 states? If so, what is this faith based upon?
” i do think the best course of action for palestinians is to go thru these formal hoops of 2SS efforts just to prove to the world they made the effort”
Ah, so you are the mirror image of what you claim Ehud Barak to be – someone who you say went through the formal hoops of 2SS efforts just to show the world that Arafat was the irredentist, not the Israelis.
“i think, like our civil right movement, the region will self adjust. ”
The region will self adjust to what? The vision of a place where only one ethnicity has sovereignty?
actually i think they were democratically elected, if you could call it that under the circumstance of occupation.
also, i am not so sure you could really compare someones ‘vision’ for the future with the way one would rule under a violent blockade with an enemy assassinating your citizens. (are they even citizens). too many variables hops.
“actually i think they were democratically elected”
What does that have to do with governance?
“if you could call it that under the circumstance of occupation. ”
It was good enough for Gershon Baskin. My point was about governance, not elections.
I spend much more time debating right-wing hardliners than I do here, or than you do debating antisemites in your community. Far more.
i don’t think anti semites have any control/power over this issue, so they are not in my area of interests in terms of resolving this conflict. whereas right-wing hardliners have everything to do with influencing our policies towards palestine and israel. nice divert tho.
wrt your ‘admit’ question. reframe your point if you’d like my response.
his violent vision of taking over Tel Aviv.
yawn. the hypocrisy of your position is startling. i’m over this discussion.
My point was about governance, not elections.
i would have raised my child much differently had he been targeted for assassination. your point diverted from the very foundations of the premise i was addressing. which was visionary in substance. now you want to hypothesis about how someone would govern if they were free based on how they govern when they are under constant threat.
find someone else to tango with, i’m not biting.
“I spend much more time debating right-wing hardliners than I do here, or than you do debating antisemites in your community. Far more.”
And to such great effect! Trends in Israeli politics certainlt shows that. They’re further and harder right than ever, verging on insanity. Shows how effective you really are, Hophmi.
>> maybe he would accept a state on the 1967 borders but prays for all of palestine to be liberated.
I think that’s a generous interpretation.
Rather than talk about “liberating” all of Palestine, he should focus on:
- liberating from the supremacist state that which was never granted to it (i.e., Ramallah and Jerusalem);
- working to create a secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestinian state in all lands granted to the Palestinians; and, with such a Palestine as an example,
- pushing for equality for all citizens of Israel.
You all are reading too much into it. In Arabic it’s called Balagha. Rhetoric, flourish. Can’t be taken literally. Personally I just wish it were true but it isn’t.
a generous interpretation
eljay, if you would like to argue he would not accept a state on 67 borders i won’t try to stop you. i do not think it is unusual palestinians pray for their land and to be able to go home. many of our palestinian contributors write of this dream. for example 3 days ago: link to mondoweiss.net
this is the person you should be talking to. i covered his arrival honestly and i take him at his word he would accept a state on 67 borders which includes full international rights of the refugees.
>> You all are reading too much into it. In Arabic it’s called Balagha. Rhetoric, flourish. Can’t be taken literally.
That’s good to know. :-)
>> eljay, if you would like to argue he would not accept a state on 67 borders i won’t try to stop you.
Annie, I don’t know whether he would or wouldn’t; but if he would, then suggesting that he wouldn’t is, IMHO, highly counter-productive, even if it is just “flourish”.
So, while I don’t support his “flourish”, I still do think that a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state should be expected/required to honour a Palestinian RoR up to, say, three generations, with an option of cash settlement in lieu. To me, this is justice, restitution, accountability, atonement – whatever you want to call it, but it’s not “liberation”. That implies something very different altogether.
Eljay, I’m at a loss to make sense of your talk of granting of land. Are you under the misconception that the UN partition plan had some sort of legal weight, or what are you referring to exactly?
>> Eljay, I’m at a loss to make sense of your talk of granting of land. …
You’re right, I should have said “assigned” instead of “granted”.
>> You’re right, I should have said “assigned” instead of “granted”.
Or perhaps even “allocated”.
Well I’m still curious to know what assigning of land you are referring to exactly, as I’m quite sure there never actually was anything of the sort.
