Palestinian officials come out in support of BDS movement after Abbas’ disavowal

ActivismIsrael/Palestine
on 143 Comments
Mahmoud Abbas and Nelson Mandela in South Africa in 2006. (Photo: AFP/Fati Moalusi)

Mahmoud Abbas and Nelson Mandela in South Africa in 2006. (Photo: AFP/Fati Moalusi)

The Palestinian embassy to South Africa has come out in support of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.  The embassy’s position on the movement was released over a week after Mahmoud Abbas made headlines by coming out against boycotting Israel.

In a statement (read it in full below) that pushes back against Israel’s attempts to use Mahmoud Abbas against the BDS movement, the South African Palestine embassy said that the “State of Palestine is not opposed to the Palestinian civil society-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.” The embassy added that “Palestinian officials and leaders respect and uphold the right of Palestinian civil society to initiate and lead local and global BDS campaigns against Israel.”  And the embassy notes that on December 14th, 2012, Fatah officials “wrote an official letter to the South African President, Jacob Zuma, and members of the ANC communicating that ‘Fatah stands fully behind the BDS movement.'”

The embassy, which jointly released the missive with the group BDS South Africa, is careful to frame the statement not as a harsh rebuke to their leader.  Instead, the embassy said that the journalists and Israel lobbyists claiming that Abbas is opposed to BDS have simply misinterpreted his claims.  The statement may also reflect a desire to make Abbas look good in the face of activist condemnation of his remarks.

Abbas made the headline-grabbing remarks while in South Africa for Nelson Mandela’s funeral, and it was quickly seized upon by figures ranging from journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren.  “We don’t ask anyone to boycott Israel itself. We have relations with Israel, we have mutual recognition of Israel,” Abbas told reporters in South Africa.

The remarkable embassy statement was released on the same day that Haaretz’s Amira Hass reported that an ex-Palestinian negotiator also differed from Abbas on the BDS movement.  Speaking to reporters in the Palestinian town of Beit Jala, Muhammad Shtayyeh reportedly said that he “differs with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who endorses a boycott solely of products from settlements in the West Bank,” as Hass wrote in a paraphrase of his remarks. “According to Shtayyeh, one cannot separate or distinguish the settlements from those who have formulated the policies for their establishment.”

This post has been modified to more accurately reflect the South African embassy statement.

Here’s the full statement from the South African Palestine embassy on BDS:

JOINT STATEMENT FROM “THE EMBASSY OF THE STATE OF PALESTINE TO THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA” AND “BDS SOUTH AFRICA”

- Clarification regarding comments made by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas whilst in South Africa on boycott of Israeli settlements and products

Recent comments made in South Africa by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (and Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation), regarding the boycott of Israeli settlements and products, seem to have been taken out of context and misconstrued by some members of the media and members of the Israeli lobby. Some journalists and Israeli lobbyists have reported that President Abbas, at a South African press conference, said that he is opposed to the international boycott. This is untrue. The Embassy of the State of Palestine to South Africa and BDS South Africa would like to confirm the following positions:

1. We, together with international bodies including the United Nations, consider the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 illegal and all activities with those settlements in violation of international law;

2. Israel’s settler colonies violate several UN resolutions and are continue to be the main obstacle to the peace processes;

3. With the view that  the Israeli settlements are illegitimate and an obstruction to a just peace, the Palestinian Authority has accordingly initiated an official boycott of all Israeli settlement products in the occupied Palestinian territory;

4. In 2010 the Palestinian Authority issued a law, signed by President Mahmoud Abbas, banning Israel’s illegal settlement products, companies, relations and other activities with such illegal entities built in the occupied Palestinian territories occupied in 1967;

5. The Palestine Liberation Organisation and the State of Palestine is not opposed to the Palestinian civil society-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Palestinian officials and leaders respect and uphold the right of Palestinian civil society to initiate and lead local and global BDS campaigns against Israel as a means to achieve the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, paramount among which the right to self determination. Furthermore, the Palestinian leadership has always deeply appreciated the efforts of international solidarity groups and activists in South Africa and elsewhere, including those involved in the global BDS movement, to uphold international law and universal principles of human rights in supporting the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and self determination. We are keenly cognisant that international solidarity , particularly boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) was one of the four pillars of the struggle against apartheid here in South Africa.

6. Last year in December 2012, a representative member of the PLO in his speech at the African National Congress (ANC) said: “The [international arm of the] South African struggle began with the boycott campaign of South African grapes and wine, likewise, the illegal Israeli settlements can be defeated by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)”. On the 14th of December Fatah (the organisation leading the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority) wrote an official letter to the South African President, Jacob Zuma, and members of the ANC communicating that “Fatah stands fully behind the BDS movement.”

7. Whilst the BDS movement is concentrated within civil-society, at a government level, the State of Palestine is calling on all countries to fulfill their obligations under international law by immediately, as a first step, ending all trade and relations with companies from or involved in the illegal Israeli settlements.

8. We welcome the recent decision by the European Union to ban financial relations with Israeli entities operating in the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied 1967 Palestinian territories; the UK government’s recent instruction that no business must operate in East Jerusalem  and in any actives related to the illegal Israeli settlements; the academic boycott resolution adopted by the American Studies Association; and the decision last week of the Dutch Water Authority, Vitens, to ends its relations with the Israeli state-operated water company, Mekorot, complicit in the illegal Israeli settlements.

The Palestinian people will overcome, if Nelson Mandela and the South African people defeated apartheid, the Palestinians too will defeat the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.

——————————

Tamer AlMassri

Media Officer, Embassy of the State of Palestine to the Republic of South Africa

 

About Alex Kane

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist and graduate student at New York University's Near East Studies and Journalism programs. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

143 Responses

  1. Justpassingby
    December 20, 2013, 11:14 am

    Correct. What more evidence does people need? Abbas does not represent palestinians. Hes a puppet today and will forever be a puppet.

    • Les
      December 20, 2013, 9:03 pm

      A puppet yes. Once upon a time he served those purposes by being elected for a term of office. Without new elections since Abbas’ term expired, his authority is due to his seizure of the office as squatter.

      • Hostage
        December 20, 2013, 11:10 pm

        Without new elections since Abbas’ term expired, his authority is due to his seizure of the office as squatter.

        And Lincoln wasn’t reelected by a constitutional electoral college either. The Chairman of the PLO has been signing decrees as the “President of the State of Palestine” ever since 1988 without any popular elections.

        Arafat added “President of the Palestinian Authority” to the list when the Tunis agreement was signed in 1993. There were no general elections until 1996. Everyone’s term expired again in 1999, but future elections were canceled until after Arafat’s death.

        Mondoweiss and the press continue to use the term Palestinian Authority or PA, but it really doesn’t exist anymore. See
        ‘PA officially changes name to State of Palestine’ link to jpost.com

        Wikipedia also indicates the PA is a thing of the past:

        Elections in the Palestinian National Authority refers to elections which were held in Palestinian Autonomous areas from 1994 and until its transition into the State of Palestine in 2013.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Justpassingby
        December 21, 2013, 5:59 am

        Hostage

        Lincoln? Arafat?
        You sound like the hasbara users trying to justify whatever action by Israel.
        Why have elections anywhere in the world at all with the kind of justifications you use?
        Can Obama also say that?

      • Hostage
        December 21, 2013, 3:54 pm

        Hostage . . . Lincoln? Arafat? You sound like the hasbara users trying to justify whatever action by Israel.

        Conversely, you keep trying to deliver lectures to me about the way things work in the real world, and you don’t sound nearly worldly enough to pull it off.

        You act as if Abbas doesn’t represent anyone, but he uses the money from the EU and USA to pay for essential public services and public salaries. The UN has directed the Palestinian authorities to adopt non-violence and arrest those responsible for planning violent attacks, in no uncertain terms. It is an indispensable ally that provides vital daily assistance to the Palestinians through the UNRWA and other agencies. The majority of Palestinians are direct or indirect beneficiaries. When shortfalls do occur, they have taken actions, including demonstrations and strikes, which indicate that they really don’t favor ending the practices that you and others have labeled “selling-out”.

        You seem to think that elections for the PA Presidential post are all important, but that post was only a glorified territorial governor under the applicable law, with no role whatever in foreign relations with Israel and the USA. So I pointed out that fact and illustrated some parallels with the cases of Lincoln and Arafat.

        There are two PLO posts that matter a lot more in legal and historical terms than the municipal PA post. For example, under the terms of the Tunis agreement and the Oslo Accords it was always the PLO that has ratified and promulgated any laws in Palestine, including the basic laws and any amendments or resolutions on elections. The PA was just a creation of the PLO for interim municipal government. It never controlled the top foreign relations-related posts or even had the power to independently promulgate it own laws. It operated within limits established by Israel and the PLO.

        Arafat only held elections for the PA post once in 16 years and never held popular elections for the PLO post of President of the State of Palestine. Arafat held both of the top PLO foreign policy-related posts, President of the PLO Executive and President of the State of Palestine, for a couple of decades strictly on the say so of the PLO.

        Abbas won 60 percent of the popular vote in 2005 for the PA post and the PLO elected him to replace Arafat as President of Palestine and the Executive in 2004 and again in 2009. They also adopted a resolution regarding the PA post, which said he could hold that one indefinitely, pending popular elections.

        FYI, opinion polls show that 2/3rds of Palestinians still support Abbas in his on-going ICC and UN bids. I tend to agree with Mouin Rabbani:

        Q: How do you respond to those who argue that the current Palestinian leadership lacks legitimacy, either because their electoral terms have expired or because of the blurring of the lines between the PA and the PLO?
        A: Sure, if you look at it objectively, there is no legitimate Palestinian leadership, and that’s as true as it is for the government in Gaza as it is for the government in Ramallah. . . . Now does that mean that any Palestinian holding office is illegitimate and that anything they do is illegitimate? No. That would be going to the other extreme.

        link to maannews.net

        The parallels to Lincoln are obvious. Lincoln’s popularity plummeted during the civil war. Many people argued that he and the rump Congress, and the 1864 electoral college had no constitutional legitimacy. Like Abbas, his cronies adopted a “resolution” that allowed him to ignore the law and stay in office, despite the fact that 11 states were not represented in the Congress or the electoral college and were trying to forcefully overthrow his regime. At the same time he used his connections as a railroad lawyer and lobbyist to win elections, make personal land investments, and dole-out millions to publicly franchised monopolies he helped create which nearly bankrupted his home state of Illinois. When he fixed the route and terminus for the Union Pacific portion of the transcontinental railway, it was no accident that it ran adjacent to his own property in Council Bluffs. Many of his partners in these schemes went to jail during the Grant administration. See John W Starr, “Lincoln and the Railroads” Ayer, 1981. Despite all of the controversy, most people agree that Lincoln was the best or one of the best Presidents the US ever had.

        The statistical odds of anyone ever being indicted by the ICC were astronomically high, until it happened for the first time. The same thing will be true for western officials, until they too are finally indicted. Only then, will the pundits will say it was inevitable.

        FYI, legal experts, like John Dugard, William Schabas, Susan Akram, Victor Kattan, Michael Kearney, John Quigley, and Ian Scobbie have been working assiduously to get the ICC to take action on the situation in Palestine. They wouldn’t be doing that if there was no possibility of success. They have pointed out that the ICC Prosecutor wasted 3 years stalling the investigation, and in the end, didn’t even ask the Assembly of State parties to vote on the question of the validity of the existing Article 12(3) declaration made by Palestine, even though he said that they were competent to make a determination. link to ejiltalk.org

        If that happens, the Prosecutor’s hands will be tied by the parties that wrote the statute and fund the day-to-day operations of the ICC.

      • Justpassingby
        December 21, 2013, 4:58 pm

        Hostage

        You act as if Abbas doesn’t represent anyone, but he uses the money from the EU and USA to pay for essential public services and public salaries.

        Abbas doesnt represent anyone since he hasnt had any election in years, but since you are pro Abbas you fail to realize this.
        Abbas is funded by Israel/US, who care about the salaries from the occupier herself?!

        You seem to think that elections for the PA Presidential post are all important, but that post was only a glorified territorial governor under the applicable law, with no role whatever in foreign relations with Israel and the USA. So I pointed out that fact and illustrated some parallels with the cases of Lincoln and Arafat.

        Nonsense. The PA president have the authority in foreign relations.

