Meshaal arrives in Palestine, calls for unification

Israel/PalestineMiddle East
on 97 Comments
A9hnhPACAAEjOCG
Khaled Meshaal and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyyeh Gaza, Palestine December 7, 2012 (photographer unknown via Haniyyeh’s twitter feed)
 

Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal received a hero’s welcome as he arrived in Gaza for the first time yesterday, ending 45 years of exile from Palestinian land. This was Meshaal’s first visit to the Gaza Strip, and he entered with his hand over his heart “telling jubilant supporters that his visit marked a new era in the pursuit of Palestinian independence.”

An outdoor rally is being held today to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas as well as commemorating the 25th anniversary of the First Intifada. Over 200,000 people are expected to attend, including delegations from Qatar, Malaysia, Turkey, Egypt and Bahrain. Saturday’s rally, according to Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zahri, is ‘A message of challenge to the occupation..a message of unity to the Palestinian people .. with the attendance of all political factions’.

LATimes:

[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.

Prime Minister Ismail Haniyyeh tweeted It is a joy, and triumph.”

Meshaal knelt and kissed the ground on his arrival:

Ma’an News:

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.

A9ho0YvCEAA7iBZ
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyyeh’s tweet of Meshaal’s: “moment arriving in the land of Palestine

Guardian:

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.

A9honLYCcAAwEmQ
It is a joy, and triumph” — Haniyyeh responds to Meshaal visit
About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

97 Responses

  1. Obsidian
    December 8, 2012, 3:15 pm

    “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.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 8, 2012, 4:10 pm

      maybe he would accept a state on the 1967 borders but prays for all of palestine to be liberated.

      • yrn
        December 8, 2012, 4:50 pm

        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”……..

      • Annie Robbins
        December 8, 2012, 7:24 pm

        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.

      • Dutch
        December 8, 2012, 8:03 pm

        @ 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?

      • Hostage
        December 9, 2012, 12:37 am

        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.

      • hophmi
        December 9, 2012, 8:10 am

        So, Annie, is it fair to say that your vision matched Meshaal’s vision? Yes or no?

      • Annie Robbins
        December 9, 2012, 2:23 pm

        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.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 9, 2012, 2:39 pm

        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.

      • Hostage
        December 9, 2012, 4:44 pm

        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

      • hophmi
        December 9, 2012, 4:55 pm

        “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.

      • hophmi
        December 9, 2012, 5:02 pm

        “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?

      • Annie Robbins
        December 9, 2012, 5:14 pm

        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.

      • hophmi
        December 9, 2012, 5:22 pm

        “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.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 9, 2012, 5:23 pm

        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.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 9, 2012, 5:29 pm

        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.

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2012, 7:41 pm

        “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.

      • eljay
        December 8, 2012, 5:27 pm

        >> 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.

        “I pray to God that my fourth birth will come the day we liberate Palestine,” he said …

        “Today is Gaza. Tomorrow will be Ramallah and after that Jerusalem then Haifa and Jaffa,” he said.

        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.

      • thankgodimatheist
        December 8, 2012, 7:00 pm

        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.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 8, 2012, 7:08 pm

        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

        Yes, I live in Gaza now and was born here too, but I want to return to the place where my grandparents lived, where my first uncle and auntie were born, I want to return to the place where my people were living peacefully, the place they were forced to go out from after Al Nakba. I want to return to the place I rightfully own, that beautiful town on the Mediterranean coast, 42Km north of Gaza. I want to return because I have the key of our home,because it belongs to none other than its rightful owners – my family and I.

        History will bear witness one day on the lands that were stolen from us! One day, undoubtedly, God willing we will return to our homeland. I am sure and so do everyone!

        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.

      • eljay
        December 9, 2012, 12:05 am

        >> 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
        December 9, 2012, 12:20 am

        >> 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.

      • kylebisme
        December 9, 2012, 5:00 am

        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
        December 9, 2012, 11:36 am

        >> 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”.