>> Well I’m still curious to know what assigning of land you are referring to exactly …
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
Ah, so you are under the misconception that the UN partition plan had some sort of legal weight, even though it was only voted on by the UNGA, and never approved by the UNSC.
Ah, so you are under the misconception that the UN partition plan had some sort of legal weight, even though it was only voted on by the UNGA, and never approved by the UNSC.
The UN Charter is a multi-lateral treaty. All of the members have agreed that the General Assembly can adopt “decisions” on any subject in accordance with either Article 18(2) or 18(3):
link to yale.edu
The ICJ addressed objections to the Assembly’s authority in the “Certain Expenses” case, where several members claimed the Assembly had exceeded its powers when it deployed peacekeepers to the Congo and the Sinai. When they refused to pay the budget assessments for those missions, the Court advised that:
FYI, Jacob Robinson was one of the lawyers advising the Jewish Agency when the UN Charter was adopted. The Yalta Conference recommended that the mandates be abolished or established under completely new rules as UN trusteeships. So, the Jewish Agency began planning for independence. Robinson explained that it also wrote a memo to the San Francisco Conference on the UN organization requesting that a safeguarding clause be included in the Charter which would say that no trusteeship agreement could alter the Jewish right to nationhood secured by the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate.
However, the UN conference rejected that suggestion and stipulated in article 80 of the UN Charter that the UN COULD conclude trusteeship agreements that altered or abolished rights contained in a mandate. See Jacob Robinson, Palestine and the United Nations: Prelude to a Solution, Greenwood Press, 1971 Reprint (1947), page 2-3
In fact Robinson, explained to the People’s Council of Israel that the Jewish State was already in existence as a result of the 29 November 1947 resolution. So he didn’t question the Assembly’s power under Article 18 of the Charter to adopt decisions regarding boundaries of territories under international trust. See Anis F. Kassim(ed), The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1987-1988, page 279
link to books.google.com
In the Namibia case, the ICJ confirmed that the General Assembly could even lay down the law and terminate a mandate without the consent of the mandatory power. It advised that:
Resolution 181(II) retained the international status of Jerusalem and contained a decision that it would be governed under a special regime by the Trusteeship Council on behalf of the United Nations Organization:
– link to yale.edu
It also established terms and conditions for the termination of the mandate regime itself and placed minority rights in each State under its own protection in accordance with Chapters B and C of the resolution. There is no doubt at all that the members had given the Assembly the power to do all of those things and adopt those decisions under the terms of Article 85 and Article 18(3) of the UN Charter:
While Article 83 of the Charter gave the Security Council authority to manage the Japanese enemy mandates as trusteeships, Article 85 gave the General Assembly the power to conclude the terms of trusteeship agreements for all of the other mandates on behalf of the UN Organization.
*See Article 85 link to yale.edu
*See Article 83 link to yale.edu
P.S. There weren’t sufficient votes in the Security Council to impose the General Assembly’s plan of partition by military force, but that doesn’t mean that the Assembly acted illegally or required permission.
International organizations, like the Council of the League of Nations, had already laid down the boundaries of states, like those between Iraq and Turkey, and those between Palestine and Transjordan in accordance with the terms of the Treaties of Versailles and Lausanne. In the South West Africa/Namibia cases the ICJ advised that the General Assembly was the UN organ tasked with fulfilling the responsibilities of the Council of the League of Nations towards the mandates.
In the legal analysis provided in the Wall case, Judge El Araby, like Jacob Robinson, pointed out that the General Assembly resolution contained a transition period and plan, including new boundaries, that started the moment the resolution was adopted on 29 November 1947. link to icj-cij.org
That’s significant, because the customary doctrine of uti possidetis limits the borders of any new state to the limits of its pre-independence administrative frontiers. That practice was recognized by the American states no later than 1810 and was reflected in the Monroe Doctrine, which was enshrined in public international law by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The ICJ applied that principle in the “Frontier Dispute” case (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) in 1986:
link to icj-cij.org
kylebisme “Ah, so you are under the misconception that the UN partition plan had some sort of legal weight”
The Jewish agency held the view it was binding. Their statement that effect … link to wp.me
Never the less, UNGA resolutions can and do remind parties of the Law (all law is binding), the UN Charter (binding on all member States in its entirety) and conventions which ARE binding on relevant states.