        FYI, opinion polls show that 2/3rds of Palestinians still support Abbas in his on-going ICC and UN bids. I tend to agree with Mouin Rabbani:

        Yes of course? Why would palestinians be against ICC? Why would they be against UN bids? And what about ICC? Why hasnt Abbas gone there? Well go figure (hint: puppet).
        Besides there are polls from 2012/2013 that showed that Hamas had greater support than PA.

      • Hostage
        December 21, 2013, 6:39 pm

        Abbas doesnt represent anyone since he hasnt had any election in years, but since you are pro Abbas you fail to realize this.

        I think you fail to grasp all of the political party, family, clan, and tribal interests involved. He certainly represents the Fatah party and has been duly elected as its leader. It has a broad constituency and patrons in the public sector. In similar fashion, Hamas represents the views of at least a third of the population, and has conducted its own party elections to select its leadership. It also has patrons in its public sector that it supports through assistance provided by foreign donors.

        I’m not pro-Abbas at all, I’m pro-State of Palestine pending a final settlement. I wouldn’t object to Hamas joining the PLO or to the PLO conducting elections for a replacement as President. On many occasions, I’ve noted that I’m no prophet, but that the most likely outcome in the near future, isn’t the 1ss or 2ss, but more of the status quo (apartheid or persecution).

        I’ve stated on several occasions that Israel went straight to the UN in 1948 to obtain all the advantages and benefits of “stateyness”, pending a final settlement and that simply equity demands that Palestinians be given those same advantages and benefits too. Abbas just happens to be the only one who stands for that proposition at the moment. He has also stated that the PA was created to obtain an independent state and end the occupation, and if it doesn’t, then it needs to be disbanded and responsibility turned back over to Israel. I’m not a fan of the idea that Palestinians could end-up depending on the tender mercies of a bunch of racist Zionists. So I tend to support any other alternative.

      • Hostage
        December 21, 2013, 7:14 pm

        Nonsense. The PA president have the authority in foreign relations.

        The Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II) specifically stated that the PA

        will not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations’, such as the establishment abroad of embassies, consulates or other types of foreign missions or permitting their establishment in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.

        The PLO on the other hand, may conduct negotiations and sign economic agreements as well as cultural, scientific and educational agreements with states or international organizations ‘for the benefit’ of the PA.

        The Oslo Accords “reflect the existence of two Palestinian entities, one (the PLO) with the power to engage in foreign relations but not to control territory, and the other (the PA) with the power to control and govern territory but not to engage in foreign relations.” — See Geoffrey Watson The Oslo Accords: International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements (Oxford University Press, 2000) page 245.

      • Justpassingby
        December 21, 2013, 7:13 pm

        Hostage

        “I think you fail to grasp all of the political party, family, clan, and tribal interests involved. He certainly represents the Fatah party and has been duly elected as its leader.

        He hasnt had any elections, he is not representing palestinians.

        “I’m not pro-Abbas at all”

        “I’m not a fan of the idea that Palestinians could end-up depending on the tender mercies of a bunch of racist Zionists.”

        “Abbas just happens to be the only one who stands for that proposition at the moment.”

        Actually you said the other day you had a thing for the PA and that palestinians must “cave in” to Israel.
        And Abbas hasnt done anything, contrary, as Palestine papers showed, he offered, for example, Israel to keep settlements on palestinian land.

      • Hostage
        December 23, 2013, 2:18 pm

        He hasnt had any elections, he is not representing palestinians.

        You keep repeating that, but he was actually re-elected as President of the Fatah party during the Sixth General Assembly held in Bethlehem in 2009. The delegates were all Palestinians and included representatives of the refugees and diaspora. Fatah is the leading Palestinian national movement and the largest organization in the PLO.

        Abbas issued a Presidential decree in 2009 to hold presidential and parliamentary elections, but Hamas wouldn’t allow election officials to conduct them in Gaza, so he scheduled elections in Fatah and the PLO to avoid a complete constitutional crisis.

        Under the terms of the 1988 Algiers Declaration on the Establishment of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine, the PLO has always retained the power to establish governments and remove them for lack of confidence. link to unispal.un.org

        The 2003 Basic Law and its 2005 amendments were promulgated as law by Abbas in his role as Chairman of the PLO Executive and stipulated that the Palestinian National Authority was “established under the leadership of the PLO, the sole, legitimate representative of the Arab Palestinian people wherever they exist.” It also stipulated that the temporary Basic Law under which the PA President and Legislative Council were elected did not alter the role of the PLO:

        At the same time, the enactment and ratification of this law by the Legislative Council does spring from the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization is the sole and legitimate representative of the Arab Palestinian people.

        link to palestinianbasiclaw.org

        You keep arguing as if the roles were reversed and the PLO obtains its legitimacy from the PA elections, instead of its own.

        The UN, the Arab League, and the OIC legally recognize the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people and the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine. FYI, it has been that way, since the 1988 Algiers Declaration and the subsequent UN resolutions that acknowledged and upgraded the status of the PLO delegation to the UN. The US also conducts its foreign relations through the General Delegation of the PLO to the US.

        Actually you said the other day you had a thing for the PA and that palestinians must “cave in” to Israel.

        No you said that. Here is a link to your comment. My reply is directly underneath. link to mondoweiss.net

        I said that whoever the Palestinians elect will have to cave-in to demands from Israel, the US, EU, and the UN. If you are going to deliver lectures on how the real world works, then you need to admit that fact of occupation life and stop talking like a delusional keyboard warrior. Both the Hamas and Fatah factions of the PA have been forced into accepting demands from those very same players in return for lifting of curfews, cease fires, opening of crossings, foreign assistance, & etc.

        My only interest in the PA was the interim role it played in efforts to establish the state and end the occupation and file criminal complaints on behalf of the government of the State of Palestine.

        Despite attempts by the Israelis to prevent the PLO or the PA from functioning as the viable government of a State, the Oslo Accords did grant the PA territorial and personal jurisdiction in line with the principles of international law and the PLO parent organization the authority to conduct foreign relations and conclude treaties on behalf of the PA. That division of labor just happens to be the only prerequisite needed for recognition of the two as the government of a State. The US State Department Digest of International Law explains:

        “A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties” Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223

      • Justpassingby
        December 21, 2013, 8:44 pm

        Hostage


        “The Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II) specifically stated that the PA”

        …have executive/legislative/power to create policies according to #1 of that treaty. The Oslo is dead, no one is following this treaty. Such text (the treaty) was made by Israel to limit the power of palestinians.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 4:36 pm

        The Oslo is dead, no one is following this treaty. Such text (the treaty) was made by Israel to limit the power of palestinians.

        The problem for you is that the 2003 Basic Law and its amendments do not necessarily apply to the Government of the State of Palestine. The Introduction to the Basic Law explained that it is “Within the framework of the interim period, resulting in the Declaration of Principles Agreement.” Almost every paragraph explains that it is temporary, interim, and provisional in nature. I’ve been pointing out for years that the Oslo Accords are lapsed, and that when the UN and UNISPAL recognized the State of Palestine, that Israeli officials complained, because they have no agreements with the Government of the State of Palestine.

        I’ve also provided links which explain that Abbas issued a Presidential decree, after the UN General Assembly upgraded Palestine’s status, that abolished the post of President of the PA.

      • Justpassingby
        December 22, 2013, 11:28 am

        Hostage

        “The Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II) specifically stated that the PA”

        Read #1 where it states that PA have executive powers. You deny Abbas have the most authority in the PA and in relations with foreign relations with Israel and the US?

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 3:47 pm

        Read #1 where it states that PA have executive powers.

        Yeah, as President of the PA he could appoint a dog catcher to serve out the unexpired term of the incumbent if he happened to resign or died.

        But the portion of the agreement that I cited explicitly stated that the PA, including its President and all of its officials, “did not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations, such as the establishment abroad of embassies, consulates or other types of foreign missions or permitting their establishment in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.”

        That exclusion applied to the executive, legislative, and judicial powers granted to the PA under the terms of the agreement.

        You deny Abbas have the most authority in the PA and in relations with foreign relations with Israel and the US?

        Yes, he had no power or responsibility in his capacity as the President of the PA to do those things. Israel had no agreement with the PA, it only had agreements concluded for the benefit of the PA by the PLO.

        Abbas could conduct foreign relations without Israel’s permission or any PA elections in his role as President of the PLO Executive.

      • Justpassingby
        December 22, 2013, 4:51 pm

        Hostage

        “The problem for you is that the 2003 Basic Law and its amendments do not necessarily apply to the Government of the State of Palestine.”

        I was speaking of the Oslo treaty you brought up. Havent touched upon the 2003 Basic law at all.

        “Yeah, as President of the PA he could appoint a dog catcher to serve out the unexpired term of the incumbent if he happened to resign or died.”

        “Executive” = the highest authority.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        “Yes, he had no power or responsibility in his capacity as the President of the PA to do those things. Israel had no agreement with the PA, it only had agreements concluded for the benefit of the PA by the PLO.”

        PA is represented by Abbas > Israel deal with the PA, you cannot ignore that he have the highest auhtority in dealing with foreign policy topics.
        Oslo is dead and the treaties was made by Israel to limit the power of palestinians.

        Besides Abbas hasnt gone to ICJ, ICC, UNSC, meaning hes a puppet.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 6:23 pm

        I was speaking of the Oslo treaty you brought up. Havent touched upon the 2003 Basic law at all.

        The PA was a creature of the Oslo Accords and the 2003 Basic Law stated that it was established within the framework of the interim period and the [lapsed Oslo] Declaration of Principles Agreement.

        “Executive” = the highest authority.

        The Oslo Accords vested the power (authority) for foreign Affairs in the PLO, not the PA. You can look that up in Wikipedia too while you are there:

        Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization
        (Redirected from Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority)
        link to en.wikipedia.org.

      • Justpassingby
        December 23, 2013, 3:32 am

        Hostage

        As I just said I havent spoken of 2003 basic law, I spoke of the text of the Oslo treaties you yourself brought up. Keep on topic.

        Oslo gave PA the authority in the territory. You still deny who have the authority today with Israel and the US (for example), its Abbas.

        I see that you still ignore this:

        “Besides Abbas hasnt gone to ICJ, ICC, UNSC, meaning hes a puppet.”

        Just because as you you self have said: ‘palestinians must cave-in’ to Israel.

      • Hostage
        December 24, 2013, 10:53 am

        As I just said I havent spoken of 2003 basic law

        Yes you have been all along. That’s the only basis for your claim that Abbas’ term is expired. Please provide another source of support for that idea or keep digging yourself in deeper.

        Oslo gave PA the authority in the territory. You still deny who have the authority today with Israel and the US (for example), its Abbas.

        I’ve said all along:
        * The PA is a defunct organ and Oslo has lapsed. It’s up to the PLO to establish the new form of government and a date for any elections. You keep blathering about expired PA terms and elections.
        * In the meantime, the PLO Executive, not the defunct PA, has the authority to conduct foreign relations, appoint ambassadors, establish governments in Palestine, and remove them. Abbas is its President. I’ve given you links to the 1988 Declaration on the Establishment of the Provisional Government of Palestine which establishes that beyond any doubt.
        * I’ve explained there are no fixed term limits for the posts in the PLO and that the 2003 basic law adopted by the PA legislative council said the source of the PA’s legitimacy was the fact that the PLO is the sole representative of the Palestinian people wherever they exist, and that the PA had been established under the leadership and authority of the PLO.

        * The Oslo Accords explicitly prohibited the PA from conducting its own foreign relations and left the PLO in charge in that area. I’ve provided you the citations for that and you’ve engaged in a bunch of amateurish obfuscations and evasions.

      • Justpassingby
        December 23, 2013, 12:29 pm

        Hostage

        I havent spoken about the 2003 Basic Law. Again keep on topic.
        I see that you once again ignore this:

        Besides Abbas hasnt gone to ICJ, ICC, UNSC, meaning hes a puppet.

      • Hostage
        December 23, 2013, 5:13 pm

        Hostage

        I havent spoken about the 2003 Basic Law. Again keep on topic.

        I don’t see how you can consider the 2003 Basic Law off-topic. I’ve pointed out that the amended 2003 Basic Law is the legislation that governs elections for the President and legislative council that you keep squalling so much about.

        I think you are desperately trying to ignore the fact that it says that the PA is subordinate to the PLO; that the PLO remained the sole representative of Palestinian people wherever they exist; and that Abbas remained the President of the PLO Executive and the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine after the decisions adopted by the Fatah General Assembly in 2009 and the subsequent PLO Palestinian National Council meetings in August and December of 2009.

