Trending Topics:

Palestinians around the world reject Trump’s ‘fraud of the century’

News
on 14 Comments

Palestinians have responded to US President Donald Trump’s peace plan with a resounding “no,” expressing their frustrations with what they have dubbed as the “fraud of the century.”

From social media to the streets, Palestinians in the occupied territory and in the diaspora have rejected Trump’s vision for the region, criticizing the plan for granting unilateral concessions to Israel and further depleting the size of a future Palestinian state.

Palestinian leaders and members of rival factions showed a rare display of solidarity, with Abbas denouncing the plan in a meeting that included Hamas and Islamic Jihad representatives.

In the streets of Ramallah, Palestinians from rival factions called for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah so the two ruling parties could present a united front against the Americans and Israelis.

As protests dragged into the late part of the night on Tuesday, it became overwhelmingly clear that Palestinians don’t plan on accepting any deal put forward by Trump, and would do everything in their power to stop his vision from becoming a reality.

‘The worst we have ever seen’

Palestinian demonstrators burn tires during a protest against President Donald Trump's Deal of the Century, in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip, January 28, 2020. (Photo: Ashraf Amra/APA Images)

Palestinian demonstrators burn tires during a protest against President Donald Trump’s Deal of the Century, in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip, January 28, 2020. (Photo: Ashraf Amra/APA Images)

Demonstrations across the occupied Palestinian territory drew crowds of thousands of Palestinians of all ages and genders. In Gaza, protests kicked off even before Trump’s press conference Tuesday, and lasted well into the night and Wednesday morning.

In Gaza City, protesters waved Palestinian flags and carried banners saying “No to the peace plan” and “Palestine is not for sale.”

“We refuse Trump and Netanyahu’s decisions, and we will continue protesting in defiance of this unjust proposal,” Mohammed Abu Taima told Mondoweiss outside a demonstration in Gaza City on Wednesday.

Another protestor called Trump an “imbecile” who “has no right to decide the future of the Palestinian people.”

“We will decide our future, not Trump or Netanyahu, or anyone else for that matter,” Issa Abu Jazar said. “We have a right to Jerusalem, a right to return, and a right to this land. No one can take that away from us.”

Businesses and government offices shuttered their doors across Gaza on Wednesday as part of a general strike in protest against the peace plan.

Palestinians protesting in Ramallah on Tuesday night as President Trump unveiled his peace plan to the world

Palestinians protesting in Ramallah on Tuesday night as President Trump unveiled his peace plan to the world (Photo: Akram al Waara)

In the West Bank, protests from the north to the south were suppressed by Israeli forces, who were deployed across the territory ahead of Trump’s announcement in anticipation of increased tensions.

In Ramallah, thousands of protestors marched from the Manara Square in the city center to the grave of Yasser Arafat, burning images of US dollars to symbolize the rejection of the US attempts to “buy Palestinians” with economic incentives.

“Israel is practically the 51st state of the US,” Mo’in Ahmad told Mondoweiss. “America would never do anything that’s not in the interest of Israel. So how can this [plan] possibly be fair for the Palestinians?”

Dozens of protestors set off to the, and northern part of Ramallah to demonstrate outside the Israeli DCO checkpoint, where they were met with heavy tear gas fire from Israeli soldiers. Several people were treated by volunteer medics on the scene after collapsing from overexposure to tear gas.

On Wednesday, protests continued across areas in Bethlehem, the Jordan Valley, Ramallah, and Hebron. Local media reported that a 14-year-old was injured by a rubber bullet in Hebron, and that two protesters were allegedly injured with live fire outside of Ramallah.

By Wednesday evening, the Palestinian Red Cross reported that at least 41 Palestinians were injured by Israeli forces while protesting against Trump’s peace plan.

A Palestinian demonstrator burns the American flag in Bethlehem in protest of US President Donald Trump's peace plan. (Photo: Yumna Patel)

A Palestinian demonstrator burns the American flag in Bethlehem in protest of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan. (Photo: Yumna Patel)

Protesters in Bethlehem burned the American flag and photos of Trump, shouting slogans like “Palestine is an Arab country” and “our demands are enshrined in law.” Some protesters demanded reparations from the Us and international community.