“never approved by the UNSC”
Cite exactly (verbatim) where UNGA res 181 was supposed to have been ” approved” by the UNSC ….. thx
>> Ah, so you are under the misconception that the UN partition plan had some sort of legal weight, even though it was only voted on by the UNGA, and never approved by the UNSC.
I’m of the opinion:
- that Palestine was partitioned;
- that Israel accepted its “allocation”;
- that Israel is not entitled to any more than its “allocation”; and
- that Palestinians are fully entitled to their “allocation”; and
- that, 60+ years later, it is – in my most humble opinion only, of course – unrealistic to suggest that the Partition can simply be annulled.
I’m also of the opinion:
- that Israel should be a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all its citizens, equally;
- that Palestine should be created as a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all its citizens, equally;
- that Israel must enter into sincere negotiations with the Palestinians for a just and mutually-beneficial peace (which includes as reasonable as possible an implementation of the RoR for Palestinian refugees w/ compensation in lieu); and
- that the Palestinians must enter into sincere negotiations with Israel for a a just and mutually-beneficial peace.
Annie Robbins says: eljay, if you would like to argue he would not accept a state on 67 borders i won’t try to stop you.
======================================
Accepting a state on the 67 boundary (for starters) is far different than accepting that Israel should exist on the remainder…
- that Palestine was partitioned;
No. A proposal was made and rejected by the Zionist entity’s invasion and aggression on the whole area starting in… November 47
- that Israel accepted its “allocation”;
It expressly did not. It moved to invade before any partition.
- that Israel is not entitled to any more than its “allocation”
It is entitled to zilch. Nothing in Palestine was the colonial powers’ to give away in any case. Add to that there is no “entitlement” to a racist and theocratic occupation of other people’s land.
- that Palestinians are fully entitled to their “allocation”
No, to sovereignty over all of their land.
- that, 60+ years later, it is – in my most humble opinion only, of course – unrealistic to suggest that the Partition can simply be annulled.
Unrealistic? What happened to the Soviet Union?
Anyway, the Partition has not happened.
“It belongs to the Arab and the Islamic world. ”
Still gonna argue that the Palestinians are secular democrats?
>> eljay: – that, 60+ years later, it is – in my most humble opinion only, of course – unrealistic to suggest that the Partition can simply be annulled.
>> sardelapasti: Unrealistic? What happened to the Soviet Union?
The Soviet Union was a (forced) unification, not a partition.
>> sardelapasti: Anyway, the Partition has not happened.
OK.
sardelapasti says: It is entitled to zilch. Nothing in Palestine was the colonial powers’ to give away in any case. Add to that there is no “entitlement” to a racist and theocratic occupation of other people’s land. No, to sovereignty over all of their land.
============================================
What refreshingly honest opinions. And they are the opinions that many (if not most) Israelis suspect that are held by their adversaries. Uncompromising eliminationism that guarantees generations of conflict and misery.
No, it was the total breakdown and destruction of a state and the founding of another one. Unification my a…
>> No, it was the total breakdown and destruction of a state and the founding of another one. Unification my a…
So the Soviet Union – a.k.a. the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – was not a unification. Interesting.
“Ah, so you are under the misconception that the UN partition plan had some sort of legal weight, even though it was only voted on by the UNGA, and never approved by the UNSC.”
Cause there was a line at the bottom which said “doesn’t apply to Zionists” which you covered with your thumb? Or is this just on the general principle that Jew don’t have to keep…..no, that won’t, or shouldn’t get past the moderator.
“Still gonna argue that the Palestinians are secular democrats?”
Hophmi, you did warn them about the penalties for not being secular democrats, didn’t you? You know, secular democrats, like in Israel, where they have the most fundamental workings of a secular democracy, like separation of church and state.
No. A proposal was made and rejected by the Zionist entity’s invasion and aggression on the whole area starting in… November 47
True enough, but that practice was exactly what the international community of states had rejected when it adopted the doctrine of uti possidetis and the prohibition against acquiring territory by fratricidal wars.
“Still gonna argue that the Palestinians are secular democrats?”
And the punishment for not being a secular democrat is a nakba and a 60 year occupation? Wow, Hophmi, your principles are strict!