      • eljay
        December 9, 2012, 11:53 am

        >> You’re right, I should have said “assigned” instead of “granted”.

        Or perhaps even “allocated”.

      • kylebisme
        December 9, 2012, 12:56 pm

        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.

      • eljay
        December 9, 2012, 3:58 pm

        >> Well I’m still curious to know what assigning of land you are referring to exactly …

        United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

      • kylebisme
        December 9, 2012, 9:16 pm

        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.

      • Hostage
        December 10, 2012, 4:36 am

        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):

        2. Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two- thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the Trusteeship Council in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 86, the admission of new Members to the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, the expulsion of Members, questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions.

        3. Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

        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:

        “the functions and powers conferred by the Charter on the General Assembly are not confined to discussion, consideration, the initiation of studies and the making of recommendations; they are not merely hortatory. Article 18 deals with “decisions” of the General Assembly “on important questions”. These “decisions” do indeed include certain recommendations, but the others have dispositive force and effect.

        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:

        the General Assembly declared that the Mandate having been terminated “South Africa has no other right to administer the Territory”. This is not a finding on facts, but the formulation of a legal situation. For it would not be correct to assume that, because the General Assembly is in principle vested with recommendatory powers, it is debarred from adopting, in specific cases within the framework of its competence, resolutions which make determinations or have operative design.

        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:

        The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations.

        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:

        1. The functions of the United Nations with regard to trusteeship agreements for all areas not designated as strategic, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the General Assembly.

        2. The Trusteeship Council, operating under the authority of the General Assembly, shall assist the General Assembly in carrying out these functions.

        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

      • Hostage
        December 10, 2012, 5:19 am

        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:

        In this connection it should be noted that the principle of uti possidetis seems to have been first invoked and applied in Spanish America, inasmuch as this was the continent which first witnessed the phenomenon of decolonization involving the formation of a number of sovereign States on territory formerly belonging to a single metropolitan State. Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule which pertains solely to one specific system of international law. It is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new States being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power.

        The essence of the principle lies in its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved. Such territorial boundaries might be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign. In that case, the application of the principle of uti possidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being transformed into international frontiers in the full sense of the term. This is true both of the States which took shape in the regions of South America which were dependent on the Spanish Crown, and of the States Parties to the present case, which took shape within the vast territories of French West Africa. Uti possidetis, as a principle which upgraded former administrative delimitations, established during the colonial period, to international frontiers, is therefore a principle of a general kind which is logically connected with this form of decolonization wherever it occurs.

        link to icj-cij.org

      • talknic
        December 10, 2012, 6:02 am

        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

      • eljay
        December 10, 2012, 8:35 am

        >> 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.

      • mondonut
        December 10, 2012, 11:32 am

        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…

        Khaled Mash’al: First of all, Palestine – from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, from its north to its south – is our land, our right, and our homeland. There will be no relinquishing or forsaking even an inch or small part of it.

        Second, Palestine was, continues to be, and will remain Arab and Islamic. It belongs to the Arab and the Islamic world. Palestine belongs to us and to nobody else. This is the Palestine which we know and in which we believe.

        Third, since Palestine belongs to us, and is the land of Arabism and Islam, we must never recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of it. The occupation is illegitimate, and therefore, Israel is illegitimate, and will remain so throughout the passage of time. Palestine belongs to us, not to the Zionists.

      • sardelapasti
        December 10, 2012, 12:18 pm

        - 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.

      • hophmi
        December 10, 2012, 12:53 pm

        “It belongs to the Arab and the Islamic world. ”

        Still gonna argue that the Palestinians are secular democrats?

      • eljay
        December 10, 2012, 2:48 pm

        >> 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.

      • mondonut
        December 10, 2012, 4:47 pm

        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.

      • sardelapasti
        December 10, 2012, 5:05 pm

        No, it was the total breakdown and destruction of a state and the founding of another one. Unification my a…

      • eljay
        December 10, 2012, 6:32 pm

        >> 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.

      • Mooser
        December 10, 2012, 7:28 pm

        “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.