“Get out of our land!” protesters chanted as they marched towards a permanent Israeli military base at the northern end of the city, where Israeli jeeps fired dozens of rounds at protesters, many of whom were young children in attendance with their families.

“Trump cannot just decide that I no longer have a right to return to my original village from 1948,” Wijdan al-Azza, 60, a resident of a local refugee camp told Mondoweiss at the protest.

“In my life I have seen a lot of peace plans from different governments around the world,” she said. “But contrary to what Trump claims, this is actually the worst one we have ever seen.”

Palestinian women protesting in Bethlehem against the US peace plan (Photo: Yumna Patel)

Palestinian women protesting in Bethlehem against the US peace plan (Photo: Yumna Patel)

Palestinian leaders sound like a broken record

Much like the response of the citizenry, the official Palestinian response to Trump’s plan did not deviate much further than its previous criticisms of the deal.

Abbas continued to call the plan the “slap of the century”, and said he would maintain his boycott of the US administration that began in December 2017 after Trump recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

On Wednesday, chief Palestinian negotiator met with the heads of the EU missions in Palestine, and said the meeting “focused on concrete measures that have to be taken.”

“The Annexation Plan is an attack against international law and the international system as a whole. This is a moment of truth #PeaceNotApartheid,” Erekat tweeted.

Palestininian Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh called on the international community to reject Trump’s plan, saying “It gives Israel everything it wants at the expense of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people.”

While Palestinian demonstrators called for a return to the days of the intifada and demanded the cancellation of the Oslo Accords — a threat made several times by Palestinian leaders in recent months — many were dissapointed to see the leaders sitting in cabinet meetings and discussing plans of action, rather than following through on any of their promises.

Social media storm

Following the release of the plan, social media was inundated with criticisms of the plan, specifically regarding the “conceptual map” showing the proposed re-drawn borders of a “two-state” solution.

Side-by-side comparisons of the proposed Palestinian state with the apartheid-era South African Bantustans went viral, as activists and scholars criticized Trump and Netanyahu for advocating for an apartheid-like system in Palestine.

People slammed Trump’s idea of connecting small Palestinian enclaves with a series of roads and tunnels, criticizing the fact that his idea of a future Palestinian state would be one without any sovereignty over its borders.

One of the major criticisms voiced by those opposed to the plan was the lack of inclusion of Palestinian voices in the proposal, and the notion that Palestinians should agree to a plan that inherently ignores the core issues of their struggle, or else they are enemies of peace.

Khadija Hmeid contributed to this report from Gaza. Akram al-Waara contributed to this report from Ramallah. 

Yumna Patel

Yumna Patel is the Palestine correspondent for Mondoweiss.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

14 Responses

  1. Misterioso on January 29, 2020, 7:26 pm

    https://www.juancole.com/2020/01/palestinians-against-humanity.html

    “Top 5 ways Trump plan for Palestinians is a Crime against Humanity” by Juan Cole, Informed Comment, January 29/20

    Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – “On Tuesday, an American president being impeached for abuse of power announced a historic plan for Israel-Palestine alongside an Israeli prime minister who was just indicted for bribery and corruption. (The Israeli parliament declined to grant Netanyahu immunity, and he withdrew the request, allowing the formal indictment to be filed.)

    “The plan was drafted by a team allegedly led by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, who has no real government position and is a far right wing Israel nationalist, in consultation with the far right wing Likud government of Israel, headed by PM Binyamin Netanyahu. The Palestinians declined to be involved in what was obviously a crooked and fixed process that gave away their East Jerusalem to Netanyahu before it even got going.

    “Just as the Palestinian people were not consulted in 1917 when the British cabinet adopted the Balfour Declaration, designating geographical Palestine as a site for a ‘homeland’**[see below] for the Jewish people, so the doomed-to-failure Trump plan also did not consult them about their own fate. It is no longer the age of Western Empires when pudgy men in pinstripe suits in the drawing rooms of London and Paris drew the borders of other people’s countries and dictated the forms of their political lives.