I don’t see why everyone gets their panties in such a bunch with Palestinians talk about Jaffa and Haifa. Israeli hard line leaders (who aren’t even constantly threatened or marked for assassination or living with their families under military occupation) still talk about Jordan and the Sinai, for Christ’s sake, and mainstream Israeli leaders not only TALK about Hebron and “Shechem” (Nablus) and East Jerusalem as if they own the place — THEY ACT LIKE IT and enforce it with illegal settlements and armed brutality.
The bee-in-your-bonnet, clutching-your-pearls hypocrisy of this is frankly silly. Especially given, er, the realities of very recent history. People run out of their homes still clutching their keys for things they didn’t do, especially from a place as beautiful as Palestine, don’t easily forget. Especially when much of the rest of the world denies the expulsion even happened (or acts as if it was justified). What’s so hard to understand about that? They’ll get their not-too-distantly-ancestral cities back or they won’t, but for heaven’s sake, they’re not even allowed to TALK about them?
Pam, it’s all that persecution we’ve suffered. People who have been scarred by that kind of stuff make very few demands on people. To demand emotional compliance is beyond them. Once you understand the burden we bear, it becomes clearer.
I’ll repeat what I wrote on another thread: Regarding Meshaal, isn’t it obvious that he must have entered Gaza with the tacit permission of Israel? Rhetoric aside, I suspect Hamas may be evolving into another Fatah, funded by Gulf (specifically Qatari) money in return for essentially giving up on the resistance.
Define what you mean by “resistance”…….
yrn … Define what is meant by an independent sovereign state.
“Define what you mean by “resistance””
What in the dictionary of the occupier translates to “terrorism”.
yrn says:
December 8, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Define what you mean by “resistance”…….>>>>>>>>
Go steal a dictionary….you know what steal means don’t you?
Ouch!!
yrn, IDF soldiers and violent settlers who abuse Palestinians should be fair game for assassination or combat.
Same for Israeli politicians who are part and parcel to the Israeli war machine.
Define what you mean by “resistance”
resistance is not a complex concept yrn. perhaps if you communicated what it is you are asking, i’m confused.
This word “resistance” coming from a Palestinian really does terrify Zionist.
This reminds me of a forum where Omar Boughouti and a Prof Moas spoke. Moas is one the more enlightened Zionists that has been involved in many dialogues with Palestinians. He was attempting to do this with Omar and to negotiate some kind of fair deal. Omar refused to engage. His line was the peace process was a sham, that their goal was justice and their tool was resistance. Every time Omar used that word poor Moas became more and more agitated. It didn’t matter that Omar was talking about nonviolent resistance. Hearing that was not his idea of “dialogue”. It was quite memorable. This was in 2008 and Omar delivered a very forceful message that the Palestinians were no longer interested in the usual peace process and they were returning to the basics of resistance to the apartheid regime and demanding justice. I was also struck by the fact that right of return was right up there front and center. All of those concessions Arafat and Abbas made during 16 years of negotiations were now withdrawn by the real leaders of the Palestinian resistance.
unity through reconciliation?
pending
liberation?
to follow
that just & peaceful world?
by popular demand
Annie, why did you not report that Mashaal said in the speech he gave in Gaza Saturday that Hamas would never give up any part of of the land that Israel currently holds, from the Jordan River to the sea? Not Jaffa, not Haifa and Tzfat. You included a reference in his speech to Jaffa and Haifa but you fail to give the full picture. He mentioned Tzfat twice mocking Abbas who mentioned he was from Tzfat and did not expect to go back there.
Stop being two faced Annie.
the speech he gave in gaza saturday was not available to me when i wrote the draft giladg. i was going to do a followup of the event but with the response i have gotten from the coverage thus far i am not sure i will. you can link to it in the comment section tho, please do. perhaps the latimes, guardian and ma’an have updated their text but i when i found them and chose the blockquotes, the event had not been reported yet and they were setting up, as reflected in the guardian link to the video in the second paragraph.
You need to stop relying on partial translations, especially when they are coming from those who are antagonistic towards Israel. You will never get the full picture this way and how many other times has this happened? When the likes of Mashaal say one thing in English , or to an English audience, and then another in Arabic to an Arab or Muslim audience, I choose to believe him more on the later.
