#ANY EFFORT I MAKE TO SUPPORT PALESTINIANS WILL BE REVERSED BY THEM!!! | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

jordanianroyals · 5 years ago

Photo

Interview: Jordan to learn much from collaborations with China in varied fields: Jordanian Queen

Source: Xinhua | 2018-09-04 18:32:46 | Editor: huaxia

For full article, please click this link.

Queen Rania of Jordan has praised China for playing an influential role in global economy and aiding refugees in the Middle East, while hoping that Jordan will learn much from collaborations with China in varied fields.

The queen made the remarks in a written interview with Xinhua ahead of her visit to China to attend the second Alibaba XIN Philanthropy Conference 2018 due on Sept. 5 in Hangzhou, China, at the invitation of Jack Ma, founder of China's Alibaba Group and the Jack Ma Foundation.

"I have very fond memories from my previous visits to China, and I look forward to visiting again," the queen said, adding that she has a lot of respect for Ma and the work that he is doing, as well as his vision for philanthropy.

"It is very uplifting to see that people are embracing philanthropy, within China and beyond," said the queen, founder of the Queen Rania Foundation for Education and Development (QRF).

During his May visit to Jordan, Ma announced the first-stage funding of 3 million U.S. dollars to the QRF to support the development of its online learning platform, Edraak, as well as the training of school principals at the Queen Rania Teacher Academy.

"Going forward, we are looking forward to collaborating further and exchanging knowledge with the Jack Ma Foundation, so that we can work together on our common goal to promote access to quality education for all," the queen said.

CHINA'S GREAT PROGRESS, GENEROUS REFUGEE AID

In the interview, Queen Rania lauded China for having made "tremendous progress" over the past decades.

"It's the world's biggest exporter, it's second largest economy, and there is no doubt that it plays a critical and influential role in development and in the global economy," she said.

The queen noted that China is now classified as the world's top technology hub and home to some big companies on par with Silicon Valley giants like Apple and Amazon in the United States.

"I can only be delighted to revisit China at such exciting times as these, and I am certain that my trip will be rewarding on so many levels," she said.

Jordan is a small country with a young and driven population that can learn so much from collaborations with China, especially in the fields of technology, commerce, trade, and education, she said.

Talking about the refugee crisis that has placed a heavy burden on Jordan, one of major host countries of refugees, Queen Rania said Jordan is "tremendously grateful" to China for its longstanding support to ease the burden of hosting refugees.

"Over the years, China has not only provided food assistance and humanitarian aid to refugees in Jordan, but also supported the development of Jordan's overtaxed infrastructure," she said.

The queen mentioned that, just two months ago, China pledged an additional 15 million U.S. dollars in aid, "which will go a long way in helping us meet refugees' needs."

She also commended China for recently donating 2.35 million dollars to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), which faces the worst financial crisis in its 70-year history after the United States recently cut its fundings.

"UNRWA is a lifeline to more than 5 million people in the region, 40 percent of whom live in Jordan alone, and China's generosity will contribute to alleviating some of the pressure on the struggling agency," said the queen.

Jordan, which is spearheading efforts to secure necessary funding for the agency to continue its services, is hopeful that other countries will follow China's example, she said.

The ultimate solution for this crisis, however, can only be found through a negotiated settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and all its final status issues, the queen stressed.

EDUCATION CAN MAKE MIRACLES

Queen Rania, a strong advocate of education and a passionate philanthropist and peace maker, underlined the power of education to address most pressing challenges of today, including unemployment and radicalization.

For the Jordanian queen, education has remained at the forefront of her activities over the years.

"I believe in the power of education because it holds the answer to many of the challenges we face today," she said.

She established the Queen Rania Foundation for Education and Development in 2013, out of her belief that investing in children is the best investment that can be made in the Arab world.

"Knowledge, creativity, and talent are key ingredients to any country's success, and that all begins in the classroom," she noted.

The QRF has implemented a number of initiatives and programs to support education reform in Jordan. Queen Rania set up the Queen Rania Teacher Academy, which offers educators critical training and professional development.

Four years ago, she also launched Edraak, one of the first non-profit online Arabic open education resource platforms, to provide Arabic speakers with the opportunity to learn online.

Focusing mainly on adult learners seeking higher education and professional development opportunities, Edraak has so far reached 1.7 million registered learners.

Education is the key to addressing the most pressing challenge on young people's minds today, which is unemployment, the queen said.

"Our challenge is to continue to invest in the right kind of education, and to grow our economy in order to create more opportunities for them within Jordan," she said.

Queen Rania stressed that education also plays a key role in fighting terrorism, a major part of which is the fight against the "extremists' false narrative of hate and the twisted ideology of the outlaws of Islam."

"I always say, you cannot kill an ideology with a bullet. You can only kill it with a better idea. Extremists prey on hopelessness and despair, taking advantage of vulnerable people who feel as though they have no other options," she said.

The queen said she is convinced that a large part of the solution to eradicating terrorism lies in education.

"If we can equip our youth with the skills they need to succeed in the world and jobs to make their lives purposeful, then there is no cause for desperation or resentment," she said.

PHILANTHROPY IS SHARED RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL

In the interview, Queen Rania also voiced her optimism about the power of philanthropy to create opportunity and reduce inequity.

"I am inspired by how committed and energetic some people are about philanthropy. I think it is critical that we encourage and support those looking to help, to make a difference, to bring innovative ideas to the field of philanthropy, whether in China or throughout the rest of the world," said the queen, a mother of four.

Philanthropy is "a shared responsibility of all," she said.

The queen said philanthropy should be "a collaborative effort," in which the public, private, and civil society sectors complement each other's work and build on shared successes.

She said she believes that philanthropy lives in the hearts of humans, "because giving is something that is built into our DNA and deep-rooted into our human conscience."

"Giving is part of what makes us human ... In a sense, we see giving as the best way to improve ourselves," she said.

