Trending Topics:

Trump cuts last remaining aid to PA to coerce acceptance of annexation plan

News
on 34 Comments

The Trump administration has dealt another blow to the the flailing Palestinian Authority (PA) in the form of more budget cuts, this time to the PA’s security forces.

The State Department released its congressional budget request for 2021 on Monday; noticeably missing was funding for the Palestinian Security Services, which has received bipartisan support in congress for 27 years.

Last year, the US provided the Palestinians with an estimated $35 million for their security services.

Since President Trump took office, the US has been steadily cutting humanitarian and economic aid to the Palestinians, plunging the PA and other organizations like UNRWA into deep financial crises.

While the new budget does not provide an explicit package for the Palestinian security forces, it does request  $200 million to go towards a “Diplomatic Progress Fund,” that the government could use with “flexibility” to “respond to new opportunities arising from progress in diplomatic and peace efforts around the world…such as progress on a plan for Middle East peace.”

Within the Diplomatic Progress Fund is $25 million designated towards security assistance in the West Bank.

It is understood that contingent upon the PA receiving such funds would be their acceptance of Trump’s “peace plan” that was released two weeks ago, which they have categorically rejected.

The Palestinians have boycotted the US government since it recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, and have accused the Trump administration of using “political blackmail” to force the Palesitnians to capitulate to their demands.

Axios reported in November that Trump rejected a request from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the US to continue funding the PA security forces, allegedly saying that Israel should foot the bill instead.

While the new congressional budget request is subject to major changes given the Democrats’ control of the House of Representatives, nixing funding for the Palestinian security forces came as a surprise to many.

The US and Israel have long supported the funding of the Palestinian Security Services in order to maintain “stability” in the occupied West Bank and protect Israel’s security interests.

Security coordination between the PA and Israel has been a crucial tool for Israel’s security apparatus for decades. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened for months to end security coordination with Israel if the latter continues to move forward with annexation plans outlined in Trump’s proposal.

Ramallah-based political analyst and former PLO negotiator Diana Buttu told Mondoweiss that she wasn’t at all surprised by the news, saying it was made in line with the the decades-long policy of Israel to slowly dismantle the PA.

“Believe it or not, Israel doesn’t need the PA anymore for security coordination,” Buttu said.

In the past decade, Israel has worked towards technologically modifying their security apparatus in the occupied West Bank, Buttu said, slowly phasing out the role of the PA as a result.

“If you look at the way Israel operates today, a lot of it is being done by their own technological mechanisms,” she said.  “Everything from new IDs with magnetic chips for Palestinians, gates at the entrances to Palestinian areas that be can closed electronically, and facial recognition technology at checkpoints.”

“The occupation is very much operating by remote control, they don’t need the PA any longer,” she said.

Buttu doesn’t anticipate that the PA will go without funding for its security forces, however, predicting that the EU and other donor countries will step up for the sake of regional stability and due to the fact that the PA security services are the “single largest employer of Palestinians by a long shot.”

An unfortunate result of that, she says, will be less funding from donor states for more crucial services like education and healthcare.

“More money has been spent by the PA on security than education and healthcare combined,” Buttu told Mondoweiss.

“So the next bunch of European money is going to get earmarked towards security, and taken away from the other areas that are much more needed.”

Yumna Patel

Yumna Patel is the Palestine correspondent for Mondoweiss.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

34 Responses

  1. just on February 12, 2020, 2:23 pm

    “The UN human rights office has issued a long-awaited report on companies linked to Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

    The report names 112 business entities the office says it has reasonable grounds to conclude have been involved in activities related to settlements.

    They include Airbnb, Booking.com, Expedia Group and Motorola Solutions.

    The Palestinians said the report was a “victory for international law”, but Israel called it “shameful”.

    About 600,000 Jews live in about 140 settlements built since Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967. The settlements are widely considered illegal under international law, though Israel has always disputed this.

    The Palestinians have long called for the removal of the settlements, arguing that their presence on land they claim for a future independent Palestinian state makes it almost impossible to make such a state a reality.” …

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51477231

    Finally, somewhat of a backbbone! Reach up and take hold!

    • Maghlawatan on February 12, 2020, 4:39 pm

      “The settlements are widely considered illegal under international law, though Israel has always disputed this.”