Come on Gilad just read the commentary how they all squirm to make their interpretation of Meshaal speech sound peaceful and not hateful and destructive at all.
He just wants justice and liberation …
Hypocrites the lot of them.
“Hypocrites the lot of them.”
You’re wrong. I was very clear in saying I wished what he said were true. Jerusalem, Haifa and Jaffa and ALL liberated.
OlegR says:
He just wants justice and liberation …
Hypocrites the lot of them.”>>>>
Well, getting their land cities back would be justice wouldn’t it?
They are the only ones in this mess that aren’t hypocrites.
The opening words of Hamas’s founding covenant make its goal clear:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
The covenant is also clear about their methods:
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
So, there should be nothing surprising about the fact that the Hamas leader expressed his desire to annihilate Israel
Looks like Meshaal is giving all of you a bad time……… as he is speaking the truth of what he and the Palestinians want.
While you try to hide his truth from yourself and from the Media.
Or you all accept what Meshaal wishes……… which will make your games hard to achieve.
I wasn’t talking about Hamas they always have been very sincere
about their intentions it’s their western “liberal” supporters i am talking about…
I don’t like what Meshaal said and don’t find it helpful, but it’s entirely understandable that Palestinians would find his speech inspiring. Talking to Israel and listening to the US tell them to negotiate has brought them nothing except continued occupation, sieges, Israeli war crimes, and land theft. Of course they think that violent resistance is the way to go–Israel shoots at their fishermen and farmers and only talks of not doing that when Hamas shoots rockets at their cities.
Israel helped create Hamas in the first place, in more ways than one.
I don’t like what Meshaal said and don’t find it helpful, but it’s entirely understandable that Palestinians would find his speech inspiring.
Let’s be clear. We in the US and Israel have deliberately blocked scores of court cases which involve war crimes and crimes against humanity from being heard in our own courts or in the courts of our friends in the EU, while allowing cases against the PLO and Hamas to proceed.
When the Palestinians finally ask for recognition so that they can approach the international courts, we either threaten to punish them or condition recognition on the basis that it cannot be used to pursue legal claims or charges against Israel. This behavior hardly reflects great credit upon a country that claims to be committed to “freedom and justice for all”, but worse still, it proves that those who have taken the law into their own hands were right all along when they said that we were giving them no other choice.
@ yrn
As I replied above: It sounds as if the Gazans should excuse themselves for wanting to return to Haifa and Jaffa. Why should they? Most of the Gazans are refugees. It’s their own land they want to return to, right? Any objections?
“Or you all accept what Meshaal wishes……… which will make your games hard to achieve.”
What is that supposed to mean? Of course I do, as the law is on his side. And ‘hard to achieve’? Actually I think it’s pretty easy to achieve: the Palestinians can almost see their former houses from Gaza. A small ride and they’re home.
there should be nothing surprising about the fact that the Hamas leader expressed his desire to annihilate Israel…While you try to hide his truth from yourself and from the Media.
like israel did to palestine? annihilate? who’s hiding the truth here? it’s very clear why you don’t use his actual text. have you read
“UK’s Observer adds “kill Jews” to Hamas leader Khaled Meshal’s Gaza speech when he did not say it”
link to electronicintifada.net
hiding behind accusations you cannot support, how predictable.
Hamas Charter — Article Thirty-One: “As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” link to wp.me
Q1 : – If it were Catholics given half of Palestine in ’48 for a homeland state without consulting the majority of the local inhabitants and that Catholic state rather than the Jewish state, then acquired, illegally, by war, another 50% of the remainder of Palestine, dispossessing the local non-Catholic inhabitants, razing their villages and homes, forbidding them to return, populating the territory with Catholics, do you really think the Hamas Charter would still say “Jews”?
Q2 : – Which came first? Hamas? Or Plan Dalet, razing villages, homes, dispossessing tens of thousands of non-Jews, never allowing them to return?
“If Catholics . . .”
If Catholics were there, there would be no Palestinians in the West Bank. They’d be expelled or dead.
The Hamas charter includes references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
“If Catholics were there, there would be no Palestinians in the West Bank. They’d be expelled or dead. ”
And you, bigot, have the gall to complain when someone makes a broad-brush remark about Jews?
did you just imply the latimes was antagonistic towards israel?