    “If you want to know what Iran is really about, it is mostly a protest against these imperial injustices. For that reason, the Trump Plan is a huge boon to Iran, since it makes transparent precisely the ‘global arrogance’ of Washington that Iran is always going on about.

    “In turn, imperial practices were and are underpinned by a latent White Nationalism, such that they attempt to keep the brown and black people subordinate and to reserve wealth and privilege and global power to the ‘white’ European and European-descent nations. Even though Jews in twentieth-century Europe and the United States were often seen as ‘not Aryans’ and ‘not White,’ nowadays the usefulness of Israel to imperial designs on the region has led to the Israelis being coded as ‘white’ and the Palestinians as ‘brown.’ If you want to understand how millions of people can daily be screwed over as the Palestinians are, it isn’t actually much more complicated than that.

    “About 5 million stateless Palestinians live under Israeli military occupation (the Palestinian West Bank) or under Israeli military siege (the Gaza Strip). Some 400,000 stateless Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are from families that were expelled from the British Mandate of Palestine by militant Zionist militias. Another 400,000 stateless Palestinians in Syria are from families expelled from the British Mandate of Palestine by Zionist militias. About 40,000 stateless Palestinians in Jordan are from families . . . you get the picture. That is, About 6 million stateless Palestinians are being kept without basic human rights by Israel’s refusal to allow them to return to their homes and by Israel’s refusal to allow the Palestinians to establish a genuine state to which the refugees could return.

    “Although the Trump Plan uses the diction of allowing a Palestinian ‘state,’ the entity proposed does not have control over its borders or airspace or coastal waters and cannot make treaties with other states or go to the United Nations over continued Israeli violations of international law. In other words it is not a state at all. It is a Bantustan of the sort the Apartheid South African government created as a way of unloading its African population so that they could be stripped of South African citizenship.

    “Palestine president Mahmoud Abbas is said to have reacted to the Plan’s unveiling by calling Trump a ‘dog, the son of a dog.’

    “The Trump Plan is full of measures that constitute War Crimes in international law, and a systematic pattern of War Crimes is categorized as a Crime against Humanity. The latter term is the one appropriate to the Trump Plan. Here are the War Crimes the Plan proposes

    “1. Israel has flooded 400,000 of its citizens into the Occupied Palestinian West Bank, where they have stolen Palestinian land and built squatter-only settlements on it, where Palestinians are not allowed to live. These Israeli squatters are often armed and some of them routinely stage attacks on Palestinian villages or commit sabotage against Palestinian orchards and agriculture.

    “This squatting on Palestinian land contravenes the Fourth Geneva Accord of 1949 on Occupied Territories, which forbids transferring populations from the Occupying Power into the occupied lands.

    “’The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.’”

    “This rule was to prevent the repetition of the war crimes committed by Nazi Germany, which occupied other lands and sent Germans in to settle them.

    “The Trump plan rewards Israel’s illegal activities, saying “Approximately 97% of Israelis in the West Bank will be incorporated into contiguous Israeli territory.”

    “2. The Trump Plan allows Israel to annex about a third of the Occupied West Bank, on which Israeli squatters have squatted. Annexation is an act of aggression, forbidden by international law. By the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel cannot actually deprive Occupied Palestinians of their land rights by simply declaring those lands ‘annexed.’

    “3. The Plan envisages depriving many Israeli citizens of Palestinian heritage of their Israeli citizenship, which amounts to denaturalization. Since they would be instead given ‘citizenship’ in a ‘state’ that no one will recognize and which is a Bantustan rather than a state, in which they will enjoy no actual rights over their own property because Israel won’t permit the Bantustan to so guarantee them, that would amount de facto to forcing these Israeli citizens into statelessness, which contravenes the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, signed by 75 member states.