WOMEN'S SUCCESS STARTS WITH EMPOWERMENT

Queen Rania, who believes that the pathway to a woman's success begins with empowerment, has been a passionate spokesperson for women's rights.

Serving as a positive role model for Arab women, the queen uses her international platform to shed light on the most pressing challenges facing Arab women.

"I think it is often easier for people to paint us all with the same, stereotypical brush: downtrodden, uneducated, and voiceless," she said.

The reality is that Arab women from all walks of life are increasingly leaving their mark on every level of society, not just as homemakers, but also as professors, doctors, engineers, and entrepreneurs, she insisted.

Arab women have emerged as role models in almost every industry, breaking through glass ceilings and providing an excellent example to both girls and boys of the next generation, she said.

That said, in many cases, progress has been slower than expected. Unfortunately, sexism is not limited to a single country or region, and women everywhere are at risk of discrimination and abuse, the queen added.

This is true particularly in areas of conflict, where women are always the hardest hit. In times of conflict or political upheaval, women's hard-won gains are reversed and their rights are treated as afterthoughts, she said.

For Rania, who became Queen of Jordan in 1999 as the youngest queen in the world, balancing private life as a wife and mother with public duties as queen does not seem to be an easy task.

"Twenty years is a long time. A lot has changed since 1999. I've also changed and I've learnt a lot," she said.

"I have faced tough challenges, but they have made me more authentic, truer to who I am, and less fearful ... I am not afraid of standing up for my values and beliefs," said the queen.

While expressing her sadness and concerns about the continued turmoil and violence in the Middle East, Queen Rania said most people in the region still hope for a better future of peace and justice.

"No matter where we come from or what we believe, at the heart of it, all people want the same things: a safe place to call home, the ability to work for a living, and a quality education for our children," she said.

These things are achievable, but only when people put differences aside and collaborate on comprehensive solutions, she said.

"Our shared humanity is so much stronger than the labels that divide us, and it is in our best interest to work together to achieve sustainable global development and create a world worthy of the next generation," said the queen.

#Queen Rania #interview

5 notes · View notes

romancatholicreflections · 6 years ago

Photo

17th February >> Fr. Martin's Gospel Reflections / Homilies on Luke 6:17, 20-26 for the Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle C: ‘How happy are you who are poor’.

Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle C

Gospel (Europe, Africa, New Zealand, Australia & Canada)

Luke 6:17,20-26

Happy are you who are poor, who are hungry, who weep

Jesus came down with the Twelve and stopped at a piece of level ground where there was a large gathering of his disciples with a great crowd of people from all parts of Judaea and from Jerusalem and from the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. Then fixing his eyes on his disciples he said:

‘How happy are you who are poor: yours is the kingdom of God.

Happy you who are hungry now: you shall be satisfied.

Happy you who weep now: you shall laugh.

Happy are you when people hate you, drive you out, abuse you, denounce your name as criminal, on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice when that day comes and dance for joy, for then your reward will be great in heaven. This was the way their ancestors treated the prophets.

‘But alas for you who are rich: you are having your consolation now.

Alas for you who have your fill now: you shall go hungry.

Alas for you who laugh now: you shall mourn and weep.

‘Alas for you when the world speaks well of you! This was the way their ancestors treated the false prophets.’

Gospel (USA)

Luke 6:17, 20–26

Blessed are the poor. Woe to you who are rich.

Jesus came down with the Twelve and stood on a stretch of level ground with a great crowd of his disciples and a large number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. And raising his eyes toward his disciples he said:

“Blessed are you who are poor,

for the kingdom of God is yours.

Blessed are you who are now hungry,

for you will be satisfied.

Blessed are you who are now weeping,

for you will laugh.

Blessed are you when people hate you,

and when they exclude and insult you,

and denounce your name as evil

on account of the Son of Man.

Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.

But woe to you who are rich,

for you have received your consolation.

Woe to you who are filled now,

for you will be hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now,

for you will grieve and weep.

Woe to you when all speak well of you,

for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.”

Reflections (3)

(i) Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

The people of the parish here have always been very generous in their support of organizations and initiatives that work to support the poorest and most vulnerable among us. The Saint Vincent de Paul Society greatly appreciate the contribution parishioners make to their monthly church gate collection. Last December, parishioners contributed over €8,000 to their Christmas collection inside the church. Parishioners were also generous in their support of the Capuchin Day Centre for Homeless People through the parish film club, just before Christmas. Over €4,000 was raised both in this parish and in Saint Anthony’s to support poor Palestinian families, through the sale of olive wood Christmas products made by Palestinian Christians. There are various other organizations and projects that support the most vulnerable that parishioners have helped to provide funds for over many years, such as Kenya Orphan Aid. It may sometimes feel as if all these efforts are but a drop in the ocean given the scale of the need, not just locally but globally. Yet, the fact that we cannot do everything should not discourage us from doing something.

When Jesus says in today’s gospel reading, ‘how happy are you who are poor; yours is the kingdom of God’, he was not in any way suggesting that poverty was a blessed state. Jesus was saying that the poor are blessed because God was standing by their side. Throughout his ministry, Jesus revealed a God who pledged to act on behalf of the poor, the marginalized, the vulnerable, the broken in body, mind and spirit, the hungry, the sorrowful. Jesus proclaimed that God was acting in and through his own ministry to reverse the situation of these groups. Jesus made present a God who was the passionate defender of the weak and powerless. What God was doing through Jesus, Jesus wants to continue doing through us his followers, his body in the world. That is why Jesus speaks these beatitudes while fixing his eyes on his disciples. He is calling on us all to work to ensure that the promises he makes to the poor and vulnerable in today’s gospel reading comes to pass, ‘yours is the kingdom of God, you shall be satisfied, you shall laugh’. These promises of Jesus don’t just pertain to life beyond this earthly life. Jesus wasn’t saying to those in greatest need, ‘you can be happy because your situation will be reversed in heaven’. Jesus expected the promises he made to begin to become a reality in the here and now. Later in this gospel of Luke, Jesus speaks the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in which Lazarus did have to wait until the next life before his miserable situation was reversed. However, the whole point of that parable is that Lazarus should not have had to wait that long. God clearly wanted his situation to be reversed in this life, and if would have been reversed if the extremely wealthy man in the parable had given Lazarus the kind of attention that he was entitled to as a human being and a son of Abraham.