      • Mooser
        December 10, 2012, 7:31 pm

        “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.

      • Hostage
        December 11, 2012, 12:21 am

        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.

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2012, 7:44 pm

        “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!

    • Pamela Olson
      December 10, 2012, 4:45 am

      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?

      • Mooser
        December 10, 2012, 7:34 pm

        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.

  2. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    December 8, 2012, 3:27 pm

    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.

    • yrn
      December 8, 2012, 4:52 pm

      Define what you mean by “resistance”…….

      • talknic
        December 8, 2012, 6:01 pm

        yrn … Define what is meant by an independent sovereign state.

      • thankgodimatheist
        December 8, 2012, 6:52 pm

        “Define what you mean by “resistance””
        What in the dictionary of the occupier translates to “terrorism”.

      • American
        December 8, 2012, 7:13 pm

        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?

      • talknic
        December 10, 2012, 6:05 am

        Ouch!!

      • Cliff
        December 9, 2012, 1:53 pm

        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.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 9, 2012, 2:48 pm

        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.

    • ToivoS
      December 9, 2012, 5:17 pm

      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.

  3. yourstruly
    December 8, 2012, 4:10 pm

    unity through reconciliation?
    pending
    liberation?
    to follow
    that just & peaceful world?
    by popular demand

  4. giladg
    December 8, 2012, 6:08 pm

    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.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 8, 2012, 6:55 pm

      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.

      • giladg
        December 9, 2012, 3:30 am

        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.

      • OlegR
        December 9, 2012, 5:37 am

        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.

      • thankgodimatheist
        December 9, 2012, 7:01 am

        “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.

      • American
        December 9, 2012, 9:07 am

        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.

      • yrn
        December 9, 2012, 9:39 am

        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.

      • OlegR
        December 9, 2012, 12:38 pm

        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…

      • Donald
        December 9, 2012, 3:02 pm

        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.

      • Hostage
        December 9, 2012, 4:18 pm

        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.

      • Dutch
        December 9, 2012, 6:21 pm

        @ 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.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 9, 2012, 7:19 pm

        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.

      • talknic
        December 10, 2012, 12:59 pm

        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?

      • hophmi
        December 10, 2012, 2:00 pm

        “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.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 10, 2012, 3:04 pm

        “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?

      • Annie Robbins
        December 10, 2012, 6:19 pm

        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!

    • talknic
      December 10, 2012, 6:15 am

      Jaffa ain’t Israeli. It was to be an Arab enclave, it has never been legally annexed to Israel.

  5. thetumta
    December 8, 2012, 6:42 pm

    Your video does not display the English translation on the bottom of the video?

  6. OlegR
    December 9, 2012, 5:57 am

    The headline should say
    Mashaal Arrives at Gaza calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.

    • justicewillprevail
      December 9, 2012, 6:40 am

      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.

    • thankgodimatheist
      December 9, 2012, 7:14 am

      “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.

      • yrn
        December 10, 2012, 5:05 am

        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.

      • Sibiriak
        December 10, 2012, 10:25 am

        yrn:

        instead of been realistic and achieve some agreement,

        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

        Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

        Israel ‘aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),’ said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies. Israel’s support for Hamas ‘was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,’ said a former senior CIA official.”

        After 1967, a great part of the success of the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood was due to their activities among the refugees of the Gaza Strip. The cornerstone of the Islamic movements success was an impressive social, religious, educational and cultural infrastructure, called Da’wah, that worked to ease the hardship of large numbers of Palestinian refugees, confined to camps, and many who were living on the edge.

        “Social influence grew into political influence,” first in the Gaza Strip, then on the West Bank, said an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

        …According to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel.

      • Sibiriak
        December 10, 2012, 10:41 am

        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:

        One area in particular has been neglected; Hamas’s relationship with the Jewish fundamentalist movement. It can be argued that the latter turned Hamas into its course of violent activity.

        The author considers the Jewish fundamentalists briefly, then shows how the two groups are related.