    “4. The Plan envisages that the Palestinian Bantustan will be disarmed, which means that Palestinians will be deprived of the right of self-defense. The Right of Self-defense is recognized in Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter:

    “Article 51. ‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’

    “Palestine was in 2012 granted by the UN General Assembly non-member observer state status, like the Vatican, which puts it under the authority of the Charter.

    “5. The enclaves to which the Palestinians would be consigned give them no control over their lives, as B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization pointed out,

    “’With no territorial contiguity, Palestinians will not be able to exercise their right to self-determination and will continue to be completely dependent on Israel’s goodwill for their daily life, with no political rights and no way to influence their future. They will continue to be at the mercy of Israel’s draconian permit regime and need its consent for any construction or development. In this sense, not only does the plan fail to improve their predicament in any way, but, in fact, it leaves them worse off as it perpetuates the situation and gives it recognition.’

    “Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights puts the right to freedom of movement into treaty law: ‘(1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.’

    “Actually a whole book could be written about all the ways the Trump Plan for the hapless Palestinians contravenes international law. Since the over-all rubric is Apartheid, and Apartheid is a War Crime in the Rome Statute that underpins the International Criminal Court, the whole plan is a series of War Crimes, which amount in the aggregate to a crime against humanity.

    [** To be precise, the text of the 1917 Balfour Declaration states “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish peoples…,” i.e., not a ‘homeland’ for the Jewish peoples.]

    Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=AqeyHu_rPow&feature=emb_logo
    Analyst says Trump’s Mideast Plan is “dead on arrival.”

    • Talkback on January 30, 2020, 8:53 am

      Re: “To be precise, the text of the 1917 Balfour Declaration states “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish peoples…,” i.e., not a ‘homeland’ for the Jewish people.

      Norman Bentwich, first Generaly Attorney of the State of Palestine under mandate:
      “A national home, as distinguished from a state, is a country where a people are acknowledged as having a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing their cultural, social and intellectual ideals without receiving political rights.”
      (Norman Bentwich, Palestine, 1934, p. 101 cit. in Cattan: Palestine and International Law, 1973, p. 15)

      And:
      “Again, the Jewish national home was defined by a Jewish jurist, Mr. Norman Bentwich, in a book published by him in 1924 called The Mandate System. On page 24, he wrote as follows: “It signifies a territory in which a people, without receiving rights of political sovereignty, has nevertheless a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing its moral, social, and intellectual ideas.”
      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1343338D30D39DCF85256E5C00578E01

      • Misterioso on January 30, 2020, 10:12 am

        @Talkback

        Thank you!

        BTW, the 1917 Balfour Declaration had no legal foundation. It was in violation of the well established legal maxim, “Nemo dat quod non habet” (nobody can give what he does not possess) i.e., in 1917, Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire.

      • Talkback on January 30, 2020, 1:46 pm

        Misterioso: “Thank you!”

        You are welcome. Here are two more of Norman Bentwich (he was an observant Jewish Zionist):

        “State sovereignty is not essential to the Jewish national ideal. Freedom for the Jew to develop according to his own addition, in his own enviroment, is the main, if not the whole demand.”
        Norman Bentwich, Palestine of the Jews”, 1919, p. 195, cit. in Cattan: Palestine and International Law, 1973, p. 14

        “The Jewish people on their side do not seek for political power or national souvereignity … They have no need to desire to rule over others. Ultimately, they would ask within the territory to form an integral part of the goverment of the land, together with the Arab inhibitants.”
        Norman Bentwich, Palestine, 1934, p. 195, cit. in Cattan: Palestine and International Law, 1973, p. 15

        Misterioso:
        “BTW, the 1917 Balfour Declaration had no legal foundation. It was in violation of the well established legal maxim, “Nemo dat quod non habet” (nobody can give what he does not possess) i.e., in 1917, Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire.”

        Indeed, the Balfour declaration was legally null and void for that reason. Jules Basdevant, formerly President of the International Court of Justice:
        “No State has the right to extent at will its own competence at the expense of other States and other peoples. International law does not recognize the British State has having competence other than over its own territories and over its own subjects and nationals.”
        https://fdocuments.in/document/essays-on-contemporary-issues-in-international-on-contemporary-issues-in-international.html

        Does it surprise anyone that the Balfour declaration was based almost entirely on a Zionist draft minus the part “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”? And the mandate was implemented without without any regard for this safeguards.