The four woes that Jesus goes on to speak after the four beatitudes are addressed to the kind of rich person depicted in that parable, those who are so self-absorbed by their very great wealth that they are completely impervious to the many who are struggling to survive. The woes are a warning to them to take seriously what God expects of them or they will end up truly impoverished. The first reading from the prophet Jeremiah declares that those who rely completely on ‘things of the flesh’ are like dry scrub in the wastelands. In the beatitudes and woes, Jesus was addressing a society where the vast majority of people lived just at or below the poverty line and where a very small minority were extravagantly wealthy. He was describing the brutal reality of his world. By his beatitudes and woes Jesus was declaring that this was a reality that makes God suffer greatly and that God wanted to radically change.

We might be tempted to think that this is not the reality of our world. Yet, there are certainly parts of our world today that correspond to the world that Jesus presupposes in his beatitudes and woes and graphically portrays in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Whereas in our own part of the world we do have a strong and numerous middle class that wasn’t there in Jesus’ society, nonetheless, we are all very aware of great inequalities in our own society. One of the most shameful expressions of such inequality is the housing crisis and the rising tide of homelessness. The recent demonstrations in our city at the housing crisis is indicative of how unacceptable many people find the present situation. Today’s gospel reading suggests that the Lord is clearly on the side of all those who are working to ensure that everyone has a roof over their heads. Just as Jesus fixed his eyes on his disciples when he spoke these beatitudes and woes, so he fixes his eyes on all of us today. He calls out to us to help him to bring to pass in the here and now the promises that he makes to the most vulnerable in today’s gospel reading. Elsewhere in the gospels, he assures us that if we do so we will be rich in the sight of God.

And/Or

(ii) Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

I was fortunate enough to visit the Holy Land the year before the present conflict began. I remember being in a part of the land that was quite barren and noticing the impact that the river Jordan made on that barren land. On either side of the river was a green line of vegetation that from a distance looked like a large green snake making its way through the barren landscape. It brought home to me the life-giving power of flowing water, even in an arid landscape. Today’s first reading and responsorial psalm put me in mind of that scene. Jeremiah refers to a ‘tree by the waterside that thrusts its roots to the stream’, whose ‘foliage stays green’ and that ‘never ceases to bear fruit’. The responsorial psalm makes reference to a ‘tree that is planted beside the flowing waters, that yields its fruit in due season and whose leaves shall never fade’. For both Jeremiah and the psalmist the tree by the water that never ceases to bear fruit and that remains green, even in time of drought, is an image of those who have placed their trust in the Lord, and whose lives are rooted in the Lord.

Any one of us can find ourselves in a period of drought at some point in our lives, when life seems barren and harsh; we struggle to keep going; the elements seem to be against us. What keeps us going when we find ourselves in those inhospitable places? What prevents us from drying up and shrinking into ourselves when we experience life as something of a wilderness? The first reading and the psalm suggest that it is our connection with the Lord that keeps us vibrant and fruitful, even when the place in which we find ourselves threatens to drain us of life. We do not have to bring about that connection with the Lord ourselves. The Lord has already created that connection with us. He says in the gospel of John, ‘I am the vine, you are the branches’. The Lord, through his life, death and resurrection, and the sending of the Spirit, has grafted us into himself, rooted us in himself. We have responded to that initiative of the Lord. Our parents responded for us when they brought us for baptism. In the course of our lives we have made our own that response of our parents on our behalf. Our presence here this morning at this Eucharist is a sign of that. Our calling is to keep on responding to the initiative that the Lord keeps taking towards us in grafting us into himself. The Lord who says, ‘I am the vine, you are the branches’, then calls out to us, ‘Remain in me’. Our task is to remain in the Lord who has taken us into himself. As we remain in the Lord, we will draw life from him, like the tree that remains beside the flowing waters.

When Jesus looked out on his disciples in this morning’s gospel reading, he recognized people who were in something of a wilderness. He addresses his disciples there as poor, hungry and weeping. In a sense, life had become more of a struggle for them since they left their nets to follow Jesus. Getting involved in Jesus’ way of doing things had brought new demands, and, in one way, left them poorer, more vulnerable. Yet, Jesus declares to his struggling disciples that they are blessed, because in getting involved in his way of doing things, and in remaining with him, they would come to experience the abundance of God’s generosity. When our own following of the Lord makes demands on us and leaves us feeling vulnerable, the Lord declares us blessed too. Our efforts to walk in the way of the Lord will make demands on us; it will often mean taking the path less travelled. Some people looking at our lives might see us as loosing out. Yet, the Lord assures us that what we might have put aside in order to be faithful to him will seem very little in comparison to what we will receive from him. Our remaining in the Lord can appear to leave us more vulnerable at times. The gospel reading assures us, however, that in our vulnerability we will know the Lord’s strength. We will find our happiness in remaining in the Lord and in allowing him to live out his life in us.

In the gospel reading, the Lord makes a promise to his struggling disciples, ‘yours is the kingdom of God’. That same promise is made to disciples in every generation, to us this morning. That promise begins to be fulfilled for us in this life. We begin to experience the presence of the kingdom of God, as we come to know the Lord’s strength in our weakness, the Lord’s life in our barren times. We believe, however, that we will only experience the fullness of God’s kingdom in the next life. Paul says in the second reading, ‘if our hope in Christ has been for this life only, we are the most unfortunate of all people’. We look forward in hope to that eternal moment when, in the words of the book of Revelation, the Lamb will guide his followers to springs of the water of life.