      There is no such thing as “considered” or “disputed” in international law.
      And Israel won’t tolerate anyone disputing the Holocaust. The Holocaust is a fact. International law is a fact.

      • Misterioso on February 13, 2020, 11:30 am

        @Maghlawatan

        Well and truly stated!

        Also, for the record:

        The ongoing occupation of Palestinian and other Arab lands “Israel” invaded during the war it launched on 5 June 1967 – yes, as is now common knowledge, “Israel” started the 1967 war – are in flagrant violation of the UN Charter as reiterated in the preamble of UNSC Resolution 242 (which governs all that follows) – “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war…” The inclusion of this sentence in the opening paragraph reflects the fact that the Security Council must abide by the terms of the UN Charter, i.e., Chapter I Article 1 (1); Chapter I Article 2(4); and Chapter VII, Article 51, which reject territorial expansion by force of arms under any circumstances. The principal framer of Resolution 242, Lord Caradon of the United Kingdom, later noted that without this preambular statement “there could have been no unanimous vote” in the Security Council.

        On 15 September 1967, during Security Council discussions leading to the drafting of Resolution 242, UN Secretary-General U Thant announced that “everyone agrees that there should be no territorial gains by military conquest.” “Israel” is also in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (e.g., “Collective Punishment”) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are binding on all UN members.

        “Israel” argues that as the English version of article i of Paragraph 1 omits the definite article (i.e., “the”) before “territories,” Resolution 242 does not require it to withdraw completely from all lands it conquered and occupied in June 1967.

        Indeed, by calling for “withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” Resolution 242 defines precisely what lands “Israeli armed forces” must vacate. To wit: All of East Jerusalem (along with its illegally extended boundaries) was “occupied in the recent conflict;” hence, “Israel” must withdraw completely. All of the West Bank was “occupied in the recent conflict;” hence, “Israel” must withdraw completely. All of the Gaza Strip was “occupied in the recent conflict.” All of Syria’s Golan Heights, Lebanon’s Shebaa Farms and Egypt’s Sinai were “occupied in the recent conflict;” hence “Israel” must withdraw completely. “Israel” did eventually withdraw from the Sinai, but in gross violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, maintains control over the Gaza Strip and is still illegally occupying Lebanon’s Shebba Farms and Syria’s Golan Heights.

        BTW, the Russian and French versions of Resolution 242 do include the definite article, “the.”

        As Abba Eban, then foreign minister for “Israel” revealed at the time, he understood full well that Resolution 242 calls for complete withdrawal: “The words ‘in the recent conflict’ convert the principle of eliminating occupation into a mathematically precise formula for restoring the June 4 Map.” During negotiations to determine Resolution 242’s wording, Abba Eban failed in an attempt to delete the phrase “in the recent conflict.” (Comment by Foreign Minister of Israel and Telegram 3164, UK Mission in New York to Foreign Office, 12 Nov 1967)

        Moshe Dayan also understood that Resolution 242 calls for full withdrawal. During a closed session of the Labor Party, he counseled against endorsing Resolution 242 as “it means withdrawal to the 4 June [1967] boundaries, and because we are in conflict with the SC [Security Council] on that resolution.” (Daniel Dishon (ed.), Middle East Record, v. 4, 1968 (Jerusalem: 1973), p. 247)

      • Nathan on February 13, 2020, 3:14 pm

        Misterioso – You tell us that in the French and Russian versions of UNSC 242, the definite article appears (“withdrawal from THE territories…”). You might want to delete that linguistic remark when you publish that comment next time. Let’s start with the Russian language. There are a few reasons why the definite article (“the”) does not appear in the Russian version, but I’ll bring to your attention just one: There is no definite article in Russian (neither is there an indefinite article)! In the case of the French version, allow me to bring to your attention that “from territories” and “from THE territories” are exactly the same in the French language. So, when reading the French version (or the Russian version), you can’t know if it’s “territories” or “the territories”. In English, the text is clear: “withdrawal from territories” (i.e. not necessarily a withdrawal from all the territories captured in 1967).

        It’s quite strange that you would even care about territories (or the territories) in the first place. You are opposed to the existence of Israel, whereas UNSC 242 recognizes the right of all states in the area to live in peace. You should be explaining to us that UNSC 242 is illegitimate instead of analyzing languages which you haven’t studied.