        And the Palestine mandate was also based on a Zionist draft and was invalid for several reasons:
        A. It violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination.

        Balfour: “The weak point of our position of course is that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination.”

        Churchill: “The difficulty about the promises of a National Home for Jews in Palestine was that it conflicted with our regular policy of consulting the wishes of the people in mandated territories and giving them a representative institution as soon as the people were fitted for it.”

        B. It violated in letter and spirit Article 22 of the Covenant of League of Nations:
        1.) The mandate ran counter to the basic concept of mandates which the Covenant had envisaged as the best method of achieving its basic objective of ensuring the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the mandated territories.
        2.) It also ran counter to the specific concept of mandates envisaged by Article 22 for countries detached from Turkey. The intention was to limit the mandate to the rendering of temporary advice and assistance, but the framers granted the Mandatory “full powers of legislation and administration” (Article 1) which was a perversion the purpose of the mandate. Great Britain practically ran Palestine like a colonial posession and not as a state under mandate.
        3.) The Mandatory ignored the safeguards laid down in favor of the people of Palestine both in the Balfour Declaration and in the Mandate itself.
        4.) Granting the mandate to Great Britain violated the provision in Article 22 which required that the wishes of the communities concerned must be a principal consideration in the selection of the mandatory. The Palestinians wanted the US to be the mandatory.

        Lord Balfour: “The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation’ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are.”

        “Subsequent British governments have acknowledged this deficiency, in particular the 1939 committee led by the Lord Chancellor, Frederic Maugham, which concluded that the government had not been “free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine”,[223] and the April 2017 statement by British Foreign Office minister of state Baroness Anelay that the government acknowledged that “the Declaration should have called for the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine, particularly their right to self-determination.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#Civil_and_religious_rights_of_non-Jewish_communities_in_Palestine

  2. Mayhem on January 29, 2020, 11:40 pm

    Rejection of an offer for the 8th time with no counter offer made.
    It’s pretty plain by now that intransigence continues to get in the way of common sense.

    • eljay on January 30, 2020, 8:24 am

      || Mayhem: Rejection of an offer for the 8th time with no counter offer made.
      It’s pretty plain by now that intransigence continues to get in the way of common sense. ||

      The rapist and the police chief have agreed that the women must remain chained in the basement indefinitely because the rapist is entitled to “self-determine” himself in them. But they have made a “deal of the century” offer of longer chains, cleaner clothes and more toiletries, which the women reject. Your Zionist take on the situation is that those women continue to be ungrateful bitches.

      It’s pretty plain by now that Zionism continues to get in the way of morality.

    • Talkback on January 30, 2020, 8:38 am

      Mayhem: “Rejection of an offer for the 8th time with no counter offer made.”

      Only the 8th time? I can’t even remember how many times Zionist Jews have rejected majority ruling, international law, human rights, self dermination and equality in Palestine in the last 100 years. What counter offer could it make?

      Mayhem: “It’s pretty plain by now that intransigence continues to get in the way of common sense.”

      It’s pretty plain that after after 1919, 1937, 1947, 1967 and 1993 that’s just another time where Zionist claim to accept a solution that limits their ambition and just wait for the Palestinians to reject it for all the right reasons. Each time the solution offered to Palestinians got even worse than the previous one. And now the same Bantustan solution for Apartheid South Africa should be the solution for Palestinians. But you have the chutzpah to accuse those who reject the violation of these rights?

      I dare you to claim that Jews would take this over.

    • Misterioso on January 30, 2020, 8:52 am

      @Mayhem

      Sigh. Another pathetic attempt by a brain washed Zionist to defend the indefensible, i.e., “Israel’s” well documented racism, fascism and violation of hard won international law.