  2. pabelmont
    December 20, 2013, 12:38 pm

    Good! Better there not be seen to be a split between official Palestine and the Palestinian civil society on BDS.

  3. Walid
    December 20, 2013, 12:46 pm

    More about Dr. Muhammad Shtayyeh from Haaretz:

    “Dr. Muhammad Shtayyeh,who last November quit the Palestinian team negotiating with the Israelis over a peace settlement, reiterated Thursday the Palestinian position that they would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

    In a meeting with journalists in the Palestinian town of Beit Jala, not far from Bethlehem in the West Bank, Shtayyeh stated that the Israeli insistence on Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a new demand that was not raised in the initial talks and interim agreements between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

    According to Shtayyeh the declaration of Israel as a Jewish state implies the prevention of Palestinian refugees from returning to their homeland, opening the door to the expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel from their homes and the imposition of the Jewish narrative on the history of this country, thereby rejecting the Christian and Muslim narratives.

    Shtayyeh told Haaretz that there is a fundamental difference between “a state for the Jews” and a “Jewish state.”

    Full article:

    link to haaretz.com

  4. HarryLaw
    December 20, 2013, 1:00 pm

    pabelmont @ ” Good! Better there not be seen to be a split between official Palestine and the Palestinian civil society on BDS”. Unfortunately the damage has been done, what is required is not an explanation from the SA Palestinian Embassy, but an explanation from Abbas himself, of course no such thing will happen, because his opinion is clear, he does not support a boycott of Israel, this is very important he will offer no resistance himself, nor will he support other people who wish to boycott Israel, what kind of a leader is he?
    Salim Vally, spokesperson of the Palestine Solidarity Committee in South Africa, told The Electronic Intifada that Abbas’ comments were “shocking” and represented an “attack on the global solidarity movement.” This is correct, only Abbas can end the confusion, if confusion there be.

    • pabelmont
      December 20, 2013, 2:25 pm

      HL: Thanks for the correction.

      Yes, it is sad to see people (ever see Obama in the role?) openly playing the puppet to Zionist power. Corruption on open display! Abbas is running out the latest (absurd) 9 month clock, and after this period of non-gestation (of peace, natch), then what? ICC? From this Abbas? Well, we may hope.

      • Hostage
        December 20, 2013, 5:51 pm

        Then what? ICC? From this Abbas?

        The fact is that many Palestinian activists who are experts on international law, including Susan Akram, Victor Kattan, and Michael Kearney (Al Haq) are still fighting to get the ICC Prosecutor to act on the existing criminal complaint and declaration from Palestine. You just don’t hear about it all the time: ICC is called on to investigate ‘territorial black hole’ that Palestinians have been locked in for decades link to mondoweiss.net

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2013, 7:57 am

        You just don’t hear about it all the time: ICC is called on to investigate ‘territorial black hole’ that Palestinians have been locked in for decades

        So what you are saying Hostage, is that the ICC has been compromised/corrupted and is looking for excuses not to consider matters relating to Palestine.

        And it appears that Abbas is playing along by allowing the ICC to continue make excuses by not ratifying the jurisdiction of the ICC on behalf of Palestine.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 3:08 pm

        So what you are saying Hostage, is that the ICC has been compromised/corrupted and is looking for excuses not to consider matters relating to Palestine.

        Yes, in the early days the Court had to make compromises due to limitations in the areas of funding and staff. But in this case the former Prosecutor and his Assistant (who succeeded him in office) didn’t want to kick-over a hornet’s nest and have been widely criticized for their procrastination and for acting in bad faith.

        In fairness the situation in Israel and Palestine involves a multitude of acts, that were considered international crimes at the time, committed over a period of six decades. The scope and time frame dwarfs anything that an international tribunal has handled to date. The situation really deserves its own Ad Hoc Criminal tribunal that can address issues prior to 2002.

    • seafoid
      December 20, 2013, 3:57 pm

      If he supports bds the bots will go for the jugular. Nobody to talk to, antisemite, kitchen sink.

    • Hostage
      December 20, 2013, 4:15 pm

      what is required is not an explanation from the SA Palestinian Embassy, but an explanation from Abbas himself, of course no such thing will happen

      There isn’t a government on Earth that doesn’t use spokespersons to release official policy positions and clarifications. You can’t even get Mondoweiss to write an honest headline that passes along the news about an official statement which said it is untrue that Abbas is opposed to the BDS movement.

      The headline tries to make it look like Abbas still disavows it and that some other Palestinian officials are speaking out. Why am I not surprised that this is not what the press release actually said?

      Just the other day we had another story which manufactured a Kerry quote to make it look like he had said something he didn’t about the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

    • Hostage
      December 20, 2013, 4:22 pm

      because his opinion is clear, he does not support a boycott of Israel, this is very important he will offer no resistance himself, nor will he support other people who wish to boycott Israel, what kind of a leader is he?

      Are you still waiting on Omar Barghouti to boycott his Israeli alma mater? The position of Palestinian civil society is that the victims can’t boycott Israel, only outsiders can do that effectively. You ought to be pleased that there has been an official press release that says its untrue that Abbas doesn’t support the BDS movement and let it go. Instead of spreading the good news, MW is effectively obscuring the story with its stupid headline.

      • ToivoS
        December 20, 2013, 8:44 pm

        I agree with your interpretation of what Abbas actually said. But given the nature of confrontational political discourse, if a statement can be misinterpreted by the other side then the other side will do so. Abbas gave Israel a sound bite they could carry around the world. He allowed them to do so for many days.

        If you haven’t noticed Israel is not interested in the truth and will push a lie as long as it has traction. Abbas let that happen. He deserves the criticism he is receiving from us and is showing poor leadership. It is pathetic that his embassy in South Africa has to try to undo the damage.

      • yrn
        December 21, 2013, 5:41 am

        “You ought to be pleased that there has been an official press release that says its untrue that Abbas doesn’t support the BDS movement and let it go.”

        Where is that press release.

      • Hostage
        December 21, 2013, 4:09 pm

        Hostage: “You ought to be pleased that there has been an official press release that says its untrue that Abbas doesn’t support the BDS movement and let it go.”

        yrn: Where is that press release?

        That press release is the actual subject of this article. The Palestinian Embassy in South Africa said that it was untrue that Abbas doesn’t support the international BDS movement.

        AFP received an identical “clarification” and even Arutz Sheva carried a report about it:

        The Palestinian Authority’s leadership said Friday it recognizes the right of civil society groups to boycott Israeli products, but stressed its own embargo is limited to products from “settlements.”

        “The Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Palestine is not opposed to the Palestinian civil society-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel,” said a statement received by the AFP news agency.

        “Palestinian officials and leaders respect and uphold the right of Palestinian civil society to initiate and lead local and global BDS campaigns against Israel as a means to achieve the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.”

        It also urged all countries to end “all trade and relations with companies from or involved in the illegal Israeli settlements.”

        link to israelnationalnews.com

  5. Citizen
    December 20, 2013, 1:58 pm

    It’s time to call American Zionists to account re BDS: link to thedailybeast.com

  6. Jan
    December 20, 2013, 2:08 pm

    Why is Abbas still considered to be the President? His term in office expired in January, 2009 and yet he is still there. I have no doubt but that Abbas serves Israeli interests otherwise the Mossad or the IDF would have long ago dispatched him.

    • Walid
      December 20, 2013, 4:38 pm

      “His term in office expired in January, 2009 and yet he is still there. ”

      It was extended automatically for a year by Palestinian law and after that again extended unilaterally by Abbas himself. This coming January 9th will be Abbas’ 4th year of illegitimately occupying the post.

    • Hostage
      December 20, 2013, 6:17 pm

      Why is Abbas still considered to be the President?

      Abbas is still President of the PLO and the State of Palestine. The UN, governments of the League of Arab States, and the OIC have recognized the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. It goes without saying that several of those governments don’t hold elections at all.

      The PA was just an interim body created by the PLO. For example, the annexes of the follow-up report to the UN on the Goldstone findings noted that “On 25 January 2010, Presidential Decree No. 0105 of 2010 was issued by the [1] President of the State of Palestine, [2] President of the Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee and [3] President of the Palestinian National Authority, H.E. President Mahmoud Abbas.”
      link to unispal.un.org

      Abbas issued another Presidential decree after the UN recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state that effectively abolished the PA. See
      Abbas changes name of Palestinian Authority to ‘State of Palestine’
      Under new decree, all stamps, signs, and official letterheads will be changed to bear the title: link to timesofisrael.com

      It’s also obvious that neither faction of the old PA, i.e. Haniyeh in Gaza or Abbas in the West Bank, are in any hurry to hold elections or form a joint government. So you are left with two de facto regimes. Ever since the Tinoco Arbitration case, governments always tend to treat de facto regimes like a de jure or legitimate government, because they have the same international obligations as those owed to a de jure regime.

    • NickJOCW
      December 21, 2013, 8:18 pm

      Abbas is the de facto leader of Palestinian interests. That means he exercises authority and serves various functions without necessarily being selected according to all the niceties of democratic process. It is irrelevant what titles he may bear, he does what he does and when he has done it, it’s done. History may regard him as a Pétain but we are far from there.

  7. BillM
    December 20, 2013, 2:42 pm

    So BDS has spread to a major academic organization AND helped isolate the puppet Abbas? It’s been a good week.

    • just
      December 21, 2013, 8:36 pm

      What possible good comes from isolating Abbas? What good for the Palestinians?

      I am so glad that BDS has spread. I am not for isolating any Palestinian.

      If you want to isolate puppet (s), isolate Congress and our other Elected Leaders– all the way to the tippy- top!

  8. Hostage
    December 20, 2013, 3:50 pm

    Some journalists and Israeli lobbyists have reported that President Abbas, at a South African press conference, said that he is opposed to the international boycott. This is untrue.

    I think you should change your headline and put that in the lead paragraph.

  9. HarryLaw
    December 20, 2013, 4:15 pm

    Some journalists and Israeli lobbyists have reported that President Abbas, at a South African press conference, said that he is opposed to the international boycott. This is untrue.
    If it was untrue, it would be a bad slur on Abbas, one that any self respecting leader would quickly correct, [he does have access to the media does he not], going as it does to a crucial aspect of the Palestinian struggle. I won’t hold my breath.

    • Walid
      December 20, 2013, 5:16 pm

      Harry, the clarification note only confused the issue further and did not clear up anything. Abbas is definitely not against any boycott of settlement goods; in fact, he led a campaign with Fayyad in 2010, as described at the end of the clarification, to have Palestinians boycott settlement goods from being sold in Palestinian WB shops and was both encouraging and threatening Palestinians from working in settlements-owned industries on the WB. Settlement products were confiscated from WB Palestinian shops not abiding by the boycott restriction and were burned in public.

      What he said in South Africa was that he was opposed the boycott of Israel itself, such as the academic one just declared by ASA. Israelis are making it erroneously appear that Abbas is totally against all boycotts of any nature against Israel, which is not the case. So he is definitely against international boycotts of Israel, but he is not against boycotts of settlement products. The guys that issued the clarification are backtracking after having broken away from Abbas’ position on international boycotts and they are now muddying the waters with their statement that they are all against the settlements products.

      • Rusty Pipes
        December 20, 2013, 9:32 pm

        This is false: “What he said in South Africa was that he was opposed the boycott of Israel itself, such as the academic one just declared by ASA.” The Arab League boycott is against Israel itself. The ASA boycott, following the USACBI guidelines, is specifically against Israeli cultural and academic institutions (and not necessarily against all Israeli scholars) in that Israel promotes its institutions abroad as part of Brand Israel, denies equal access to its institutions for all Israeli citizens and sabotages Palestinian academic institutions and the higher education of Palestinians both at home and studying abroad.

    • Hostage
      December 20, 2013, 8:59 pm

      If it was untrue, it would be a bad slur on Abbas, one that any self respecting leader would quickly correct, [he does have access to the media does he not], going as it does to a crucial aspect of the Palestinian struggle. I won’t hold my breath.

      In fact Abbas never said he was opposed to the international boycott movement and some of us pointed that out.

      The Palestinian Embassy to South Africa is one his media outlets. If you subscribe to the daily news and analysis from the PLO Delegation to the United states, you’d know they also regularly cover stories favorable to the international boycott movement. There’s one today from the Associated Press: “Israelis split over threat posed by boycott calls”.

      The Hasbara Fellowship and the JNF will gladly fill-up your inbox with crap about Abbas and the PA committing racial incitement through support for BDS or the boycott of settlement products. The JNF put out one today asking everyone to express their rage about the recent boycott announcements.