The gospel reading suggests that appearances can be deceptive. Those who seem to be loosing out, because they place their trust in the Lord rather than in themselves are, in reality, blessed. Those who seem to have it all are in reality unfortunate, in so far as their trust is only in themselves. The readings today invite us to root our lives in the Lord, and to go where he takes us, in the hope and trust that he is leading us to springs of living water.

And/Or

(iii) Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

In the course of our lives we invariably find ourselves speaking in different ways to different people, or sometimes even in different ways to the same people. We might speak comforting words to those who are struggling; we can speak angry words to those who have hurt us in some way; we speak loving words to those who mean a great deal to us; we can speak challenging words to those we have some responsibility for and who are not measuring up in some way. Knowing what to say and when to say it is an art in itself. Understanding what it is that needs to be said for the good of the other person at any particular time is a great gift to have. We can probably all remember times when we said more than we should have said or, perhaps, less than we should have said. We might have spoken comforting words when, really, challenging words were needed, or challenging words when comforting words were needed.

What is true of all of us as human beings was certainly true of Jesus. He spoke different sets of words to different people. The gospels suggest that, to a much greater degree than any one of us, he indeed had mastered the art of knowing what to say and when to say it. He could find the words that people needed to hear, and he was aware that different kinds of people needed to hear different kinds of words. We have a good example of that in today’s gospel reading. Jesus addresses words of comfort to the poor, the hungry, those who weep and the persecuted. He addresses words of warning to the rich, the self-satisfied, those who were used to the adulation of others. When it comes to words to be spoken, Jesus knew that it was not a case of one size fits all. The most vulnerable, who had least in terms of human supports and human prospects, needed to hear words of comfort. They need to be assured that, whatever about anybody else, God had certainly not forgotten them, and that a day would come when the totally unacceptable situation in which they found themselves would be reversed. ‘You shall be satisfied, you shall laugh’. For some of this group, such as Lazarus in the parable Jesus went on to speak, the reversal would happen only beyond this life. Yet, Jesus was making clear in speaking that parable that Lazarus should not have had to wait that long for his situation to be reversed.

If the most vulnerable needed to hear words of comfort, Jesus was equally clear that the complacent needed to hear words of warning. They needed a strong shot across the bow. In today’s gospel reading Jesus addresses challenging words to the self-satisfied, complacent rich who, in their wealth, have totally isolated themselves from the vast bulk of the population who were living at subsistence level. Jesus painted an unforgettable picture of such a person in the parable of the rich fool, as it is often called. Here was someone who had more of this world’s goods than he knew what to do with, and his only preoccupation was where to store it all. He saw his surplus as a problem to be solved rather than as bonus that carried social responsibilities. Jesus knew that it was precisely this self-serving attitude on the part of a minority in his society that resulted in the vast bulk of the population living such vulnerable and miserable lives.

We cannot of course equate the society in which we are living today with the peasant society of Galilee in which Jesus preached the gospel. For one thing, there was no concept of a social welfare state in the time of the Roman Empire, under which Jesus and his contemporaries lived. Yet, it is as true today as it was in Jesus’ time that the message of the gospel that Jesus preached has something of the quality of a two-edged sword. At times the gospel message will find expression as words of comfort; at other times it will come to expression in words that are very challenging indeed. To reduce the message of the gospel to reassuring words of comfort alone is to distort it; likewise, to reduce it to a disturbing word of challenge is to equally distort it. The beatitudes and the woes that Jesus speaks in our gospel reading today are both integral to the gospel message, and both sets of words are addressed to all of us.

There are times in the course of our life’s journey when we need to hear the Lord’s assurance that when all else fails in our lives he will not fail us. They are times when we desperately need to know that when everything has been taken from us, whether it is our health, our wealth, our good name, our independence, the Lord is the one reality that cannot be taken from us, because he is especially close to the broken hearted, to those whose spirits are crushed. He is strength in our weakness, life in our various deaths, and those who keep on trusting in him in spite of everything are like trees whose foliage stays green when the heat comes.

There are other times in our lives when we need to hear the challenging and tough side of the Lord’s gospel message. We can all get complacent; we can easily imagine that all is well with our little world, when, in reality, what we are doing, and sometimes what we are failing to do, is having very damaging consequences for others. There are times when, in our dullness of spirit, we desperately need to hear the Lord’s wake up call. This morning we might each one of us reflect on which side of the Lord’s gospel message I most need to hear today.

Fr. Martin Hogan, Saint John the Baptist Parish, Clontarf, Dublin, D03 AO62, Ireland.

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Parish Website: www.stjohnsclontarf.ie Please join us via our webcam.

Twitter: @SJtBClontarfRC.

Facebook: St John the Baptist RC Parish, Clontarf.

Tumblr: Saint John the Baptist Parish, Clontarf, Dublin.

1 note · View note

expatimes · 4 years ago

Photo

Eviction of Israeli Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah part of policy

For at least a dozen Palestinian families living in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, the threat of eviction from their homes looms over their heads, paralysing any thoughts of the future.

In October, the Israeli magistrate court of Jerusalem ruled to evict 12 of the 24 Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah and to give their homes to Israeli Jewish settlers. The court also ruled that each family must pay 70,000 shekels ($ 20,000) in fees to cover the settlers' legal expenses.

The families were given 30 days to file an appeal, but most expressed little hope for a ruling in their favor, saying the Israeli judiciary is no more than an instrument of the Israeli occupation policy of forcibly displacing and erasing the Palestinian presence in Jerusalem.

“Since the eviction order, we've been living with the daily anxiety of not knowing when the Israeli army will come and evict us from our home,” said Ahmad Hammad, a resident of Sheikh Jarrah.