        Basically, Jewish fundamentalists are committed to turning Israel into an exclusively Jewish preserve, to encompass so-called eretz Israel (greater Israel), the territory as it existed in Biblical times. This would include the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, in other words, all of the areas now being negotiated with the Palestinians. Eretz Israel, originally, was a concept of the Land of Israel Movement (LOI).55 LOI ideologues were secularists, whose dream of recreating ancient Israel was a form of romanticism.

        The timing of the LOI’s appearance is revealing–it came after Israel had defeated the Arabs in the Six Day War, which shifted huge tracts of territory to Tel Aviv’s control. Thus it seemed possible to fulfill the Biblical prophecies. This was not, however, an idea that commanded wide support. Indeed, Israel’s founding fathers had specifically rejected any such move. Israel’s first president, David Ben Gurion, was a pragmatist, who believed that the country should be built on land that was available.56

        After the 1973 war, however, popular attitudes among the Israelis changed. To be sure, in purely military terms, Israel won that war. Nonetheless, the successful seizure of Israeli occupied land in the Sinai by the Egyptians traumatized the
        Israelis, sending repercussions through the society. In particular, the Israelis were disturbed that Washington could seemingly compel them to enter into negotiations with the Arabs, and force them to surrender territory.

        Many in Israel had become comfortable with the idea of a vigorous, aggressive Jewish state. That Israel’s borders might now be set was not a pleasing prospect to them. Some Israelis, sympathetic to the LOI, sought to turn the public’s adverse reaction to account. In 1974, Rabbi Moishe Levinger formed the Gush Emunim (the Bloc of the Faithful).57

        The Gush had as its goal, not only to retain the territory Israel held at the end of the Six Day War but to annex it. In that way, it subscribed to the ideology of the LOI. However, where the original LOI adherents were secularists, the Gush was religious. Rabbi Levinger and his followers believed that God commanded the Jews to settle Eretz Israel–it was a divine injunction.

        The first action taken by the Gush–in an attempt to
        sabotage the Camp David Accords–was to form a party of squatters in the Sinai. Although the initial assay of the group failed, the Gush was not deterred. It shifted to establishing settlements outside the Green Line (in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem). The Israeli government stopped all but one of these attempts. The Gush succeeded in establishing Kiryat Arba, outside Hebron.58 For 10 years after its formation in 1974 the Gush seemed to be law abiding.

        But then it was discovered that the organization
        was plotting to blow up five busloads of Arabs. Moreover, under interrogation, Gush members confessed to having boobytrapped the cars of several Arab mayors in 1980, two of whom were permanently maimed. And finally, the police learned the Gush planned to blow up the Dome of the Rock. Located in Jerusalem, this is one of Islam’s holiest shrines.

        The Gush claimed that these [terrorist] actions were perpetrated to avenge violence against Jews, carried out by indigenous Palestinians. In fact, the native Palestinians were fairly quiescent during this time. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), prior to 1987, had virtually given up organizing resistance inside the territories. The PLO leaders believed that the Israeli occupation forces were too formidable. It was felt that any attempt to operate from inside the territories was sure to fail.60

        Moreover, the Palestinians in the territories had worked out a modus vivendi with the occupiers, who employed them in a variety of capacities. They were looked on by Israelis as good low-wage workers. This aspect formed the basis of the relationship. That the Palestinians were needed by the Israelis seemed to guarantee that they would be taken care of.

        Given the nonadversarial relationship between Palestinians in the territories and the Israelis, the PLO was not motivated to make trouble. Rather it concentrated on pressing the issue of self-determination in the United Nations. To be sure, this was not all that it did; it also carried out fedayeen raids into Israel from its base in southern Lebanon. But this was a way of keeping up the pressure, by making life uncomfortable for the Israelis. The real fight, in the PLO’s view, went on in the United Nations, and for that an active resistance inside the territories was not necessary.