  10. Jill St. Cu
    December 20, 2013, 7:06 pm

    What a bunch of hypocrites! Omar Boughadi has a degree from Tel Aviv Univeristy and one of the BDS movements leaders just passed away from cancer and spent his last month being treated in an Israeli Hospital ( Hadassah).
    Why are the BDS members allowed to have it both ways? The rules don’t apply?

    • Hostage
      December 20, 2013, 11:21 pm

      Why are the BDS members allowed to have it both ways?

      Because Israel has most of them living in captive markets on either side of the Green Line. They are either land locked or can’t boycott themselves until such time as Israel decides to give them equal rights and/or independence. But others can do those things on their behalf.

      • Walid
        December 21, 2013, 12:28 am

        Rusty Pipes, not false but your elaboration made ASA’s boycott more precise. My rant was in making a distinction of boycotting settlement activities and boycotting activities within Israel proper. In plain English, Abbas encourages boycotts of settlements products on the West Bank and he discourages boycotts of Israel proper. So he is neither fully for all forms of boycotts, nor fully against all forms of boycott; he picking his boycotts. Most of the goods and services purchased for occupied territories are from Israel. He just purchased $400 million’s worth of fuel from Israel for Gaza, so he can’t be boycotting Israel even if he wanted to.

      • just
        December 21, 2013, 12:36 am

        With all due respect Walid– what on earth do you expect Abbas to do? I don’t know him, but I think I understand the terrible situation he is in….I want nothing more than justice for the Palestinians. I am not about to disparage him endlessly when the US and Israel are the culprits and the cause of so much misery and injustice.

        If you were in charge, what would you do?

      • Walid
        December 21, 2013, 1:35 am

        “If you were in charge, what would you do?”

        Just, he should have simply kept quiet about the whole thing since he’s really powerless to actually do anything, exactly as you said. His “do not boycott Israel but it’d ok to boycott settlements” turned out into a “I love Israel message” and that’s what he’s being criticized for. Unless, of course, he was coerced into making that statement in the same way he’s being made to keep away from the UNHRC, the Hague and full membership in the UN.

  11. Jill St. Cu
    December 20, 2013, 7:12 pm

    The Holocaust started with a boycott.
    There won’t be a Jewish state or Jews in a few generations.
    Why won’t the Arab world open their doors to their brethren? Is it because if there were no Israeli/Arab conflict then the Arab world would have to deal with their own problems and not turn their attention to Israel?
    Why is Israel ( Jews) always the target? Why don’t we boycott China ( horrendous human rights record), or other countries where child labor laws don’t apply? The reason is because the Jews have been and always will be a easy targets.
    The BDS movement is anti Semitism. I have been all around the world and I will say one thing, no one gives a rats behind about the Jews.. never did and never will. Open your eyes people.

    • James North
      December 20, 2013, 10:36 pm

      Shift change at Hasbara Central.

      • just
        December 20, 2013, 10:48 pm

        yep.

      • oneof5
        December 21, 2013, 3:32 am

        Hilarious …

    • eljay
      December 20, 2013, 10:45 pm

      >> There won’t be a Jewish state … in a few generations.

      There shouldn’t be a supremacist “Jewish State” today.

      >> There won’t be … Jews in a few generations.

      Why do you say this? Regardless, as long as it’s by choice and attrition, no biggie.

      >> Why won’t the Arab world open their doors to their brethren?

      Why won’t Zio-supremacist Israelis:
      – halt their occupation of Palestine;
      – withdraw to within Israel’s / Partition borders;
      – honour their obligations under international law;
      – accept accountability for their past and ON-GOING (war) crimes; and
      – make Israel a democratic and egalitarian Israeli state – a state of and for all of Israel’s citizens, equally – rather than a supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jews?

      >> Why is Israel ( Jews) always the target? Why don’t we boycott China ( horrendous human rights record), or other countries where child labor laws don’t apply?

      Why is it that Zio-supremacists always justify their and/or their supremacist “Jewish State’s” actions based on the lowest possible standards of justice and morality in the world?

      Using Zio-supremacist logic, why should we boycott China while Israel continues to engage in occupation, colonization and other immoral and unjust activities? Why do Zio-supremacists always target China? Why do they hate the Chinese so much?!

    • thankgodimatheist
      December 20, 2013, 11:22 pm

      “The Holocaust started with a boycott.”

      Someone call the nurse! Quick, a guy is flying off the handle here.

    • Hostage
      December 20, 2013, 11:27 pm

      The Holocaust started with a boycott.

      One of the comment rules here explains: We’re not going to tolerate any discussion of the Jewish role in the rise of the Nazis which is used as a pretext for blaming Jews for the Nazi rise, a form of Holocaust denial we want no part of.
      link to mondoweiss.net

      • JeffB
        December 21, 2013, 3:42 am

        @Hostage —

        Jill’s not blaming the Jews for the rise of the Nazis. The boycott was declared by Chancellor Hitler April 1, 1933 not a Jew.

      • Hostage
        December 21, 2013, 4:50 pm

        Jill’s not blaming the Jews for the rise of the Nazis. The boycott was declared by Chancellor Hitler April 1, 1933 not a Jew.

        That’s your conclusion. In any event, you are talking about a one day boycott that the Jewish Virtual Library and Wikipedia both say the Nazis conducted in retaliation for the earlier calls from the American Jewish Congress for an Anti-Nazi boycott in March of 1933.
        * link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
        * link to en.wikipedia.org

        I was pointing out that the merits or demerits of boycotts causing the Holocaust are a subject the site operators do not want MW to take part in.

      • yrn
        December 21, 2013, 4:59 am

        Hostage
        “One of the comment rules here explains: We’re not going to tolerate any discussion of the Jewish role in the rise of the Nazis which is used as a pretext for blaming Jews for the Nazi rise”

        If that is your understanding of the sentence
        “The Holocaust started with a boycott.”
        You should stay in MW, as they deserve you.

        Did Jill stated anywhere that the Jews are to blame for the Nazi rise.
        Dear Lawyer where exactly.
        Or is it the opposite, By 1921, the German student union, the “Deutscher Hochschulring”, barred Jews from membership.
        Nazi newspapers began agitating for a boycott of Jewish businesses and anti-Jewish boycotts became a regular feature of 1920, From 1931-2 SA “brownshirt” thugs physically prevented customers from entering Jewish shops, windows were systematically smashed and Jewish shop owners threatened. At Christmas 1932, the central office of the Nazi party organized a nation-wide boycott. In addition, German businesses, particularly large organizations like banks, insurance companies, and industrial firms such as Siemens, increasingly refused to employ Jews.

        All those acts, were Long before the boycott against Germany by Jewish organizations world-wide that Happened in the beginning of 1933.

        So what the hell are you talking about, even if you refer to the Jewish organizations reaction , the Boycotts against the Jews were a German tactic and started in the 1920s’.

      • Hostage
        December 21, 2013, 4:58 pm

        Did Jill stated anywhere that the Jews are to blame for the Nazi rise.
        Dear Lawyer where exactly.

        See my answer here. link to mondoweiss.net

        If your opening gambit is to claim the Holocaust started with the German boycott of April 1, 1933, then “Just as surely as the night follows the day,” the next move is to read what the Jewish Virtual Library and Wikipedia say was the cause of that Nazi boycott. We’ve been there and done that, and the comment policy was implemented to keep that from happening again.

      • yrn
        December 22, 2013, 9:27 am

        Hostage

        As A Lawyer, I guess reading is the first issue before you jump in again with your remarks.
        Jill Stated:
        “The Holocaust started with a boycott.”

        I mentioned
        “By 1921, the German student union, the “Deutscher Hochschulring”, barred Jews from membership.
        Nazi newspapers began agitating for a boycott of Jewish businesses and anti-Jewish boycotts became a regular feature of 1920, ”

        Again I am talking about the 1920S’ long before 1933.

        Where did she mention anything regarding “blaming Jews for the Nazi rise” what the hell are you talking about.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 2:53 pm

        mentioned
        “By 1921, the German student union, the “Deutscher Hochschulring”, barred Jews from membership.
        Nazi newspapers began agitating for a boycott of Jewish businesses and anti-Jewish boycotts became a regular feature of 1920, ”

        I’ve already pointed out that remark is attributed to a passage in a published source that doesn’t claim there were anti-Jewish boycotts in the 1920s and that the authors don’t describe the membership exclusion as a boycott. Many Zionist Jews and Germans did not consider themselves to be members of the same race or nationality, but were nonetheless still willing to deal with one another.

      • American
        December 21, 2013, 9:32 am

        I think she’s talking about the boycott of Jewish business in Germany by the nazis…not the Jewish boycott on Germany.

      • yrn
        December 21, 2013, 2:16 pm

        Hostage is a very thorough lawyer, he reads the arguments very Carefully and with max understanding and then comes to an intelligent conclusion.
        I would not advice anyone to rely on such a lawyer…… besides understanding the Material, he also comes up with lousy and false resources.
        And read his language…… “We’re not going to tolerate any discussion “….. a very determent person. wow and what accusations.

      • Hostage
        December 21, 2013, 6:03 pm

        I think she’s talking about the boycott of Jewish business in Germany by the nazis…not the Jewish boycott on Germany.

        My point is that starts a chicken vs egg debate, like the one that got Jeffrey Blankfort banned.

        besides understanding the Material, he also comes up with lousy and false resources.

        In fact, the first two sentences of the Wikipedia article on the Nazi Boycott says:

        The Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany took place on 1 April 1933, soon after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. The intial boycott was a reaction to the “declaration of war” against Germany by Jewish organizations world-wide immediately after Hitler became Chancellor.

        It cites Berel Lang, Philosophical Witnessing: The Holocaust as Presence, p.132. published by Brandies University Press link to upne.com

        We’re not going to tolerate any discussion“….. a very determent person.

        That was a direct quote from Phil and Adam’s site comment policy. I’ve noticed that when MW bans someone, they stay banned.

    • just
      December 21, 2013, 1:00 am

      Jill– please read this, mull it over, then come back and try to defend your p.o.v. with more information. Thanks in advance.

      link to mondoweiss.net

      You’re new here, aren’t you? Welcome to MW.

      • yrn
        December 22, 2013, 9:35 am

        Hostage writes

        “In fact, the first two sentences of the Wikipedia article on the Nazi Boycott says:
        The Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany took place on 1 April 1933, soon after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. The intial boycott was a reaction to the “declaration of war” against Germany by Jewish organizations world-wide immediately after Hitler became Chancellor.”

        You are a complete disaster.
        If you read carefully on the same resource it mentions.

        ““By 1921, the German student union, the “Deutscher Hochschulring”, barred Jews from membership.
        Nazi newspapers began agitating for a boycott of Jewish businesses and anti-Jewish boycotts became a regular feature of 1920, ”

        In the 1920s’ – “Which declaration of war” against Germany by Jewish organizations world-wide” happened in the 1920s’ Zero.
        ten years before Hitler became Chancellor.

        Boycotts against Jews started on the 1920s’ and they were the first signs of the coming Holocaust.

        You are doomed.

      • talknic
        December 22, 2013, 12:44 pm

        @yrn “By 1921, the German student union, the “Deutscher Hochschulring”, barred Jews from membership.

        Boycotts against Jews started on the 1920s’ and they were the first signs of the coming Holocaust.”

        Oh my
        link to counterfire.org

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 2:36 pm

        You are a complete disaster. . . . ““By 1921, the German student union, the “Deutscher Hochschulring”, barred Jews from membership.
        Nazi newspapers began agitating for a boycott of Jewish businesses and anti-Jewish boycotts became a regular feature of 1920, ”. . . . You are doomed.

        Even if the passage you were quoting is correct, that still only kicks-off the same old chicken and egg debate over the motives of the actors involved. The authors only say that by 1921 the Student Union had made the Jewish Question a central issue. But by 1921, the Zionist movement had long-since adopted their own programs and policies which held that Jews were a separate nation whose members either belonged in their own Jewish volkisch unions or in Palestine.

        You’re quoting a passage from the Earlier boycotts section of the Wikipedia article. It cites pages 123-124 of the book, “Approaches to Auschwitz: The Holocaust and Its Legacy”, by Richard L. Rubenstein and John K. Roth.