You need to stop relying on partial translations
you need to start putting your actions where your accusations are. produce me a transcript of his saturday speech published by sat morning pst. whoops! they don’t exist!
Jaffa ain’t Israeli. It was to be an Arab enclave, it has never been legally annexed to Israel.
Jaffa ain’t Israeli. It was to be an Arab enclave, it has never been legally annexed to Israel.
Your video does not display the English translation on the bottom of the video?
it works for me with the translation thetumta. i am watching it on firefox.
The headline should say
Mashaal Arrives at Gaza calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.
Like the blundering oaf Bibi jetting around various capitals calling for the end to any hope of a Palestinian state, and cheerleading the settler fascist movement. Except one of them has nukes, F16′s and more destructive capacity than anybody outside the US and Russia. Bibi doesn’t have to call for the destruction of the state of Palestine, he and his cronies have already destroyed it.
“Mashaal Arrives at Gaza calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.”
Destruction of the state of Israel with what? Words? Stop being such a cry baby. It’s pathetic.
Meanwhile, your folk aren’t using words to destroy what’s left of Palestine. They’re effectively doing with bulldozers.
thankgodimatheist EVERYTHING IS ONLY WORDS, as nothing is going to change as long as Hamas and you talk about resistance and Jafa and Haifa.
It’s all words , that will just harm the Palestinians as they continue to sell thier people the thousand nights story’s that will never come true….
instead of been realistic and achieve some agreement, they keep on selling thier illusions, that will only get them more pain.
This is what the arab world sold the Palestinians for the last 65 years…… and Mashaal and you keep selling the same drug.
yrn:
It’s not Hamas’ agenda that led to the failure of the “peace process”; the fraudulent “peace process” led to Hamas’ victory.
And let us not forget that Israel supported Hamas in its formative stages:
link to upi.com
The rise of Hamas also has to be seen as a *reaction* to the rise of violent Jewish Fundamentalism. It’s important to get the cause/effect sequence right.
“A Theory of Fundamentalism” Stephen C. Pelletiere Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College:
Excerpts:
@Sibiriak, let’s note the real origins of Hamas – the birth of the fascist Muslim Brotherhood under the auspices of the Nazi supporting, Jew hating Hassan Al-Banna. The fact that fundamentalist positions happen to exist on both sides does not justify the odious nature of Hamas-speak and the obvious threat that it poses to Israel. It is fine to discuss the excess of right wing settlers, but that can in no way diminish the evil intent of Hamas which goes all the way back to its beginnings.
I quote from “The Flight of the Intellectuals” by Paul Berman, this describing events in the 1930s :
“A larger conflict between Jews and Arabs, something on a regional scale, came into being only at the moment when al-Banna and his followers and allies launched their solidarity campaign for Amin al-Husseini, and the boycotts and riots against the Jews broke out in Cairo and other places.”
The Al-Banna epigraph in the Hamas Charter traces the real roots of Hamas’ refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist – “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
The charter explains the nature of the ‘Jewish enemy’ by using tropes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Meshal says:
Today is Gaza. Tomorrow will be Ramallah and after that Jerusalem then Haifa and Jaffa,
Big deal, what happened today in Gaza?
Was Gaza liberated? No.
Did Hamas manage to slaughter all the jews? No.
Did Hamas manage to slaughter any of the jews? No.
Was the siege of Gaza ended? No.
Did the refugees return to Israel? No.
Here’s what happened today in Gaza: Meshal visited. That’s all. And you want to get all wound up about it OlegR, go ahead.
But since *you* brought it up, can you give me or anybody else a reason why the current demented apartheid state of Israel should survive? I doubt it – it’s too far gone. Too many messianic nutjobs just itching for a little holocaust of their own.
/Here’s what happened today in Gaza: Meshal visited. That’s all. And you want to get all wound up about it OlegR, go ahead./
I agree that that’s all that happened but Annie should report it accurately
and btw i do take offence when somebody says he wants to rout me and mine even if he is powerless to do so. I am a bit strange that way i don’t like threats even empty ones.
‘me and mine’
What, Russians?
And what do you think Palestinians make of the constant Israeli threats to their existence, which are neither empty nor hypothetical?