“All of my memories are here. I was born here and my father, aunts, uncles and grandparents all lived in this house. ”

Israeli forces patrol as a Palestinian building in demolished in the village of Sur Baher, which sits on either side of the Israeli barrier in occupied East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank [File: Mussa Qawasma/Reuters]

'Well-oiled colonial machine'

Sheikh Jarrah, located on the slopes of Mount Scopus just north of the Old City, is home to 3,000 Palestinians, all refugees who were ethnically cleansed from their homes in other parts of historical Palestine during the 1948 Nakba.

The neighborhood is a juxtaposition of affluent and poorer areas, home to the American Colony and Ambassador hotels. But the part where the refugees and their descendants live is marked by unpaved roads and homes that are in disrepair because the Israeli municipality in Jerusalem prevents any kind of renovation work.

The refugees, 28 families displaced from their homes by Israel, were able to relocate to Sheikh Jarrah in 1956 after Jordan, which had a mandate over the eastern part of Jerusalem, built housing projects for them there. An agreement between the United Nations and Jordan stipulated that the families would receive the houses in return for renouncing their refugee status with the UN refugee agency and that after three years the Jordanian government would transfer ownership titles to the families.

However, that did not happen and by 1967, Israel had captured East Jerusalem.

Right-wing Israeli activists place an Israeli flag in support of Jewish settlement activity in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood [File: Ronen Zvulun/Reuters]

According to Grassroots Jerusalem, an NGO that is a platform for Palestinian community-based mobilization, there has been an influx of Jewish settlers since 2001 “who have been responsible for forced evictions and terrorism in the neighborhood”.

According to Fayrouz Sharqawi, global mobilisation director for Grassroots Jerusalem, it is “absurd” to count on the Israeli judicial system to protect Palestinian rights.

“This system is an integral part of the Zionist colonial state, which identifies as a 'Jewish state' and accordingly and systematically oppresses, dispossesses and displaces Palestinians,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Rulings that momentarily suspend eviction or demolition orders serve only Israel, as they create the illusion that it is a democratic state where courts hold the government or army accountable and prevent violations of Palestinian rights,” she continued.

Sharqawi said even in the best-case scenarios, more than 70 years of occupation prove that court decisions postpone but rarely reverse such orders, which are eventually implemented.

“Palestinians, especially in Jerusalem, have to face a well-oiled colonial machine: the Israeli military, bureaucratic and judicial systems, who work hand in hand on dispossession and displacement of Palestinians,” she said.

Evictions part of Israeli 'demographic balance'

For Hammad, he knows the reality all too well.

“I'm not optimistic regarding the appeal,” he said. “I just feel like it's buying more time but only for the inevitable to happen.

“We have all the documents and proof needed,” he added. "But the overwhelming feeling is that of fear and seeing our home being taken away from us and given to settlers."

This Palestinian writer wants Americans to understand how their tax dollars are making his family homeless. pic.twitter.com/2D85iM7BUl

- AJ + (@ajplus) November 26, 2020

Since the 1970s, the Israeli government has been working on implementing a “demographic balance” in Jerusalem at a 70-30 ratio, limiting the Palestinian population in the city to 30 percent or less.

This urban planning has been executed by a number of policies such as land confiscation, displacement, and colonization of Palestinian neighborhoods.

On November 26, the Jerusalem District Court authored the eviction of 87 Palestinians from the Batan al-Hawa area in occupied East Jerusalem's Silwan neighborhood in favor of the Israeli settler group Ateret Cohanim.

The 87 Palestinian residents of Batan al-Hawa have been living in their homes since 1963.

After launching a legal case against the residents, Ateret Cohanim settled 23 Israeli families among 850 Palestinian residents, under heavy security.

Other settler organizations, some funded by individuals in the US, include Nahalat Shimon and the Israel Land Fund.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 689 structures have been demolished across the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 2020 alone - more than in any full year since 2016 - leaving 869 Palestinians homeless.

'Irrevocably political'

Mohammed al-Kurd was just 11 years old when Jewish settlers forcibly took over half of his home in November 2009 [File: Jaclynn Ashly/Al Jazeera]

For Mohammed al-Kurd, a poet and writer from Sheikh Jarrah who is currently studying in New York, the evictions of Palestinians, which he describes as “forced displacements”, are not just an isolated event.

“It is a rooting of a sustainable dispossession movement,” he told Al Jazeera.

“We need to always constantly remind people that this is not just some poor Palestinian family [who] for some weird legal reason [is] losing their property. This is [about] Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians all around Jerusalem and neighbouring cities - Palestine at large - who are facing the vicious fangs of a judicial system inherently to displace them.

Al-Kurd was just 11 years old when Jewish settlers forcibly took over half of his home in November 2009 and described sharing it with “squatters with Brooklyn accents” as “insufferable, intolerable. [and] terrible ”.

“They are just sitting in our home, tormenting us, harassing us, doing everything they can to not only force us to leave the second half of hour home but also harassing our neighbours into leaving their homes as part of an effort to completely annihilate the presence of Palestinians from Jerusalem, ”he said.

Hammad, who grew up with al-Kurd, said it is difficult to think and plan ahead for the future.

"I don't know what will happen if they evict us," he said. “This ruling came at a time where life is pretty much as a standstill due to the coronavirus pandemic.

“We're taking this day by day,” he continued. "Even if we decided to pitch a tent outside our house and live there, the Israeli government will not allow it."

Al-Kurd said his family cannot afford to rent a place in Jerusalem, and the only other choice they will have will be to go to the occupied West Bank, where they will lose their Jerusalem residency and not be allowed to come back to the city again.

“That is the larger issue here,” he explained. “It's home demolitions, forced displacements, evictions, but it's also psychological - losing our to enter Jerusalem again.

"The way Israel has created this to look like some kind of a legal problem - it's not, it's irrevocably political."