        The term “boycott” doesn’t appear in the passage about the German Student Union. Other more detailed sources explain that the vagueness of the volkisch program led to an internal rivalry between three factions that wasn’t decided until 1924. Some local chapters were always willing to either admit persons of Jewish descent who were practicing Jews or Christians, or were willing to deal with members of a separate Jewish student unions. So it wasn’t a boycott per se. The “Jewish Question” was whether or not Jews belonged in their German volkisch union. When the Prussian government challenged the exclusion in 1926, the Student Union voted to maintain it. link to books.google.com

        In fact, the only reference to a boycott on pages 123-124 of the book are about the two in 1933 that we’ve already discussed. There are no boycotts mentioned in the 1920s. So you’ve found a passage that makes an original claim about boycotts (made by an anonymous Wikipedia author) that doesn’t actually appear in the source Wikipedia cites to back up the claim. Here is the relevant passage on the boycotts from page 124:

        In response to foreign protests against Nazi violence and discrimination against Jews and to the threat of a worldwide movement to boycott German goods— Nazi propagandists claimed that Jews were behind the agitation— the German boycott of Jewish business and commerce was to be enforced by the SA and other local party units, who would push concurrently for the development of a quota system to restrict the number of Jews in the various professions. As the boycott was announced, however, Hitler found himself in a bind. Prices dropped dramatically on the Berlin stock exchange, creating trouble some anxiety among his non-party supporters. At the same time, Hitler could not afford to lose face with the Nazis, and with the SA in particular, by calling off the action.

        Compromise led to plans for a one-day boycott. Meanwhile Goebbels worked to minimize lost prestige through the means available to him as head of the newly formed Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. On Saturday, 1 April 1933, the boycott went into effect, but only in fits and starts and without discipline. It was cancelled before the day was over.

        link to books.google.com

        So the fact remains that Mitchell Baird’s Jewish Virtual Library article, Lang’s “Philosophical Witnessing”, and Rubenstein and Roth’s “Approaches to Auschwitz” all say the Nazi boycott mentioned by JeffB was a reaction to the Jewish boycott.

      • yrn
        December 22, 2013, 2:54 pm

        Bullshit, Part of my family lived in Hunsrück Germany and had a furniture fabric, along other completely assimilated Jewish family’s that had all kind of small business.
        In the beginning of the 1920s’, they were boycott already and never understood why, and that’s by their own neighbors in the beginning, and then organized, by the local authorities, all kind of boycott actions, of signs and threats and adds in the local new papers not to buy goods from them.
        from news they got from thier relatives in other places, it was all over, the same boycott on Jewish buisness, long before Hitler became a became Chancellor, they were lucky to escape before that, it’s all documented with dates.
        So give me a break with your bull, you are doomed. your argument are so weak, your attempt to use the issue that the term “boycott”…….doesn’t appear in the passage, what are you trying to do, to LOWER the boycotts and sanction Jews had in Germany at that time, it’s same as denying it.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 22, 2013, 3:32 pm

        you’ve found a passage that makes an original claim about boycotts (made by an anonymous Wikipedia author) that doesn’t actually appear in the source Wikipedia cites to back up the claim.

        yrn, do you have any other sources besides wiki?

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 6:15 pm

        Bullshit

        You need to take that up with Baird, Lang, Rubenstein and Roth.

        In the beginning of the 1920s’, they were boycott already and never understood why, and that’s by their own neighbors

        I don’t doubt your anecdotal accounts. But you only invite endless chicken and egg debates about the Talmudic restrictions on commerce, & etc. with Gentiles. The bottom line is that the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity can’t be justified on grounds that the victims somehow had it coming.

        On the other hand, the refusal to deal with Jews isn’t a Holocaust and equating it with one invites criticisms of the many aspects of traditional Judaism that exclude personal relationships and dealings with Gentiles. That’s a conversation that goes circular in a hurry and isn’t one Phil and Adam say they want to host.

    • Walid
      December 21, 2013, 1:26 am

      “I have been all around the world and I will say one thing, no one gives a rats behind about the Jews.”

      Sure doesn’t look at all like that in the USA, Canada and most of Europe, where there are laws looking out against anti-Jewish activity. In the US, there’s a special department at State that’s there specifically to monitor world-wide anti-Jewish activities and that issues an annual report to that effect:

      link to state.gov

      You wouldn’t find a similar section at the State Department looking out for abuses against Palestinians, Arabs, Chinese, Tutsis, Zulus and so on; only for Jews. There are laws all over Europe to safeguard against anti-Jewish activities there.

      • JeffB
        December 21, 2013, 3:48 am

        @Walid —

        There most certainly are groups in the state department that monitor the Chinese, a huge report is prepared for congress every year that isn’t created by magic. State spends a fortune monitoring activities for most of the Arab peoples. Tutsis not only does the USA monitor, but the UN often gets information about what’s going on, on the ground from the USA because we have some of the best monitoring.

      • Walid
        December 21, 2013, 10:57 am

        JeffB, all these other groups don’t have a specific department and a specific monitor that’s on par with an Undersecretary reporting directly to the Secretary, as the one nominated for the Jews. All those other ones form part of an annual general review by State to monitor human rights abuses because of the legal implication of Department of State funding that is based on the country’s “report card” on matters of human rights.

      • JeffB
        December 21, 2013, 4:58 pm

        @Walid —

        Owen is not an undersecretary ( link to state.gov) It is a symbolic post that Owen is in. If Owen were an undersecretary why would Kerry even have gone to Israel?

      • Walid
        December 22, 2013, 3:24 am

        Jeff, it’s much more than a symbolic post; here’s a bit more information::

        “Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism

        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        The Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Affairs (DRL) at the United States Department of State. It is headed by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS). The office “advocates U.S. policy on anti-Semitism both in the United States and internationally, develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.”

        The Office was created by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. The current Special Envoy,Ira Forman was sworn in on May 20, 2013. Forman, the former Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council succeeded Hannah Rosenthal, who served in the post from November 23, 2009 to October 5, 2012. The first Special Envoy was Gregg Rickman, who was sworn in on May 22, 2006 and served until the end of the George W. Bush administration.”

        and from the Cornell Law site:

        “22 USC § 2731 – Monitoring and combating anti-Semitism

        Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

        (a) Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism
        (1) Establishment of Office
        The Secretary shall establish within the Department of State an Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism (in this section referred to as the “Office”).

        (2) Head of Office
        (A) Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating anti-Semitism
        The head of the Office shall be the Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating anti-Semitism (in this section referred to as the “Special Envoy”).

        (B) Appointment of head of Office
        The Secretary shall appoint the Special Envoy. If the Secretary determines that such is appropriate, the Secretary may appoint the Special Envoy from among officers and employees of the Department. The Secretary may allow such officer or employee to retain the position (and the responsibilities associated with such position) held by such officer or employee prior to the appointment of such officer or employee to the position of Special Envoy under this paragraph.

        (b) Purpose of Office
        Upon establishment, the Office shall assume the primary responsibility for—

        (1) monitoring and combating acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement that occur in foreign countries;
        (2) coordinating and assisting in the preparation of that portion of the report required by sections 2151n (d)(7) and 2304 (b) of this title relating to an assessment and description of the nature and extent of acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement for inclusion in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; and

        (3) coordinating and assisting in the preparation of that portion of the report required by section 6412 (b)(1)(A)(iv) of this title relating to an assessment and description of the nature and extent of acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement for inclusion in the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom.

        (c) Consultations
        The Special Envoy shall consult with domestic and international nongovernmental organizations and multilateral organizations and institutions, as the Special Envoy considers appropriate to fulfill the purposes of this section.

      • Hostage
        December 21, 2013, 5:02 pm

        There most certainly are groups in the state department that monitor the Chinese, a huge report is prepared for congress every year that isn’t created by magic.

        Yeah but there is no official tasked with monitoring anti-Chinese bigotry in other countries, like the State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. link to state.gov

      • JeffB
        December 21, 2013, 9:40 pm

        @Hostage —

        Good point. Though I’d say that monitoring this should be Israel’s responsibility not Americas. That’s America peeing on Israel’s turf. It is not a reason to be extra hostile to Israel. If we want to make that the case that Anti-Semtism often travels with Anti-Americanism then we are watching out for our own interests.

        My main point was that, we do have special offices for many countries. I can find things for Russia, Saudi Arabia or Iran that have no equivalent for other countries. Does that justify extra hostility?

      • JeffB
        December 23, 2013, 7:01 am

        @Walid —

        Up a level

        Jeff, it’s much more than a symbolic post; here’s a bit more information:

        What’s the budget? How much aide can he distribute? How much investigation can he conduct? What ties with CIA, NSA… does he have? How frequently does he meet with Senators on Foreign Relations? Etc… What you wrote sounds to me exactly like a symbolic post. That’s what they look like. Non-symbolic posts have vague duties and very specific enumerated powers.

    • talknic
      December 21, 2013, 5:30 am

      @ Jill St. Cu “Why won’t the Arab world open their doors to their brethren? “

      Strange. The Arab states have hosted Palestine refugees to 65 years. Fought wars on their behalf. Fought the legal battle for Palestinian rights for almost a century.

      ” Why don’t we boycott China …” Uh huh .. link to google.com.au

      “The BDS movement is anti Semitism”

      Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews. Demanding a state adheres to its legal obligations is not antisemitism.

    • Justpassingby
      December 21, 2013, 8:07 am

      Jill St. Cu

      ” I have been all around the world and I will say one thing, no one gives a rats behind about the Jews.. never did and never will. Open your eyes people.”

      Exactly? So why are you bringing up jews jews jews? Confused much Mrs?

    • American
      December 21, 2013, 9:29 am

      ”I have been all around the world and I will say one thing, no one gives a rats behind about the Jews.. never did and never will. Open your eyes people.’….Jill St Clu>>>>>

      No, what you’re pissed about is that the world is drawing back from putting the Jews ‘ahead of’ all other people.
      You need to open your eyes, your run of impunity for your behavior is running out.

      • JeffB
        December 21, 2013, 2:36 pm

        No, what you’re pissed about is that the world is drawing back from putting the Jews ‘ahead of’ all other people.

        I wish. When the response to a discussion of Israel / palestine is “where is Israel? Are the Jews the ones with the funny hats or are the Jews the muslims?” then the world is treating a tribal war between two tribes with six million people appropriately. Until then, yes they are still putting the Jews ahead of other people.

      • talknic
        December 22, 2013, 11:53 am

        JeffB “When the response to a discussion of Israel / palestine is “where is Israel? Are the Jews the ones with the funny hats or are the Jews the muslims?””

        Wonders what the B in JeffB is for…. link to wp.me

      • JeffB
        December 22, 2013, 12:54 pm

        @talknic —

        That one was pretty funny. :) Score 2 for you. But just in case you really believe it… I just had the wrong grammar rule for Muslim and made a mistake on Palestine.

    • amigo
      December 21, 2013, 3:18 pm

      Jill,does this look familiar???.

      “… here is the five-step approach to talking about civilian casualties in Gaza:
      — STEP 1 – Empathy: “All human life is precious. We understand that the loss of one innocent Palestinian life is every bit as tragic as the loss of an Israeli life.”
      — STEP 2 – Admission: “We admit that Israel isn’t always successful at preventing civilian casualties…”
      — STEP 3 – Effort: “We remain committed to doing everything in our power to preventing civilian casualties.”
      — STEP 4 – Examples: “Let me tell you how our armed forces are trained, tasked, and operate to ensure that Palestinian civilians remain safe.”
      — STEP 5 – Turn Tables: “It is a great tragedy that Iran-backed Hamas shoots rockets at our civilians while hiding in their own. This causes tragic deaths on BOTH sides. What would you do if you were in this situation?”

      Do you support the Illegal settlements???>

      Hasbara response!!!

      Critics such as J Street describe the advice as “If you get a question about settlements, change the subject. If pressed, say stopping settlements is “a kind of ethnic cleansing”. J Street sent a mailing to their organization asking their members to send letters to TIP asking them to “remove pro-settlement fear-mongering talking points from The Israel Project’s materials”.[3]

      Did they instruct you as what to say if you are asked why you changed the subject.

      Welcome to Hasbarist,s Hell.

  12. HarryLaw
    December 21, 2013, 4:34 am

    Walid, Sorry no reply facility on your comment above, which I agree with, he should just keep quite, the same should be said about Erekat, what Zionism needs is time, time to build, build, build, then what happens, right on cue, Erekat [not the Israelis] say’s we may have a framework agreement at the end of the 9 months, then we may need at minimum another year??? to put meat on the bones, so that’s a minimum of nearly 2 years, here’s the punch line, Netanyahu has promised never to stop building in “the Land of Israel”, I wager the day after an extension to the 9 months is announced, tenders will be invited for 100,000 new settlement units, they are probably working on that now.