        The appearance of the Jewish fundamentalist movement in the territories disturbed the Palestinians greatly. Their belief that they were safe under the occupation was shaken. What particularly shocked them was the creation of Kiryat Arba. The Palestinians had expected the Israelis to abide by international law, which forbade such activity, and thus were content to allow the United Nations to address the wrongs done to them. The creation of Kiryat Arba raised the specter of a complete Zionist takeover of Palestinian lands.

        Among the Israelis, a basic shift in attitude occurred in 1977 when the dominant Labor Party lost its first national election to the Likud. Likud was a party considerably to the right of Labor, and it upheld the principle of Jewish settlement anywhere. Moreover, it backed up its belief with legislation. The Likud effectively opened the West Bank and Gaza to land takeovers by Rabbi Levinger’s group.61

        Two developments, then, coming in late 1970s and early 1980s, frightened the native Palestinian community. One was the appearance of a messianic Gush Emunim movement, bent on fulfilling the Biblical prophecies, the second, the ascension to power of Likud, with its policy of unlimited settlement.

        Although not formally tied, Likud and the Gush certainly were in sympathy. In fact, the Gush appears to have seen itself as a kind of unofficial arm of the Likud Party, treading where Likud politicians feared to go. They planted settlements in areas officially off limits. While Likud leaders censured the Gush, the settlements remained. Thus more and more areas outside the Green Line were taken over by Jews.

        Nor were the Gush zealots deterred by attacks by Arab villagers. They repaid violence with violence. Gush Enumin did not seek protection from the IDF. Rather, it was armed and prepared to look out for itself. Many of the Gush’s members were army reservists.

        After 1977, tensions mounted inside the occupied
        territories, with the Jewish fundamentalists pressing their assaults on the Palestinians. The Palestinians fought back, but barely effectively. What the community needed, desperately, was an organized resistance organization. That need was about to be fulfilled. Interestingly, however, the organization was to come, not from the PLO but from King Hussein of Jordan.

        The Coming of Hamas. ETC.

      • Mayhem
        December 14, 2012, 5:10 pm

        @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.

    • Sumud
      December 9, 2012, 7:31 am

      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.

      • OlegR
        December 9, 2012, 8:20 am

        /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.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        December 9, 2012, 12:20 pm

        ‘me and mine’

        What, Russians?

      • justicewillprevail
        December 9, 2012, 1:02 pm

        And what do you think Palestinians make of the constant Israeli threats to their existence, which are neither empty nor hypothetical?

      • Cliff
        December 9, 2012, 2:02 pm

        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 Robbins
        December 9, 2012, 2:58 pm

        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.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 9, 2012, 3:02 pm

        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.

        Israel should have taken advantage of Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal’s visit to Gaza and eliminated him, Kadima chairman MK Shaul Mofaz said on Saturday.

        “Israel missed an opportunity to eliminate the head of the serpent. I would recommend that Mashaal to pack his bags and leave Gaza as soon as possible,” said Mofaz.

        “We stopped the operation in Gaza too early,” he added, referring to the IDF’s Operation of Pillar of Defense which targeted Hamas’s terror infrastructure in Gaza. “Mashaal’s visit to Gaza is the result of the political failure of Operation Pillar of Defense. Netanyahu and Lieberman gave their consent to Mashaal’s visit to Gaza. Hamas now raises its head and we need to put it back down.”

        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.

      • eljay
        December 9, 2012, 3:51 pm

        >> 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! :-(

    • Annie Robbins
      December 9, 2012, 3:08 pm

      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—

  7. eljay
    December 9, 2012, 12:02 pm

    >> 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… :-(

    • Donald
      December 9, 2012, 3:04 pm

      “Aggressor-victimhood is such a tough gig…”

      They make it look easy. Over 60 years of practice, I suppose.

  8. pabelmont
    December 10, 2012, 10:24 am

    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.

    • hophmi
      December 10, 2012, 2:01 pm

      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.

      • Dutch
        December 10, 2012, 4:34 pm

        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.

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2012, 7:53 pm

        “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.

Leave a Reply