. #world Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=14958&feed_id=20729

#MiddleEast #News #OccupiedEastJerusalem #Palestine

0 notes

queernuck · 7 years ago

Text

Becomings: Anthropocentrism as a Philosophical Paradigm

Frequently, a warning against anthropocentric thought, against any paradigm of centering, is one that comes with good intentions, the potential for bringing a postcolonial recognition of Object-Oriented Ontology and desubjectification, a sort of transcendent relativism that itself makes even the construction of frames of relative reference themselves relative, a relativism that transcends even that which it can contain, but this act must absolutely be tempered by a recognition of the contingency with which it is applied, the encountering that leads to certain becomings, whether it be becoming-indigenous, becoming-woman, becoming-animal, becoming-colonial, becoming-environment: the creation of a subjectivity that is supposed within the structure of an Other is thus a reflective assertion of the self’s primacy that is often vulgar, ill-conceived, and most of all based in a sort of colonial anthropological act which centers absolute knowledge over the transcendental empiricism with which I wish to explore this issue.

Deleuze discusses transcendental empiricism, his own sort of reversal of Kantian transcendental idealism, as part of a series of flowing and changing frames of reference, such that the idealist state-of-the-situation (to take from Badiou, a critic who often at least recognizes the importance of Deleuzean critique) is conceived in a dual structure of inadequacy: the way in which one determines a structure of knowledge, of acquaintance, is not merely through a link to this transcendent structure, but is not in a reversal and a complete acceptance of the materialist framework at hand, as that very framework is itself determined by acts that alter its very being, the very material character of it. Deleuze’s comparison of his own suppositions about the nature of epistemology to the Theological is important, in that it allows for the adaptation of certain notions in themselves and a discursive functioning of these as machines in assemblage without holding them to be right, or even particularly important except for that which they develop, that which they allow to flow through themselves. The means of describing the world, the way this world passes into being, is observed, the creation of the object as discrete from the objects surrounding it, is all based upon this referential framework and thus it is in this transcendent empiricism, an empirical approach to the apparently non-absolute nature of experience and processes of encounter, is reflected in the Deleuzean discussion of the phantasmic: phantasmic difference is infinite even when characterizing a finite, extensive, material, physical determination: it is in the phantasmic that the differentiation is made, is repeated in acts of becoming and thus made into a legible structure within empirical thought according to the transcendent empiricist paradigm.

Thus, one comes to an apt issue of discussion for this, the supposed anthropomorphization of the animal world, and the way in which it is critiqued as an anthropocentric view that by necessity eliminates any meaningful process of dealing with hyperobjects of global magnitude, the relationship between human culture and different concepts of spatial and topographical belonging, how becoming-animal is in fact an integral part of this. Anthropomorphic accounts are often inaccurate insofar as they match a certain perceived emotion with a perceived experience: in animals that humans commonly encounter without much outside interference, such as dogs, the notion of affinity, enjoyment, the most basic qualia of experience are often determined through a hegemonic action taken on the part of the owner, one that ignores signs of traumatic experience because of the specific anthropomorphic impulse at play. However, the reversal of this anthropomorphism into something that is different, is rejecting the signifying acts of the animal body, is in fact a further development of it, one that recognizes the apparent humanism of the acts and then proceeds to resignify them, cast them in a new becoming-animal that appeals directly back to an anthropocentric concept of experience, one grown into an account of emotion that an animal cannot feel: an animal that experiences shame, an animal that can yearn, can know Heideggerian angst. And who is to say that the animal is precluded from this? Certainly, neither act of ascribing emotional depth to the animal body should be seen as a meaningful denial of this possibility, merely a temporary refutation.

This, as well, involves the process of decolonization as a whole: the recognition of settler-colonial violence as the most basic of violences in American hegemony, the settler-colonial character of most hegemonic articulations of American biopower on a global scale, the biopolitics of creating Americans tied to land that has never belonged to them except within a capitalist hyperrealist act of reckoning, is all part of the eventual creation of a becoming-American that is derided when international affairs are brought up. Again, the relief of the American figure is one that is shaped by American presence: all politics are in some way or another linked to American hegemony, are part of at least accepting the current material circumstances of American hegemonic violence, and further accepting the original acts of empirical limiting within which the American war machine begins to set out a space for itself to roam. The nomadic war machine that has defined American policy following 9/11 leaves in its wake a series of determining choices, determining structures: either a precarious and conspicuously weak liberal-democratic regime, or an openly fascist one. By creating revolutionary conditions on a continual basis, the United States makes itself into a colonial force that is never asked to explain regarding its own ordination of itself, as there are continually new points within the assemblage of American hegemonic power, new spreads of reactionary response, a single act of martyrdom on September 11th overcoding upon the millions of lives lost in responding to it. Thus, every single look at the process of postcolonial critique eventually comes back to finding the way in which American hegemony has created itself as a sort of end of the historic, a break with the colonial into a certain ontic field of being, the American perspective finally creating a new globe to be joined.

When preventing decolonization, preventing any serious effort at turning toward postcolonial critique, this is most apparent in how land is commodified not only for consumption, but as part of defending settler-colonial state structures: this or that city, state, country is realized across such-and-such a distance, and the currently existing relationship between those who live there and the land that is lived on is a more meaningful interpretation than any possible indigenous one. This is seen heavily in American responses to Indigenous claims to land (and reflected frequently in Canadian responses, as well) in addition to being the paradigm upon which American support of Israel is realized. Ignorance of Jewish cultural claims to indigeneity in Palestine is at best selective, and largely founded out of antisemitism, but the reversal, the claim of Palestinians as an absent group, the sorts of claims made by many Zionists, constitute themselves a new realization of the exact ideology that was initially courted by Zionist ideology itself, the realization in Europe and America that Jewish refugees were numerous and that the assumption of fascist victory had been taken too soon and the antisemitic violence that had been released, that had been pooling for so long before flowing out, thick and coursing, would be recognized, the restructuring of concepts of property, belonging, so on were changed and the conditions around staking these claims made such that Jewish life was at a core level threatened through acts of rejection and continuation of fascist ideology in European and American ways of life. When one questions how decolonization can be practically practiced as a means of discrediting it, one forces a certain sort of becoming-indigenous, one is reflecting it in one’s own speech, creating a topographical act of reterritorialization that accepts the violence of settler-colonial states as already having occurred, despite the need to maintain it through continual violence.