    • Walid
      December 21, 2013, 10:44 am

      Harry, there was an emergency meeting of Arab League Foreign Ministers in Cairo called by Abbas a couple of hours ago. From the opening comments, the purpose of the meeting was to respond to Abbas’ call for help to slow down the agreement express train speeding down the tracks because it’s loaded with conditions pertaining the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state by the Palestinians.which would nullify the Palestinians’ right of return and most probably be cause for expelling the Israeli Palestinians.

      Now that the goose is practically all cooked and about to be served by Kerry in a few weeks, Abbas went running for help to the toothless Arab League, half of which are in cahoots with the guys doing the cooking. But this 11th hour SOS theatrics will help sell the whatever Kerry proposal to the Palestinian people as a fait acquis.

      • Walid
        December 21, 2013, 3:54 pm

        More on the Cairo meeting today, from the Daily Star:

        “Arab League rejects U.S. proposal in Mideast deal
        December 21, 2013 10:22 PM
        Associated Press

        CAIRO: The Arab League says it rejects a continued Israeli troop presence on the eastern border of a future state of Palestine, a proposal Palestinians say was floated by the U.S. earlier this month.

        Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby said Saturday no peace deal would work with Israeli presence in a Palestinian state.

        Palestinian officials said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry proposed Israel control Palestine’s future border with Jordan for at least 10 years to address Israeli concerns about a potential influx of militants and weapons.

        Aides to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas have criticized the plan. One aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the negotiations, said Saturday the Palestinians are trying to soften the proposal to shorten the span of any Israeli withdrawal.”

        link to dailystar.com.lb

    • Hostage
      December 21, 2013, 5:28 pm

      Erekat [not the Israelis] say’s we may have a framework agreement at the end of the 9 months, then we may need at minimum another year??? to put meat on the bones, so that’s a minimum of nearly 2 years

      Erekat is also waving the stick: 22 Dec 2013 RAMALLAH — With no signs of progress in US attempts to restart peace talks with Israel, the chief Palestinian negotiator said Tuesday that the West Bank government is ready to resume its campaign to join UN and other international bodies in order to prosecute Israel. link to jordantimes.com

      Erekat has also spelled out that the framework agreement has to define borders, land swaps, security coordination, and the issue of refugees. Polls show that the majority of Palestinians are pessimistic such an agreement can be reached, but would approve one if it can be concluded. I’m curious to hear what other alternatives, beside those two, you think exist?

      The only means available to implement a 1SS would necessarily entail the Palestinians going back to the UN, the treaty bodies, the ICJ, and the ICC with conclusive evidence that a 2SS is no longer possible They should be able to do that by pointing to their willingness to conclude an agreement and Kerry’s remarks that this is the last opportunity before the window closes..

      • Walid
        December 22, 2013, 3:49 am

        “The only means available to implement a 1SS would necessarily entail the Palestinians going back to the UN, the treaty bodies, the ICJ, and the ICC”

        That would only happen if the Palestinian people would take to the streets to send a clear message for Abbas to do so, and I’m sure he would but this is never going to happen because of the government’s more than 70,000 armed policemen (highest ration of policemen to civilians in the world) are there to maintain order and safeguard Israel’s borders. The salaries of the policemen are paid with grants from the US and the Gulf.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 11:49 am

        Hostage:“The only means available to implement a 1SS would necessarily entail the Palestinians going back to the UN, the treaty bodies, the ICJ, and the ICC”

        Walid: That would only happen if the Palestinian people would take to the streets to send a clear message for Abbas to do so

        You keep making arguments like that, but Abbas has already done all of those things – over US and Israel objections.

      • Justpassingby
        December 22, 2013, 11:57 am

        Hostage

        ” but Abbas has already done all of those things – over US and Israel objections.”

        Lies.

        When did Abbas go to the UNSC?
        When did Abbas go to the ICC?
        When did Abbas go to ICJ?

      • Hostage
        December 23, 2013, 4:42 pm

        Lies.

        When did Abbas go to the UNSC?
        When did Abbas go to the ICC?
        When did Abbas go to ICJ?

        Letters from Abbas and his delegates are regularly placed on the Security Council Agenda and the Agenda of the 10th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly:

        This letter is in follow-up to our previous 450 letters regarding the ongoing crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 28 September 2000. These letters, dated from 29 September 2000 (A/55/432-S/2000/921) to 15 January 2013 (A/ES-10/577-S/2012/23), constitute a basic record of the crimes being committed by Israel, the occupying Power, against the Palestinian people since September 2000. For all of these war crimes, acts of State terrorism and systematic human rights violations committed against the Palestinian people, Israel, the occupying Power, must be held accountable and the perpetrators must be brought to justice.
        I should be grateful if you would arrange to have the text of the present letter distributed as a document of the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly, under agenda item 5, and of the Security Council.
        (Signed) Riyad Mansour
        Ambassador
        Permanent Observer
        of the State of Palestine to the United Nations

        link to un.org

        Abbas authorized the criminal complaint filed against Israel with the ICC back in 2009. It is still pending:

        However, another, more substantive issue was recently added, when the Palestinian Authority appealed to the International Criminal Court. Security sources told Haaretz that this move, which was authorized by Fayyad and Abbas, incensed senior officials of the defense establishment, especially army Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.

        — Israel demands PA drop war crimes suit at The Hague: Palestinian Authority called on International Court to examine IDF’s January operation in Gaza. link to haaretz.com

        Abbas led the PLO Negotiations Support Unit that prepared Palestine’s case for the General Assembly and the dossier for the ICJ in the Wall Case until March of 2003, when he became the first Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and was replaced by Erekat.

      • HarryLaw
        December 22, 2013, 5:57 am

        Hostage @ ” I’m curious to hear what other alternatives, beside those two, you think exist” The Palestinian position has been to hold back on the stick option, UN Agencies and formally applying to join the ICC etc, they have done this at the behest of Ban ki moon, no doubt influenced by the US, and because of the costs of membership, [could not Abbas get a loan from his friend Saudi Arabia, who have just spent 60 billion dollars on arms from the US, to rot away in the desert?] The proposals Kerry is reported to have, involve an IDF presence in the Jordan Valley for a minimum of 10 years, this to reassure the Israelis that no arms cross the border, in other words a permanent military presence. My opinions differ only on the tactics Abbas uses, who, always [against bitter experience] want’s to give the US the benefit of any doubt, Erekat has belatedly realized this recently, “the PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erakat, commenting on Kerry’s proposals, said that the Palestinian leadership “perhaps” committed a “strategic mistake” by agreeing to the resumption of negotiations with Israel instead of seeking first the membership of international organizations to build on the UN General Assembly’s recognition last year of Palestine as a non-member state”.

      • Walid
        December 22, 2013, 12:15 pm

        “You keep making arguments like that, but Abbas has already done all of those things – over US and Israel objections.”

        He may have done those things, but for some reason, the success is not there, so there must be something wrong that’s being done. He should go for broke and straight to the UN, the Hague and the UNHRC. He’d be a real hero. Negotiating has been a failure for the Palestinians all these years while the Israelis have been winning over and over and over. The turning point when the Palestinians’ fate was sealed was with the signing of the Oslo. It’s been downhill since then.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 3:57 pm

        My opinions differ only on the tactics Abbas uses, who, always [against bitter experience] want’s to give the US the benefit of any doubt

        No he went to the ICC over US objections in the first place. There’s no indication he is willing to give the US or Israel the right to veto IDF withdrawal from the Jordan Valley. I don’t get excited about proposals to deny Israel a veto and schedule the withdrawal on a date certain in 3-4 years time (as opposed to going through the ICC or ICJ where cases have dragged-on for 10-14 years).

      • Justpassingby
        December 23, 2013, 6:03 pm

        Hostage

        I tell you once again I havent spoken of the 2003 Law, it seems that you try to move the topic when proven wrong about the Oslo process treaties.
        As I said, Oslo is dead, the treaties doesnt mean anything, have never done. But as yourself admit, palestinians must “cave in” to Israel.

        * Abbas has not gone to the ICC, in fact he rejected the ICC as late as after the UN bid, meaning he have no plans to use ICC.

        * That palestinians send a letter to UNSC is nothing, when did he ask them to vote on a state for example? No again, he rejected from pressure by US/Israel.

        * Abbas has not used ICJ since he became the president. Because he is a puppet. Besides it was the GA that decided to use ICJ earlier not Abbas.

      • Hostage
        December 23, 2013, 10:45 pm

        I tell you once again I havent spoken of the 2003 Law, it seems that you try to move the topic when proven wrong about the Oslo process treaties.

        The only thing you’ve proven is that you can’t read and comprehend the explicit terms of the Oslo agreement and the way they were interpreted by the parties and experts in international law, like Watson.

        There are comments in this thread where you and others said that Abbas’ term is expired and he hasn’t held elections. You can only be talking about the amended 2oo3 Basic Law when you make that claim. So yes, you have been talking about it and are just too stupid or stubborn to admit it. I doubt you want to read and comprehend it anyway. But I cited the relevant portions so others can see what it said.

      • Justpassingby
        December 24, 2013, 5:09 am

        Hostage

        “the only thing you’ve proven is that you can’t read and comprehend the explicit terms of the Oslo agreement”

        As I said many times, Oslo is dead, no one gives a rat’s a*s about this treaty. You live in the past.

        “There are comments in this thread where you and others said that Abbas’ term is expired and he hasn’t held elections. You can only be talking about the amended 2oo3 Basic Law when you make that claim. So yes, you have been talking about it and are just too stupid or stubborn to admit it. I doubt you want to read and comprehend it anyway. But I cited the relevant portions so others can see what it said.”

        As I just said I havent talked about the 2003 law I talked about the specific text from Oslo about the authority issue, that you yourself brought up. According to yourself palestinians must “cave in” so why are you hypocritically try to use legal texts for your arguments anyway when you admit that the palestinian president must be a puppet to Israel?

      • Hostage
        December 24, 2013, 12:46 pm

        As I said many times, Oslo is dead, no one gives a rat’s a*s about this treaty. You live in the past.

        I don’t live in the past. The PA was a creature of the lapsed Oslo Accords and it was taken off life support by the PLO after the UN vote. The unnatural division of labor and functional separation of powers was abolished and it was absorbed into the PLO’s Provisional Government of the State of Palestine. You are the one who is complaining that Abbas’ term as head of the non-defunct PA has expired, when there is no such thing anymore

      • Justpassingby
        December 24, 2013, 1:26 pm

        Hostage

        Well obviously you do (live in the past) since you believe Oslo still matters, dont you?
        Besides, again, what does legal text matters according to yourself? After all according to you, palestinians must “cave in” to Israel?

      • Hostage
        December 24, 2013, 2:55 pm

        Well obviously you do (live in the past) since you believe Oslo still matters, dont you?

        No I don’t. Israel claimed that Palestine couldn’t apply for membership in the UN or accept ICC jurisdiction because of the Oslo Accords. On many occasions I’ve cited the fact that a legal scholar, Errol Mendes, on sabbatical at the Court had written an advisory opinion which pointed out the Accords have lapsed:

        There is an element of irrationality for anyone to suggest that the Palestinian State can not even declare independence after the Oslo Accords expired on September 13, 2000 as it contained an obligation to refrain from doing anything to undermine the object and purpose of the Accords such as a unilateral declaration of independence. There is no international law authority supporting this position and if it was accurate, it would also call into question the legitimacy of Israel’s actions since the expiration of the Oslo Accords, given the illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

        link to icc-cpi.int

        And again there is an element of irrationality when someone talks about elections for or expired terms for an office in a defunct organ of state created by the PLO under the Oslo Accords that doesn’t even technically exist anymore.

        Besides, again, what does legal text matters according to yourself? After all according to you, palestinians must “cave in” to Israel?

        Because Israel is a belligerent occupying power that cites a legal text every time it carries out an extra-judicial killing of a Palestinian leader. They cite an exception to Common Article 3 to justify killing anyone on the grounds that they were allegedly taking an active part in belligerency or hostilities.

        There are UN Secretary General and fact finding reports which spell out that when Israel implements closures or creates walled-off enclaves, the Palestinian inhabitants have no alternative means of survival in landlocked areas and have been cutoff from their own means of subsistence. So yes, whoever the Palestinians elect will have to accept the fact that many Israeli Military Orders issued by the IDF Civil Administration are a fact of life and that no one in the UN, US, or EU is coming to the rescue – and furthermore will probably only cut-off their assistance, unless Palestinian officials limit their resistance to non-violent means and cooperate by arresting those who plan and carry out violent attacks.