    • Misterioso on January 30, 2020, 10:04 am

      @Mayhem

      Reality:

      By signing the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO accepted UNSC Res. 242 and thereby agreed to recognize a sovereign Israel within the 1949 armistice lines, i.e., as of 4 June 1967 – 78% of mandated Palestine.

      The PLO also agreed to the US/EU/UN supported 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative, which offers “Israel” full recognition as a sovereign state (per UNSC Res. 242, i.e., within its June 4/67 boundaries with possible minor, equal and mutually agreed land swaps), exchange of ambassadors, trade, tourism, etc., if “Israel” complies with international law (e.g., the UN Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention, binding on all UN members.) Fully aware of “Israel’s” demographic concerns, the Beirut initiative does not demand the return of all Palestinian refugees. In accordance with “Israel’s” pledge given to the UNGA in 1949 and by signing the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference Protocol to abide by UNGA Res. 194 regarding the then 800,000 Palestinian refugees (determined by Walter Eytan, then Director General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry) as a precondition for admittance to the UN (after being rejected twice), the Arab League’s Initiative “calls upon Israel to affirm” that it agrees to help pursue the “achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem…” “Israel” ignored the Arab League’s peace proposal.

      Notably, the Beirut Arab Summit Initiative has also been adopted by the Organization of Islamic States which includes Iran. (Akiva Eldar, “What will happen if Israel ‘defeats’ Obama?” – Ha’aretz, 1 June 2009)

      Other peace initiatives that Israeli governments have rebuffed include: U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers’ The Rogers Plan (1969); The Scranton Mission on behalf of President Nixon (1970); Egyptian President Sadat’s land for peace and mutual recognition proposal (1971); U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s call for a Geneva international conference (1977); Saudi Arabian King Fahd’s peace offer (1981); U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s Reagan Plan (1982); U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz’s Schultz Plan (1988); U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s Baker Plan (1989); and the previously noted 1993 Oslo accords signed by Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that unravelled following the latter’s assassination and subsequent return to power of the Likud party from 1996-1999 under Benjamin Netanyahu; continuation of the Taba II negotiations (2001); the unofficial Geneva Peace Initiative of November/December 2003; and the 2014 Kerry Initiative.

      As for the much touted 2000 Camp David Summit, working in tandem, Barak and Clinton tried to shove a very bad deal down Arafat’s throat. It could only be rejected. Suffice to quote Shlomo Ben-Ami, then “Israel’s” foreign minister and lead negotiator at Camp David: “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.” (National Public Radio, 14 February 2006.)

      The “offer” made in 2008 by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert was never seen as serious because it lacked cabinet approval, he was under indictment for corruption with only a few weeks left in office, had only a 6% favorable rating, and, therefore, couldn’t have closed the deal, even if the Palestinians had accepted it. (Olmert was imprisoned.)

    • RoHa on January 30, 2020, 8:43 pm

      The Palestinians have made two basic offers.

      The first was on the table even before Israel was declared. That is the offer of a single democratic state in Palestine, with equal rights for all.

      The Zionists rejected that.

      The second was the basic two state position. Zionists get 78% of Palestine, Palestinians get 22%, and a face-saving fudge on the refugees.

      The Zionists pretended to be interested, but never got round to agreeing, even when it came in the form of the Arab League plan of 2002, which gave the Israelis everything they said they wanted.

      The fact is that the only offer that the Zionists would accept is all Palestine with no Palestinians.

    • Talkback on January 31, 2020, 3:56 am

      Mayhem: Rejection of an offer for the 8th time with no counter offer made.
      It’s pretty plain by now that intransigence continues to get in the way of common sense.”

      To someone like Mayhem it is “common sense” if one doesn’t reject illegal annexation, expulsion, violation of international law and human righs. That’s what he learned from the Holocaust.