      • Talkback on February 13, 2020, 5:03 pm

        Nathan: “In the case of the French version, allow me to bring to your attention that “from territories” and “from THE territories” are exactly the same in the French language.”

        Wrong. “From territories” is only “de territoires occupés” instead of the used “des territoires occupés” which refers to “from the territories occupied in the recent conflict”.

        Nathan: In English, the text is clear: “withdrawal from territories” (i.e. not necessarily a withdrawal from all the territories captured in 1967).”

        Wrong. First of all it is you who is reading something into this resolution which isn’t there. It doesn’t say “some” or “not all”, but it treats the territories which Israel has to withdraw from like a category which is “territories occupied in the recent conflict” which you deliberately ommit.

        The author of this resolution Lord Caradon explained:
        “It was from the occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict; it was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.”

        Likewise the sentence “… guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;” obviously refers to all international waterways, including Egypt’s Strait of Tiran.

        And “… right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” obviously means from all threats and all acts of force.

        A more simple example would be “Applicants must complete their bachelor’s degree prior to enrollment in the program” which obviously refers to all applicants.

        And you allready are aware of Security Council 476 in 1980:
        “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”
        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/6DE6DA8A650B4C3B852560DF00663826

        Which argument are you going to ignore this time?

      • RoHa on February 13, 2020, 8:03 pm

        “In English, the text is clear: “withdrawal from territories” (i.e. not necessarily a withdrawal from all the territories captured in 1967).”

        This is a fine example of Zionist weaseling.

        (My apologies to weasels, stoats, ferrets, polecats, and minks for associating you with Zionists, but I can’t think of a better word. )

        The general rule in English is that the plural is taken to mean all members of the class unless some restriction is placed on it.

        “One should never feed onions to cats” implies all onions and all cats.

        “My apologies to weasels, stoats, ferrets, polecats, and minks …” implies all weasels, stoats, ferrets, polecats, and minks.

        Likewise, “withdrawal from territories” implies all territories.

    • Maghlawatan on February 13, 2020, 12:26 am

      Trump plus Zionism is like a fusion of cholera and the plague.

      “Rick Wilson

      @therickwilson

      6/ Trumpism is not conservative. It is a radical, jumped up form of authoritarian statism. It is nationalism, and corporate socialism. History doesn’t repeat but it surely lays down a fat beat and a steady flow.”

      Former U.S. Amb. to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who testified in impeachment probe, speaks about diplomacy: “To be blunt, an amoral, keep ’em guessing foreign policy that substitutes threats, fear and confusion for trust, cannot work over the long haul.” http://abcn.ws/3bDeAHZ

      https://mobile.twitter.com/ABC/status/1227721292440391682

    • Talkback on February 13, 2020, 10:07 am

      Here’s the report,, list of companies begins on page 6:
      https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-high-commissioner-for-human-rights-report-on-business-activities-related-to-settlements-in-the-opt-advance-unedited-version-a-hrc-43-71/

      Refering to this report, I allready notified Airbnb, Opodo and TripAdvisor that we are not going to cooperate with them, until they dissappear from that list which is going to be annually updated.

  2. Maghlawatan on February 12, 2020, 3:07 pm

    https://www.ft.com/content/49a1a280-41f1-11ea-bdb5-169ba7be433d

    “Israel’s borders will expand, but its legitimacy will erode. With hopes of a real state of their own dashed, it is now likely the Palestinians inside Israel and the occupied territories will wage an apartheid-style fight for equal rights in the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean. It is not just the future of Palestinians at stake here but that of Israelis too.

    Israelis now face a single state in which Arabs will come to outnumber Jews — and insist on the same rights. Some American Jewish leaders long critical of Israeli and US policy argue that only if Israelis are faced with the realities of a single state will they revert to the preference for two states”

    https://www.ft.com/content/2bcff144-4be7-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5

    “The Israeli prime minister, who is seeking re-election on March 2 for the third time in less than a year, pounced on the opportunity to burnish his credentials as the man who could coax a US president into offering up a peace plan that would give his rightwing base the one thing the international community has largely denied them: recognition of Israel’s claims to the biblical heartland that Palestinians say is their home. The plan was far-fetched and with little chance of ever materialising but it was important as an official document rewarding long-held Israeli rightwing positions — from annexing settlements, holding on to East Jerusalem and stripping a third of the occupied West Bank from any future Palestinian state.