The very relationship with the animal Other, the earth, the environment at hand in questions such as these is in fact based in this, in the assertion of land as property, rather than as part of the structural creation of a people, a sort of prioritization of a weakly conceived subjectivity within a framework that benefits far more from an object-oriented ontology given the dramatic changes that have been seen as a result of different flows of producing-production, both the original producing-production itself and the producing-production of that producing-production requiring certain environmental violence, largely directed against an intentionally and repeatedly marked Third World. These acts are dictated by a supposed materialism, by materials such as rare earth metals (better understood by the name “conflict metals”) and the fetishization of them both as commodities and as material aspects of producing-production given their role in contemporary technological advancement, and the way that this drives other structures, how it creates a world in which one cannot divest from these acts of violence because doing so would require divesting from any meaningful process of change, would involve rejecting the very apparatuses through which the encounters constituting this change are realized and merely accepting a reactionary, even ecofascist reversal of the capitalist topography and topology seen in neocolonial acts of globalized resource deprivation.

The reversals of such precepts, their structuring, relies entirely on the way in which they are encountered and then reappropriated, understood, how the fetishization of the subject belies the very changes one must take to meaningfully critique it. Even accepting the necessity of this critique is perhaps too much, is accepting that a certain sort of importance be placed upon the acts of determination at hand and that this determination is eventually passed on to even discourses that attempt to revoke it. The very vocabularies at hand, even the metacritique exhibited here, require a sort of acceptance of subjective interlopers, the subjective as a stubborn relic of liberal thought that has so thoroughly inundated most discursive structures that even critique of it will be inadequate. Transhumanism may aim at transcending the human, but the most transhumanist figures today are not innovators like Musk or Thiel; rather, the sort of uncaring, empty signifiers thrown around by figures such as Tom Brady with little knowledge of their signifying power but at least some awareness of their semiotic content is part of making this possible as a critique of moves away from poststructuralist philosophy toward a sort of accepting and uncritical structuralism. That is not to eliminate the possibility of structuralist critique as vitally important to meaningful anticapitalist understandings, but rather that the very structure itself determines its realization and that this is not a simple process, is not merely part of a quick afternoon lesson. Instead, it must be seen as part of the larger structure promised by schizoanalysis as a paradigm, the many affinities found within these structures providing a vocabulary of the structure, which can be then turned into a vocabulary-of-the-vocabulary, and so on so on, the process never ending but necessarily falling out of favor after a certain point, becoming a secondary thought compared to the primary realization of that singular vocabulary of the structure, the means of critique that allow for the most adequate understanding of which becomings are imposed upon us.

5 notes · View notes

frmartinshomiliesandreflections · 6 years ago

Photo

17th February >> Fr. Martin's Gospel Reflections / Homilies on Luke 6:17, 20-26 for the Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle C: ‘How happy are you who are poor’.

Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle C

Gospel (Europe, Africa, New Zealand, Australia & Canada)

Luke 6:17,20-26

Happy are you who are poor, who are hungry, who weep

‘How happy are you who are poor: yours is the kingdom of God.

Happy you who are hungry now: you shall be satisfied.

Happy you who weep now: you shall laugh.

‘But alas for you who are rich: you are having your consolation now.

Alas for you who have your fill now: you shall go hungry.

Alas for you who laugh now: you shall mourn and weep.

‘Alas for you when the world speaks well of you! This was the way their ancestors treated the false prophets.’

Gospel (USA)

Luke 6:17, 20–26

Blessed are the poor. Woe to you who are rich.

“Blessed are you who are poor,

for the kingdom of God is yours.

Blessed are you who are now hungry,

for you will be satisfied.

Blessed are you who are now weeping,

for you will laugh.

Blessed are you when people hate you,

and when they exclude and insult you,

and denounce your name as evil

on account of the Son of Man.

Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.

But woe to you who are rich,

for you have received your consolation.

Woe to you who are filled now,

for you will be hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now,

for you will grieve and weep.

Woe to you when all speak well of you,

for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.”

Reflections (3)

(i) Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

And/Or

(ii) Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

And/Or

(iii) Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

Fr. Martin Hogan, Saint John the Baptist Parish, Clontarf, Dublin, D03 AO62, Ireland.

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Parish Website: www.stjohnsclontarf.ie Please join us via our webcam.

Twitter: @SJtBClontarfRC.

Facebook: St John the Baptist RC Parish, Clontarf.

Tumblr: Saint John the Baptist Parish, Clontarf, Dublin.

0 notes

ladystylestores · 4 years ago

Text

Mixed Signals on Israeli Annexation Reflect Split Among Officials

JERUSALEM — When President Trump’s Middle East team meets this week to hash out what to do about Israel’s planned annexation of territory in the West Bank, a fundamental question will hover overhead: Is the prospect of annexation a pressure tactic to get the Palestinians to engage with the administration’s peace plan, or is the peace plan just a smokescreen for annexation?

American and Israeli officials are deeply divided on the question, an issue that could determine how and when any annexation proceeds.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to annex up to 30 percent of the occupied West Bank — as mapped out in the Trump peace plan — as soon as July 1. And he is counting on the Trump administration’s backing, since most of the world views existing Jewish settlements on the West Bank as illegal and would treat any unilateral annexation as a flagrant violation of international law.