  3. gamal on January 30, 2020, 4:08 am

    and in Montreal

    “Jewish Group Applauds Montreal City Council for Abandoning Controversial Definition of Antisemitism
    January 28, 2020 IJV Canada”

    https://www.ijvcanada.org/jewish-group-applauds-montreal-city-council-for-abandoning-controversial-definition-of-antisemitism/

  4. Misterioso on January 30, 2020, 9:50 am

    @gamal, et al

    More good news from Canada:

    https://zoa.org/2020/01/10436132-zoa-criticizes-canadas-changing-policy-voting-for-anti-israel-un-resolutions/

    “ZOA Criticizes Canada’s Changing Policy & Voting for Anti-Israel UN Resolutions”
    Zionist Organization of America, Jan. 23, 2020.

    “The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has criticized the Canadian Government of Justin Trudeau for voting in favor of a series of biased and hostile anti-Israel United Nations General Assembly resolutions sponsored by various Arab states and other undemocratic, human-rights abusing regimes.

    “The ZOA believes that, as a matter of principle and morality, no genuinely democratic, human rights-observing country should dignify the assault of human rights abusers upon the Middle East’s only practicing democracy. The ZOA regards the willingness of Canada and other free societies to do so as indicative of a cowardly effort to ingratiate themselves with autocratic Arab and Muslim regimes, to the detriment of the truth, human rights and the elementary credibility of international organizations like the UN.

    “Last month, the Trudeau Government, which had previously largely maintained its predecessor’s pro-Israel voting record, abruptly reversed course and endorsed a condemnation of Israel for failing to establish a Palestinian Arab state, a regime that pays Arabs to murder Jews, a resolution Canada has consistently opposed since 2006.

    “Although Canada had regularly voted against or abstained on the 16 recurrent resolutions on Palestinian Arab issues which go before the General Assembly every year, including on eastern Jerusalem, sovereignty over natural resources, and Israeli ‘settlements,’ the Trudeau Government voted this year in favor of all these resolutions.

    “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau originally expressed support for Israel at the UN but has also renewed funding to UNRWA that was frozen during the conservative government of Stephen Harper and, in 2018, called for a probe of Gaza violence while failing to mention Hamas’ role in the violence.

    “Several Canadian Jewish groups expressed outrage over Canada’s stance while, as was to be expected, the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s envoy to the UN, Riyad Mansour, welcomed Canada’s move saying, ‘Although it was a slow process … I am delighted … very significant, very positive.’ (Elad Benari, ‘Canada again votes in favor of UN anti-Israel resolution,’ Israel National News, December, 2019.)

    “ZOA National President Morton A. Klein and Chair Mark Levenson, Esq. said, ‘We are appalled at the craven and cynical decision of the Trudeau Government to curry favor with the PA and other regional dictatorships by supporting a collection of vicious and false anti-Israel resolutions presented annually at the UN.’

    “’Canada had the honesty and integrity to refuse to do so in past years, both under the Harper and Trudeau governments. The collapse of that principled stance this year reflects badly on Mr. Trudeau and the government he leads.’

    “’Unfortunately, this is but the latest of a number of disappointing actions in respects of Israel undertaken by the Trudeau Government.’

    “The ZOA notes that, while 33 nations attended the opening of the new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem last year, Canada conspicuously did not and publicly opposed it. (In contrast, former Prime Minister Harper welcomed the move).

    “’Last year, Canada also condemned Israeli so-called ‘excessive use of force’ in seeking to contain the mass-border violations and riots organized by the Hamas terrorist regime in Gaza.’

    “’When a ‘Palestine Day’ was held in the Canadian parliament, Mr. Trudeau wrote a letter officially supporting ‘with great pleasure’ and offering the ‘warmest welcome’ to this piece of Palestinian Arab agitprop. And when the Trump Administration correctly cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), Mr. Trudeau pointedly announced that his government, which decided to end the predecessor Harper Government’s cutting of funds to UNRWA, would donate up to $25 million to make up for the shortfall.

    “In short, the Trudeau Government has moved steadily towards hostility to Israel and an uncritical embrace of the Palestinian Arab agenda.

    “The ZOA strongly condemns the Trudeau Government and urges it to rescind its latest, unprincipled anti-Israel moves.”
    ___________________________________________________________

    BTW, repeated polling in Canada has demonstrated that the majority of Canadians stand with the Palestinians.

Leave a Reply