        Even Hamas has been forced to accept cease fire terms imposed by the Israelis, while living under an unrelenting regime of sanctions.

      • Justpassingby
        December 24, 2013, 3:24 pm

        Hostage

        Again Oslo is dead, how many times have I said this now? Do you think Israel follow the Oslo treaties?
        Besides what does israeli killings of palestinians have to do with as you claim, that palestinians must “cave in”? Why are you here critizing Israel while at the same time you claim that palestinians must “cave in” to the occupier? It seems that you want the palestinians to be occupied.

      • Hostage
        December 24, 2013, 4:39 pm

        gain Oslo is dead, how many times have I said this now? Do you think Israel follow the Oslo treaties?
        Besides what does israeli killings of palestinians have to do with as you claim, that palestinians must “cave in”? Why are you here critizing Israel while at the same time you claim that palestinians must “cave in” to the occupier? It seems that you want the palestinians to be occupied.

        You stopped making sense and have descended into juvenile and idiotic pilpul style comments. I’m not interested in responding to anything you still have to say on this subject.

      • Justpassingby
        December 25, 2013, 9:39 am

        Hostage

        We dont come anywhere, correct.
        ‘Idiotic, juvenile, pilpul’ is uncalled for though since personal attacks are forbidden.

  13. MHughes976
    December 21, 2013, 6:48 am

    There are definite articles doing some work here. ‘Anti-Semitism is “the” hatred of Jews’ – does that mean the well-known disposition to hate people specifically because they are Jewish? Or should we – this is not a rhetorical question – extend the term ‘anti-Semitism’ to cover hatred directed for any reason against anyone who is Jewish?
    ‘A rat’s behind about “the” Jews’ – is this the same as ‘about anyone who is Jewish on the part of anyone who is not?’ In that case I’m quite sure from all sorts of personal observation that all ideas such as ‘no one gives a rat’s behind about injustice visited on those who are Jewish’ or ‘no one feels affection or respect for anyone who is Jewish’ are false – and amount to a kind of race-baiting. As for ‘the Jews’ as some kind of collective it’s rather different. I don’t think settled attitudes to, ie stereotypes accompanied with some emotion about, (say) ‘the British’ as a whole or as a collective are a good idea, except perhaps in light-hearted kinds of discourse. But I wouldn’t want reluctance to think about groups in stereotyped terms confused with lack of human feeling towards members of those groups.

    • talknic
      December 21, 2013, 9:27 am

      @MHughes976

      link to european-forum-on-antisemitism.org

      Demanding a state adheres to its legal obligations is not antisemitism.

      • MHughes976
        December 21, 2013, 12:00 pm

        It’s not identical with anti-Semitism, surely. But would it imply anti-Semitism if the demand for adherence to legal obligations is made and then brusquely and brutally rejected, with those responsible for the rejection happening to be Jewish (not necessarily Israeli), and the rejection attracts hatred? Part of the difficulty with the euro forum def is that it is ambivalent in its use of the term ‘Jews’. Does it use the term ‘in extension’, ie applying to anyone who happens to be Jewish, or ‘in intension’, ie applying to ‘what it is to be Jewish’?
        You must think that I keep on making the most petty logic-chopping remarks about perfectly correct and important moral statements. But I think that no end of rhetorical tricks can be worked with the aid of the extension/intension ambivalence.

      • talknic
        December 21, 2013, 12:36 pm

        MHughes976 ” would it imply anti-Semitism if the demand for adherence to legal obligations is made and then brusquely and brutally rejected, with those responsible for the rejection happening to be Jewish (not necessarily Israeli), and the rejection attracts hatred? “

        Israeli/Jewish women who hate not being allowed “complete equality *” to pray at the wall are antisemitic?

        //The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law link to cfr.org //

        The State of Israel is not a sole Jewish person // The State of Israel .. will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; .. it will ensure complete equality * of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; link to knesset.gov.il //

      • MHughes976
        December 21, 2013, 1:11 pm

        Well, are they? I don’t know what these women actually feel, but if any feelings among Jewish people against other Jewish people were to amount to hatred, they would, it seems, be anti-Semitic under a definition that uses that term for hatred directed for any reason at people who are Jewish. Of course, that def seems not to rule out justified forms of anti-Semitism, as others def do.

      • talknic
        December 21, 2013, 2:12 pm

        MHughes976 “Well, are they? “

        According to your criteria ” would it imply anti-Semitism if the demand for adherence to legal obligations is made and then brusquely and brutally rejected, with those responsible for the rejection happening to be Jewish (not necessarily Israeli), and the rejection attracts hatred? “

        ” Of course, that def seems not to rule out justified forms of anti-Semitism, as others def do.”

        I have yet to read a definition of antisemitism, ruling out ‘justified forms of anti-Semitism’. It seems a rather oxymoronic notion

    • American
      December 21, 2013, 9:55 am

      ”As for ‘the Jews’ as some kind of collective it’s rather different. I don’t think settled attitudes to, ie stereotypes accompanied with some emotion about, (say) ‘the British’ as a whole or as a collective are a good idea, except perhaps in light-hearted kinds of discourse”’…Hughes

      90% of all the talk about Jews ‘as a collective’ is done by zionist themselves.
      And then people who want to show they are against anti semitism take the bait and get sucked into essays about how people should avoid the ‘collective blaming.’
      Which of course just encourages the zionist who talk in the collective about the collective to do it more cause they like the reaction of everyone defending the collective they claim to be and are part of.
      Its a nonsenscial excerise.

      • MHughes976
        December 21, 2013, 1:14 pm

        Well, yes, I think that that THE is trying to stir up a rhetorical whirlpool which sucks the argument into its depths.

    • JeffB
      December 21, 2013, 3:55 pm

      @MHughes976

      does that mean the well-known disposition to hate people specifically because they are Jewish?

      Virtually no one in history has ever hated Jews simply for being Jewish. The Nazis saw themselves as protecting Germany from Jewish attack. Tomás de Torquemada didn’t hate Jews because they were Jews. He just wanted to correct people of Jewish descent who had come to accept Christ and then backslid. The Aryan Nations doesn’t hate Jews because they are Jews, they just object to the Zionist Government (by which they mean the USA not Israel) manipulating blacks to oppress Christian white people. Or even classic European antiSemitism, didn’t say they hated Jews. It was just a simple factual matter that Jews didn’t have human souls and thus couldn’t convert.

      Here the UN has taken the place of Jesus in terms of God’s incarnation on earth that the Jews rejected and thus are unworthy to stand with other people. But they don’t hate Jews merely because they are Jews. And the fact that the USA, Russia, China, UN resolutions all the time and no one much cares shouldn’t be confused with a double standard.

      Or should we – this is not a rhetorical question – extend the term ‘anti-Semitism’ to cover hatred directed for any reason against anyone who is Jewish?

      No we shouldn’t. Acting against an individual Jews for reasons having nothing to do with Judaism isn’t anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism requires actions against large numbers of Jews. And that’s not enough either it requires that the primary motivation be theological or racial.

      But… before you take to much comfort in that. I’ll freely accuse the European left of antiSemitism. They really do hate the Jews becoming a nation like any other. For them Jews have to be a pristine people who are unlike normal people, and that is Anti-Semitism. I think this originates from the fact that Jews (before their annihilation and Zionism) were a major force in the European left, like they are in the American left today.

      OTOH I don’t think the Palestinians are motivated by anti-Semitism. Palestinian society as a whole has a lot justified hatred of Jews, since Jews destroyed their country to build their own.

      • thankgodimatheist
        December 21, 2013, 8:36 pm

        “OTOH I don’t think the Palestinians are motivated by anti-Semitism. Palestinian society as a whole has a lot justified hatred of Jews, since Jews destroyed their country to build their own.”
        But when the UN does its job of setting the record straight about the plight of the Palestinians with its resolutions you accuse the UN of anti-Semitism!!!..No contradiction there, is there?!

      • MHughes976
        December 22, 2013, 4:08 pm

        If by ‘anti-Semitism’ we mean ‘hatred of Jews, extending to many of them, substantially motivated by theological or race-related beliefs’ then I would have a couple of questions.
        It’s true that it doesn’t cover hatred of Jews on the part of Palestinians purely because they have been dispossessed. But what if the Palestinians add ‘The behaviour of the Jews in dispossessing us is contrary to God’d will’, which is a theological premise – would that be anti-Semitism? If people outside Palestine were motivated solely by sympathy with the Palestinians to hate Jews, that would seem not to be anti-Semitism under this def?
        My def of anti-Semitism is ‘prejudice (ie irrational sentiment) directed against at least some things characteristically Jewish’.

      • MHughes976
        December 22, 2013, 4:16 pm

        Yes, thankgod, I don’t see why this def applies differently to sentiments felt or expressed by Palestinians on their own behalf and sentiments felt or expressed by the UN or anyone which are motivated purely by sympathy with the Palestinians. If the Palestinian situation gives rise to justified resentment it also gives rise, surely, to justified sympathy on the part of outsiders.

      • JeffB
        December 22, 2013, 7:00 pm

        @thankgodimatheist

        But when the UN does its job of setting the record straight about the plight of the Palestinians with its resolutions you accuse the UN of anti-Semitism!!!..No contradiction there, is there?!

        I’ve mostly accused the UN in the last few decades of being an enemy of Israel. There are sometimes like the Durban conference or the 3379 where they are antiSemitic to boot. What’s the contradiction?

      • talknic
        December 23, 2013, 4:51 pm

        @ JeffB “I’ve mostly accused the UN in the last few decades of being an enemy of Israel.”

        The same UN that has given Israel HUNDREDS of chances, via UNSC Chapt VI resolutions to adhere to the binding laws reaffirmed, recalled and emphasized in those resolutions. No other country in the world has been given that many chances to change illegal behaviour

        ” There are sometimes like the Durban conference or the 3379 where they are antiSemitic to boot.”

        Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews. Zionism isn’t Jews. The Zionist Federation is basically a lobby group for vile medieval policies aimed at colonizing Palestine. Amongst the first things they did in 1897 was to set up the Jewish COLONIAL Trust

      • Shingo
        December 23, 2013, 5:09 pm

        Condemning Israeli crimes and human rights abuses is not being an enemy of Israel. And FYI, the UN is an instrument to communicate the views of its
        member states.

        UNGA3379 was correct and accurate. It should have remained in place. Zionism is indeed racism.

      • talknic
        December 22, 2013, 9:01 pm

        @JeffB “I’ll freely accuse the European left of antiSemitism. They really do hate the Jews becoming a nation like any other. For them Jews have to be a pristine people who are unlike normal people, and that is Anti-Semitism. I think this originates from the fact that Jews (before their annihilation and Zionism) were a major force in the European left, like they are in the American left today>”

        A drivel meister on a roll…

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2013, 10:34 pm

        For them Jews have to be a pristine people who are unlike normal people, and that is Anti-Semitism.

        Many Zionists, beginning with Herzl himself, held the same belief. It’s a supreme irony that anti Semites and Zionists have so much in common.

        In fact, Zionism and Nazism are 2 ideologies that share the common belief that Jews should be separate from the rest if humanity.

    • Walid
      December 22, 2013, 12:32 pm

      Harry, remember when I said those guys couldn’t negotiate their way out of a closet? A couple of weeks back in the US, they signed an agreement with Jordan and Israel to develop the 2 seas project, that would link the Red Sea at Aqaba and the Dead Sea via a canal or underground pipelines. The deal is supposed to provide water to satisfy the 3 parties but it would be passing through Israeli territory to be desalinated and to provide the needed water at Dimona but there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of the Palestinians ever seeing a drop of that water. These smart negotiators agreed to that while the Israelis have made it clear that they want to maintain their occupation of Jordan Valley. The Jordanians aren’t that much smarter since they too are getting the short end of the stick since their primary source of water had been the Jordan that Israel has allowed to turn into a sewer and it would have been the opportune time to review water rights for both Palestinians and Jordanians. It has always been about the water and will always be about the water. Abbas and friends should be making a mad dash to the UN and its agencies because nothing else will work for the Palestinians. They are getting screwed even on future sources of water; that’s how bad it is. The less they negotiate, the less they lose.

      • HarryLaw
        December 22, 2013, 2:38 pm

        Walid, looks like they are going to get screwed over oil found in the West bank also,..link to aljazeera.com When Abbas was informed about this by a reporter several months ago, Abbas just shrugged his shoulders and walked away.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 6:39 pm

        When Abbas was informed about this by a reporter several months ago, Abbas just shrugged his shoulders and walked away.