    As Palestinian and Arab condemnation of the plan grew, the White House walked back its support of any immediate annexation of land in the West Bank until after the Israeli elections delivered a clear winner. An Israeli cabinet meeting to approve annexation was cancelled. “They betrayed him [Mr Netanyahu],” said a member of the Likud executive committee, asking for anonymity while discussing a political embarrassment for his party. “It’s like they shut off the electricity during a party.”

  3. brent on February 12, 2020, 3:47 pm

    Patel, “It is understood that contingent upon the PA receiving such funds would be their acceptance of Trump’s “peace plan” that was released two weeks ago, which they have categorically rejected.”
    ____________________________________________

    A year ago: “They disrespected us a week ago by not allowing our great vice president to see them, and we give them hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and support, tremendous numbers, numbers that nobody understands,” said Trump.”That money is on the table. That money is not going to them unless they sit down and negotiate peace” with Israel, he said.
    The U.S. president also said that he has “a proposal for peace,”

    Yesterday: The Trump administration’s Mideast peace plan is a basis for negotiations and could be subject to changes, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft said Tuesday as the UN Security Council convened to discuss to the plan.

    A senior Trump administration official said after the Security Council session that Washington is “willing to have an honest and open discussion on [the plan] as a possible basis to restart negotiations for a realistic two-state solution. As we’ve said all along, our plan is the start of a process, not the end.”

    What’s going on? What is Patel pushing?

    • eljay on February 12, 2020, 7:10 pm

      || brent: … What’s going on? … ||

      Dunno, but I’m still hoping for an answer from you.

      Trump is a Zionist, fully bought and paid for. Zionists and Israel have vigorously stroked his ego and fattened his wallet and, in return, he has handsomely rewarded their greed and desires. Without Palestinian agreement he moved the U.S. embassy to Jersualem, gave the Golan Heights to Israel and now has offered to give:
      – Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and pretty much everything else on- and off-shore that matters in geographic Palestine to Israel; and
      – scraps to the Palestinians.

      You’ve suggested that the way to get him to turn away from all this – the way for Palestinians to “outsmart him” and get him to pursue justice, accountability and equality in I-P – is to:
      – restate things he has said;
      – ask for clarifications;
      – not say ‘no’; and
      – NEGOTIATE with him.

      So, once again, I ask you: What exactly are the Palestinians supposed to NEGOTIATE with that will “outsmart” Trump and bring justice, accountability and equality to I-P?

      • brent on February 12, 2020, 11:05 pm

        eljay- I start doubting you will consider matters from a different angle…. judging from the past.

        In my judgment, you are way wrong concluding Trump is an ideologue, so we will likely judge other things differently. I point out he ran for President in 2000 with the Reform Party, has been a Democrat, now the big Republican, for abortion, against abortion. He’s supremely arrogant… knows he’s right, so I think he looked at West Jerusalem as a given so why not bump it aside?. Senate 100-0, and it was a campaign promise. Saying he’d cut all Netanyahu’s money suggests he’s not bought. He would not have put the one state front and center.

        It will seem unreasonable to you but with Trump and the UN expecting a written reply, a counteroffer, to the Jan. 28 opener, I’d get on that. Trump’s offer to negotiate in public with him is a gift that’s unparalleled. Rich in possibilities.

        “What exactly are Palestinians to negotiate with”?

        With the strength of argument, with advisors. With the benefits of victimhood. With goodwill from most of the world. With politics, with PR. With alliances, with insight, with savvy, with values, with good, sound ideas. With techniques used in other negotiations. Check out a book on negotiating. By quoting Trump’s words to put him on the defensive.

        Can’t negotiate with neutron bombs…. nor with rockets or rocks which have never worked. Negotiate with what you have, not with what you don’t. Not in anger, arrogance or a closed mind.

        Little doubt it will seem like nonsense to you but with Trump and the UN expecting a negotiating reply to Trump’s opener, I’d get right on the offer to negotiate in writing, in detail, in public, in the open with Trump, not Netanyahu. This is an unparalleled opportunity if an agreement is a goal.