An Israeli taking offense to a Palestinian’s empty threats (given the power differential, moral differential, colonial reality, etc.) is a NUTCASE.
You rape Palestine and then act like the victim.
Annie should report it accurately
oleg, when i filed the report there was no news of the rally yet because it had not occurred. i reported what he said about “Tomorrow will be Ramallah and after that Jerusalem then Haifa and Jaffa” and did not offer my analysis in the post. there is very little analysis in the post other than words described by the msm and the spokespeople. if you want more analysis please write phil, adam and scott and tell them “we want more analysis from annie!”.
i reported what i saw happening. i could have added a lot more about the rise of hamas politically, the implications regionally, etc etc but that would have required lots of speculation and i am not sure i am qualified to speculate on the front page about the intentions of meshaal or hamas. but when asked in the comment section i give my opinion. i’m sorry if that bothers you. but there is nothing ‘inaccurate’ about the information in the post at the time it was written from the info available in english on web.
also, we are limited wrt fair use as far as how much we can publish. i will tell you tho, i was intending on covering the rally in a follow up. but i have changed my mind about that now.
speaking of israeli threats, did everyone get a chance to read that iranian israeli politician’s call to assassinate meshaal when he was in gaza? paraphrasing of course. unreal.
link to israelnationalnews.com
Mofaz: Israel Should Have Eliminated Mashaal
“Israel missed an opportunity to eliminate the head of the serpent,” says Kadima chairman about Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal.
there’s something creepy about israeli politicians opening calling for the assassination of their adversaries. but i guess they are so used to acting with impunity it just spills right out.
>> You rape Palestine and then act like the victim.
Sure, it’s been and continues to be a vicious and prolonged rape, but Palestine simply refuses to stop punching and biting! :-(
The headline should say
Mashaal Arrives at Gaza calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.
ahh, but that would have been speculation and analysis oleg. his words on friday have been repeated enough. he didn’t call for the destruction of israel. nothing like the israeli politician who called to wipe gaza clean or whatever words he used to that effect.
it always requires a little morphing to get that hasbara ‘destruction’ lingo ramped up. later—
>> btw i do take offence when somebody says he wants to rout me and mine even if he is powerless to do so. I am a bit strange that way i don’t like threats even empty ones.
btw do you think they take offence when you and yours actively rout them and theirs especially when you are powerful enough to do so? They must be a bit strange that way they don’t like threats especially one that result in the on-going theft and colonization of their lands, and the loss of their lives and livelihoods.
Aggressor-victimhood is such a tough gig… :-(
“Aggressor-victimhood is such a tough gig…”
They make it look easy. Over 60 years of practice, I suppose.
Funny how some pro-Israel folks get all upset (and justified in the most vicious pronouncements and doings) just because a Hamas leader speaks of a desire (certainly not something even remotely available to him to achieve) for a Palestine upon all the land of Palestine — but express NO UPSET AT ALL at Israeli sayings and doings which aim at an Israel upon all the land of Palestine.
Perhaps one answer to this is as follows: let both sides say whatever they like until there is a peace treaty which says otherwise (or, better, until there is the remotest chance that an acceptable peace treaty might be in the offing), and then moderate their extremist statements.
PS: Can anyone explain how, without very severe outside pressure (a/k/a “sanctions”), Israel could ever “democratically” opt for a peace treaty whereby the West Bank (including occupied East Jerusalem) would be returned to Palestine? If not, please explain the uproar at Meshaal’s statement.
I’m not upset with Meshaal. I’m upset with the Westerners who want to reinterpret what he says to make it sound more Western-friendly.
Huh? I thought Westerners do exactly the opposite — painting Meshaal and Hamas as the devil himself. It’s Israel that has been whitewashed and excused by the West, not Meshaal.
“I’m not upset with Meshaal. I’m upset with the Westerners who want to reinterpret what he says to make it sound more Western-friendly.”
Thank God Mondoweiss is here for you to do that! But Hophmi, won’t anything you say be invalidated by being published here. Considering the journalistic and intellectual corruption you routinely accuse the site’s owner’s and writer’s of, wouldn’t more people heed your warnings if they were published on a Zionist site?
Go ahead, Hophmi, ask ‘what intellectual and journalistic corruption have I ever accused Mondo of’, please do.