        Abbas already has signed concessions with British firms for resources off the coast of Gaza. The UK and US established all of the precedents in international law for retroactive recognition of statehood, while protecting the financial interests of banks and corporations in deals exactly like the ones with Palestine.

      • Walid
        December 24, 2013, 1:51 am

        “Abbas already has signed concessions with British firms for resources off the coast of Gaza. “(Hostage)

        You’re being selective on what’s worthy of elaboration. The deal is not as rosy as it appears. The PA signed off to a very wrong deal and has accepted to let Israel veto anything to do with it. The way Israel is mistreating the Palestinians with the allocation of their own water tells you how Israel would let or not let the Palestinians enjoy the fruits of their own oil and gas wealth. The concessions are signed with British Gas that got 60%, the Lebanese CCC that got 30% and the Palestinian Authority Fund that got 10%.

        Article from the Monitor gives the detail and highlights how Nigeria in spite of being a rich exporter of oil, its people are still very poor and it’s likely the same would be happening to the Palestinians:

        “… With strong indications of extensive gas and oil reserves in Palestinian lands and waters, the British Gas Group (BG) and the Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) were granted gas exploration rights in Gaza’s offshore, in a 15-year agreement signed in 1999 with the Palestinian Authority (PA). In 2000, as drilling operations began, BG and CCC found gas fields in the Gazan offshores, including Gaza Marine 1 and the Gaza border field.

        Gaza Marine 1 is entirely located in the Palestinian territorial waters facing the city of Gaza, with reserves estimated at 28 billion cubic meters. The Gaza border field is located within the maritime border area between the Gaza Strip and Israel. The well’s reserves are estimated to be on the order of three billion cubic meters. Gaza’s gas reserves are estimated at 31 billion cubic meters and are valued at more than $6.5 billion.

        Unjust contract for the Palestinian side

        According to many international and regional observers, the contract signed between the PA and the development companies have adversely affected the Palestinian side, as Palestinians have been deprived of their rights of exploiting their oil and gas reserves.

        Under the agreement, BG and CCC were granted gas exploration rights and exclusive rights for marketing in the event that reserves were discovered. The two companies were granted a total 90% ownership of any reserves (60% and 30% respectively for BG and CCC), with only 10% left for the Palestinian side.

        This contract aroused suspicions regarding transparency in granting exclusive rights to the BG, without holding any open tender to other qualified bidders, and to the low percentage allocated to the Palestinian side. The developers have so far invested nearly $100 million in exploration work. The total investment is expected to reach $800 million, while the two companies’ returns are forecast to reach $4 billion — making the rate of return on investment more that 450%.

        Once again: politics has an adverse effect on economy and development

        When gas reserves were discovered in 2000, late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat held a special ceremony for the occasion, which gave Palestinians hope that their homeland would thrive and join the Gulf countries as a major gas exporter. But Palestinians found out that their situation is akin to that of Nigeria in terms of being deprived of their own resources.

        Gaza has been unable to properly exploit its own gas due to political and economic impediments with Israel, and due to internal division and the absence of legislative control.

        Israel has managed to be the sole purchaser of Palestinian gas, setting its own conditions to any sale agreement. It has offered to sell Palestinian gas at very low prices compared to international prices, while deploying its naval forces in the gas fields to ensure the safety of the workers and their equipment. Israel has also taken advantage of the lack of technical and military capacity on the part of Palestinians to provide this capacity, crucial given that the gas fields are located at a distance of roughly 20 miles from the Gazan shores and at a depth of 2000 feet.

        Another impediment prevented Palestinians from selling their gas. Ariel Sharon, the then-Israeli prime minister, required that gas be pumped from Gaza to Israeli ports via underwater pipelines instead of ground channels, meaning that Palestinians would not be able to control energy resources, which are crucial to the Israeli economy.

        Meanwhile, Arafat insisted on transporting gas to Gaza first and then pumping it through ground pipelines to Israel, in a move intended to stress Palestinian sovereignty over their own resources, and allowing them to use these resources to generate electricity and meet their domestic and industrial needs.

        The only electricity station in Gaza that operates on industrial fuel is owned by CCC and other developers. The electricity station is designed to operate on gas at later stages.

        Negotiations over gas deals broke down due to such differences and due to the eruption of the second intifada in Sept. 2000, along with Arafat’s death and Sharon’s extended coma. At the time, Israel needed an alternative gas supplier, so it signed a deal with the Egyptian Government to supply Israel with Egyptian gas for the next 20 years. The contract was terminated last year under the pressure of the Egyptian revolution and in light of its unfair conditions for the Egyptian side, according to experts.

        Negotiations restarted

        Due to the Israeli economy’s need for gas to sustain the growth it has witnessed over the past few years, Israel has renewed its negotiations to buy Palestinian gas. The new Israeli strategy is based on three main points. First, Israel seeks to shun the Palestinian side, represented by the Investment Fund, which monitors the PA’s investments. Israel limited its negotiations to the BG under the pretext that Hamas controls Gaza and its shores. Second, Israel made sure that Palestinians get their share of the deal in the form of services, meaning that Hamas or even the PA will not benefit from any profits. Third, the Israeli government has also sought to transport gas from maritime fields in Gaza through underwater pipelines to Israeli ports, which represents complete control over Palestinian gas.

        Hamas’ rise to power was another game-changer in the Palestinian gas equation. The Islamist movement, which first came to power in July 2006, was not interested in the gas fields at the time; it was well aware that they are beyond its control, since they were not within the range of its missiles at the time.

        In 2007, however, Hamas seized control over the Gaza Strip. The movement has managed to increase its missile capabilities, debuting its new long-range missiles that can reach targets over 50 miles away. Given the fact that these gas fields are located roughly 20 miles from the Gazan shores, they are now within the supposed range of Hamas’ missiles. Any deal to sell Palestinian gas has become even more complicated in light of the Palestinian division, which makes reconciliation an urgent prerequisite not only for the peace process but also for achieving development, fighting against poverty and unemployment and easing the PA’s financial crisis.

        link to al-monitor.com

      • Hostage
        December 24, 2013, 2:36 am

        You’re being selective on what’s worthy of elaboration.

        What’s worthy of elaboration is that the offer from the PA is only worth the paper it’s written on, until and unless the British government recognizes the sovereignty of the government that signed the deal. So far they’ve refused to do that. The UN position is that indigenous peoples always retain permanent sovereignty over their natural resources and can cancel manifestly unfair bargains struck with foreign companies.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 5:35 pm

        Harry, remember when I said those guys couldn’t negotiate their way out of a closet? A couple of weeks back in the US, they signed an agreement with Jordan and Israel to develop the 2 seas project, that would link the Red Sea at Aqaba and the Dead Sea via a canal or underground pipelines.

        The PLO kept the World Bank from funding the Red-Dead canal for years, when it was a real canal that would have annexed it’s territory. The World Bank stepped-in with a plan when both Israel and Jordan started their own pipeline projects. Now it’s just a joint venture to run a pipeline through Jordan and on to Israel’s Mekorot water company. Palestine is already a Mekorot customer. Palestine’s main benefit from the pipeline will be to slow down the deterioration of the portions of the Dead Sea in its territory just a bit.

      • Walid
        December 23, 2013, 2:20 am

        “Palestine is already a Mekorot customer. ”

        What an interesting way of putting it, Hostage. Palestinians are either customers of Mekorot or they don’t get any water. You gave the term “captive market” a new dimension. By the time this is completed, Jordan too will become a Mekorot customer. Mostly everybody in Amman is already getting water by way of water tankers making home deliveries. That artificial waterway is raising a stink all over the region. Egypt is complaining it will destroy the ecosystem and adversely affect its resort areas, Others are saying the saline waters would seep into the aquifers, while others predict geophysical doom and gloom increasing prospects of earthquakes. It’s very doubtful the Dead Sea would ever be part of Palestine; it has been stolen for good along with all its natural resources.

        BTW, speaking of stolen natural resources, Ahava with sales in excess of $140 million is 18.5% owned by the Disney family. Abigail Disney, one of Roy Disney’s heirs renounced her personal share of the Ahava profits last year to donate it towards helping end the illegal occupation. She could not divest her share, but she wants no part of the Israeli thievery.

      • Hostage
        December 23, 2013, 3:31 am

        “Palestine is already a Mekorot customer. ”

        What an interesting way of putting it, Hostage.

        I’m pretty certain that’s the way the World Bank looks at its financial positions and the agreements to amortize its loans.

        Palestinians are either customers of Mekorot or they don’t get any water

        The World Bank and donor countries are notorious for imposing conditions as part of their loans. So, that may not be the case under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding the three governments just signed regarding regional water sharing.

        The donor countries that fund the projects and the participants ordinarily agree to international supervision and arbitration as part and parcel of the development loan process. link to worldbank.org

        That artificial waterway is raising a stink all over the region. Egypt is complaining it will destroy the ecosystem and adversely affect their resort areas, Others are saying the saline waters would seep into the aquifers, while others predict geophysical doom and gloom increasing prospects of earthquakes.

        That was the Red-Dead Canal that envisioned replacing at least 800 million cubic meters per year to stabilize the levels of the Dead Sea using a canal in Palestine. From what I gather, this is just a pipeline project that passes through Jordan and will only generate, at most a 100 million cubic meters per year of brine for the Dead Sea, as a by product of desalination. Unlike a canal, with a pipeline, you can use isolation valves and stop pumping to minimize danger to the environment in the event of an earthquake. See Pipeline won’t save Dead Sea, but could supply needed water to ‘thirsty’ neighbors link to jns.org

      • yrn
        December 23, 2013, 7:27 am

        Hostage

        “Palestine’s main benefit from the pipeline will be to slow down the deterioration of the portions of the Dead Sea in its territory just a bit.”
        As Usual, picks the info he wants.

        As far as the Palestinian element of the memorandum of understanding goes, a price still needs to be negotiated on an additional 20 million cubic meters of water that Israel will sell to the PA, McPhail explained.

        link to jpost.com

      • Hostage
        December 24, 2013, 12:53 pm

        As Usual, picks the info he wants.

        As far as the Palestinian element of the memorandum of understanding goes, a price still needs to be negotiated on an additional 20 million cubic meters of water that Israel will sell to the PA, McPhail explained.

        So you are trying to tout a so-called benefit that still hasn’t been negotiated and may never materialize as Walid has pointed out. The only thing the current MOU does is provide brine as a by-product for the Dead Sea. We’ll just have to wait and see if any others accrue for the Palestinians.

  14. Citizen
    December 21, 2013, 5:23 pm

    BDS demands that Israel actually become what it pretends to be, and what US congress critters say it is: a bastion of Western values with equal rights for all those it governs and administers to:
    link to electronicintifada.net
    If you are the number one beneficiary of US free cash, U should also be the number one demonstrator of US values. You can’t single out Israel without both factors paramount.

  15. just
    December 21, 2013, 7:08 pm

    JPB @ “Abbas doesnt represent anyone since he hasnt had any election in years”

    Who would you suggest represent the Palestinians then?

    (I am in agreement with Hostage, btw. I can criticize anyone I want to, but the blame for the mayhem, Occupation, and theft of resources & lives lies squarely with Israel and the US. I did not villify Arafat, nor will I villify Abbas. I’ll leave that up to the Palestinian people– if they want to!)

    • Walid
      December 22, 2013, 12:42 pm

      The question was for JPB but if I may drop a name since it wasn’t answered, my suggestion to the Palestinian people would be Mustafa Barghouti.

      • just
        December 22, 2013, 7:55 pm

        Mustafa is a genuine contender, so is the imprisoned Marwan.

        And so is Hanan Ashwari. (jmo)

        For now, there is Abbas. I wish him and the Palestinian people well.

      • Walid
        December 22, 2013, 11:15 pm

        I also wish him well, Just.

    • puppies
      December 22, 2013, 10:25 pm

      Let me see how it sounds, “…the blame for the mayhem, Occupation, and theft of resources & lives lies squarely with Germany and its allies. I did not villify Joffre, nor will I villify Pétain. I’ll leave that up to the French people– if they want to!”

      • just
        December 24, 2013, 1:40 pm

        Live in the horrible present, past and future “puppies’. Revel in it, in fact.

        many thanks and happy HOLIDAYS!

        ho- ho- ho.

  16. thetumta
    December 22, 2013, 12:40 am

    This is an American conversation? I think not!

    Hej! Tumta

Leave a Reply