      • eljay on February 13, 2020, 8:45 am

        || brent: eljay- I start doubting you will consider matters from a different angle…. judging from the past. … ||

        I start doubting you will be able to answer my question…. judging from the past.

        || … “What exactly are Palestinians to negotiate with”? … ||

        The actual question was “What exactly are the Palestinians supposed to NEGOTIATE with that will ‘outsmart’ Trump and bring justice, accountability and equality to I-P?”

        || … With the strength of argument, with advisors. With the benefits of victimhood. With goodwill from most of the world. With politics, with PR. With alliances, with insight, with savvy, with values, with good, sound ideas. … ||

        You seriously believe that this will reverse decades of injustice – including Trump’s own decisions – and bring justice, accountability and equality to I-P? Huh.

        But maybe you’re right and the Palestinians can convince Trump to turn his back on Israel – and on the Zionists who have stroked his ego and fattened his wallet – and to…
        – take back from Israel all that he has wrongly given and all that he has wrongly promised to give;
        – make Israel relinquish all that they have already stolen, occupied and colonized;
        – get Israel to honour its obligations under international law ; and
        – hold Israel accountable for its past and on-going (war) crimes,
        …using the techniques you’ve outlined.

        || … Little doubt it will seem like nonsense to you … ||

        You’re right – it does seem like nonsense.

      • Talkback on February 13, 2020, 9:28 am

        Another non sensical reply by brent to eljay’s question.

      • Mooser on February 13, 2020, 6:04 pm

        I do not think “brent” is arguing in good faith, or honestly.

  4. wondering jew on February 12, 2020, 9:38 pm

    Speeding the fall of Abbas and the collapse of the PA seems illogical to me, but this seems to be the direction of the rhetoric and actions by Trump and Bibi. Maybe some radical pressure is needed for new elections and in fact some type of pressure will push Palestinian society to better governance. Seems farfetched. It seems misconceived.

    • wondering jew on February 12, 2020, 9:42 pm

      The mainstream in Israel wants the PLO to announce a concession on the Right of Return as the first step in advance of negotiations, whereas the PLO will only make this concession at the very end of negotiations (or not at all, but the heart of hearts of Abbas and Arafat has been prepared to make concessions, but only as the very last step.)

      • wondering jew on February 12, 2020, 10:04 pm

        Any concession on right of return would require a plebiscite of west bank and gaza palestinians (which would be discredited because of the nonparticipation by other palestinian populations in this plebiscite.)

    • Maghlawatan on February 13, 2020, 1:12 am

      “type of pressure will push Palestinian society to better governance.”

      “They keep asking what’s wrong with us
      We say what’s wrong with you is what’s wrong with us”

      https://youtu.be/HAYdc2_Y82w

      Zionism is such a miserable ideology.

    • eljay on February 13, 2020, 8:16 pm

      || wondering jew: … Maybe some radical pressure is needed for new elections and in fact some type of pressure will push Palestinian society to better governance. … ||

      What type of pressure should be exerted on Israeli society to push it to better governance and – more importantly – to push it to stop being supremacist and to start respecting and upholding justice, accountability and equality?

      Which of the things we do to other societies – crippling sanctions, destabilization, bombardment, invasion and/or regime change – should we do to Israel?

      (And please don’t anti-Semitically “single out” Israel by suggesting we shouldn’t do any of those things.)

  5. Elizabeth Block on February 13, 2020, 8:23 am

    No more money for outsourcing the Occupation to the PA? Fine. Should have ended years ago. Should never have started in the first place.

  6. Vera Gottlieb on February 13, 2020, 10:49 am

    What a poor showing (putting it mildly) of American “diplomacy” – a.k.a blackmail and extortion. Is this what T-Rump excels in? A country that has turned completely amoral – but then look at who is “leading” it.

  7. James Canning on February 13, 2020, 11:04 am

    Yet more bullying of the Palestinians by the arrogant ignoramus in the White House.

  8. Nathan on February 13, 2020, 11:07 pm

    Talkback – It is just fine with me that Israel withdraw from territories in accordance to the text of 242 as soon as it is fine with you that all states in the area have the right to live in peace in accordance to the very same text of 242. Just as it’s obvious to you that “territories” mean “(all of) the territories”, it’s also obvious that all the states in the area include the State of Israel.

    • Talkback on February 14, 2020, 5:55 am

      Nathan: ” It is just fine with me that Israel withdraw from territories in accordance to the text of 242 as soon as it is fine with you that all states in the area have the right to live in peace in accordance to the very same text of 242. ”

      This is neither about nor or me, but about resolution 242 which Israel has been violating since 1967, including it’s illegaly prolonged occupation.

      Nathan: “Just as it’s obvious to you that “territories” mean “(all of) the territories”, it’s also obvious that all the states in the area include the State of Israel.”

      Which makes me wonder why Israel always seem to think that it is only its own borders which should be secure and recognized, allthough it started the war and illegaly annexed Jerusalem and the Golan. That alone makes it impossible for Israel to even abide by resolution 242, because we all know that – contrary to Palestine – it is not willing to share Jerusalem. And it also won’t give up the Golan, because of “military neccessity”. Oh sorry, that was the Nazi’s terminology. Israel’s is “security”.

    • RoHa on February 15, 2020, 2:03 am

      I’m sure all the people in the area would be very happy if Israel chose to live in peace instead of attacking them.

      But until Israel reforms from its current evil pattern, it is unlikely to choose peace.

      • catalan on February 15, 2020, 11:59 am

        But” until Israel reforms from its current evil pattern, it is unlikely to choose peace.”
        Israel already has peace – life expectancy 9th in the world; crime rate 28th in the world; healthiest countries 10th (ties with Norway); happiness ranking 13. Facts say that Israelis have it really good. Why would they change anything?
        Anecdotally, I have travelled in Israel a few times. And have lived on two continents in many different cities. I can confirm that Israelis are a lot happier and healthier than, say Americans.

      • Eva Smagacz on February 18, 2020, 6:24 am

        Catalan, you said:

        “Israel already has peace – life expectancy 9th in the world; crime rate 28th in the world; healthiest countries 10th (ties with Norway); happiness ranking 13. Facts say that Israelis have it really good. Why would they change anything?”

        Funny that, Occupied Palestinian population have life expectancy near the bottom of the world life expectancy list. Care to speculate why that is? The operative word is OCCUPIED

      • catalan on February 18, 2020, 9:21 am

        Eva,
        You are polish – and you know what the Nazis did in Warsaw after the uprising. The Mufti of Jerusalem was a Nazi ally who colluded and helped create the SS unit among Bosnian Muslims that helped defeat Yugoslavia. Even now Hamas and Islamic Jihad revere Hitler. Do you not see who you are siding with?

      • echinococcus on February 18, 2020, 3:31 pm

        Let’s thank “Catalan” for reminding us of what the Zionists have been doing to Palestine for all these years:

        “you know what the Nazis did in Warsaw after the uprising” — and before, too.

      • oldgeezer on February 18, 2020, 7:11 pm

        @catalan

        The mufti was a Hitler ally?

        I guess that means she’s siding with the Brits since they selected and appointed him. SFA to do with the Palestinians particularly the vast majority alive today.

        Besides we know of another group of people who were much more ardent supporters of hitler and were willing to fight the allies in exchange for a country. Quite a history of cooperation with him actually. Look what that led yo.

      • Eva Smagacz on February 20, 2020, 9:49 am

        Catalan, you said:

        Eva, You are polish – and you know what the Nazis did in Warsaw after the uprising. (…) Hamas and Islamic Jihad revere Hitler. Do you not see who you are siding with?

        Catalan,

        Of course I know what Nazis did in Warsaw during BOTH uprisings (Jewish, and later Polish – you do know there were two uprisings against Nazi occupation, don’t you?).

        These things happened in another century, on another continent, so you tell me, WHY you are using it to justify Israeli treatment of Palestinians, who are dying in disproportionate numbers under Israeli occupation.

        There is a million children locked up by your government in Gaza, with entire population dying prematurely from preventable causes, and you are surprised that people who see their families dying revere Hitler?

        However sick it is to revere Hitler (and it is sick), it is not an excuse for you to dehumanise Palestinians to the point of not understanding the concept of self – defence, the idea of wishing death to their tormentors and tormentors of their children and elders and their absolute right to raise in arms against the occupiers.

  9. Kay24 on February 14, 2020, 5:53 am

    Here you go, the arrogant (crook) leader of Israel, bragging they were able to mess with US laws.

    Israel’s Netanyahu boasts of having Destroyed US 1st Amendment and Free Speech

    https://www.juancole.com/2020/02/netanyahu-destroyed-amendment.html

Leave a Reply