But the administration has sent mixed signals, initially greenlighting annexation, then putting the brakes on, and now, apparently, reconsidering the move in White House meetings set to begin on Tuesday.

While both American and Israeli officials support annexation in principle, the White House encouragement came in the context of its plan for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mr. Netanyahu has distanced himself from some parts of the plan, which also calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state and the freezing of any expansion of Israeli settlements. Those conditions are anathema to the right-wing Israeli settlers whom Mr. Netanyahu sought to woo with annexation in the first place.

The administration has insisted that Mr. Netanyahu obtain the consent of his centrist coalition partner, Defense Minister Benny Gantz, for any annexation. Mr. Gantz, who is on record opposing unilateral annexation, says he will not agree to it without the acquiescence of the king of Jordan. The king, Abdullah II, has warned of a “massive conflict” with Israel if it proceeds.

Mr. Gantz has also insisted that any annexation occur only as an integral part of the Trump administration’s peace plan, which he says he supports in full, not in part.

For anything to happen, someone will have to budge.

“We see the contradictions,” said Ofer Zalzberg, an analyst at the International Crisis Group. “We don’t yet see how they will be resolved.”

Resolving them, Israeli and American officials say, requires resolving a difference of opinion between two close confidants of the president: Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, and David M. Friedman, the United States ambassador to Israel, who was Mr. Trump’s longtime bankruptcy lawyer.

Mr. Kushner was lead author of the Trump peace plan, and is said to believe it a viable way to resolve the long-running conflict and potentially reshape the Middle East.

Mr. Friedman, a generous donor to the Israeli settlement enterprise before entering government and who played a key role in reversing a longstanding American policy treating the settlements as illegal, has let it be known that he is more invested in annexation than in the peace plan.

Mr. Kushner’s strategy for getting the Palestinians to engage on the plan involves using the threat of annexation as leverage, officials say. Unilateral annexation would remove that leverage.

For Mr. Friedman, delaying annexation risks missing out on it altogether if Mr. Trump does not win re-election.

Administration officials play down the split and insist the two simply hold different positions on the same team: Mr. Friedman’s brief is limited to Israel and the Palestinians, while Mr. Kushner’s responsibilities include the broader Middle East as well as the Trump re-election campaign.

But Mr. Friedman’s haste, other officials say, aligns him more closely with Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, who are pressing to move quickly on annexation.

Mr. Friedman has effectively dismissed the peace plan as improbable. The conditions the plan imposes on the Palestinians to achieve statehood, he said, are only plausible “when the Palestinians become Canadians.”

Critics have seized on that remark. Yossi Klein Halevi, an author and senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, suggested in The Wall Street Journal last week that Mr. Friedman and settler leaders were treating Mr. Trump as a “useful idiot” whose peace plan would serve settler interests now but would never deliver a Palestinian state.

Even in private meetings, according to Israeli and American officials, Mr. Friedman is asked frequently by Israeli officials whether he is articulating his own views or those of the Trump administration.

Nowhere are the differences between Mr. Friedman and Mr. Kushner clearer, officials say, than over the timing of annexation.

Mr. Netanyahu and his allies are pressing for haste by saying the Trump administration amounts to a “golden opportunity” for American approval that would disappear if Joseph R. Biden Jr., who opposes unilateral annexation, defeats Mr. Trump in November.

But analysts and officials note that this view puts Mr. Friedman in the position of hedging against his boss’s becoming a one-term president.

“It’s wanting to take advantage of what the Trump presidency offers with very low expectations about the Trump presidency,” said Dennis B. Ross, a veteran peace negotiator under Republican and Democratic presidents. “It’s actually quite remarkable.”

Last week, Mr. Friedman tried, and failed, to mediate between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gantz. At one point, officials said, he was kept waiting on a couch for several hours while Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gantz haggled over other subjects behind closed doors.

Mr. Friedman’s intervention was widely interpreted in Israel as an attempt to pressure Mr. Gantz.

The White House discussions on Tuesday are expected to include Mr. Kushner, Mr. Friedman, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Adviser Robert C. O’Brien, Vice President Mike Pence and possibly Mr. Trump. According to senior American and Israeli officials, the administration may weigh options including a very limited annexation to win Mr. Gantz’s approval, or letting Mr. Netanyahu go ahead without Mr. Gantz’s agreement, and what the Palestinians could be offered to mollify them.

It also could decide that a unilateral Israeli move, and the resulting furor — including a possible flare-up of violence between Israelis and Palestinians — are unwelcome headaches for a president already facing tumultuous domestic problems and a difficult re-election campaign.

There is also the matter of whether Mr. Netanyahu, if he is denied the green light he has counted on, should be given something else with which to save face back home.

Among the possible inducements for putting annexation on hold, officials said, is reviving an effort to reach a “nonbelligerence” pact between Israel and four Gulf Arab countries: Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Ross, the former American negotiator, and an official privy to those talks both said that annexation would kill any chance of such a pact. “The message that was conveyed, and I’m not theorizing on this, is annexation means that’s off the table — not just for now, but forever,” Mr. Ross said.

As a political matter, annexation is seen as of limited value to Mr. Trump. The evangelical Christian world, a vital segment of his base, is mostly indifferent to annexation by itself, said Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas and one of Mr. Trump’s informal evangelical advisers.

Joel C. Rosenberg, an evangelical author who founded a group that mobilizes Christians to support Israel, warned that if annexation creates turmoil it could backfire against Mr. Trump. “I don’t see any pickup among evangelical voters for this move, and there’s a risk that you could lose some evangelical votes, in the very states where you might be more vulnerable,” he said.

Officials were loath to make any predictions about where the discussions might end up, particularly given the president’s unpredictability. “If Trump doesn’t see a big electoral benefit, he might just say, ‘Too messy, too complicated, I’ll deal with it if I’m re-elected,’” said David Makovsky, a former peace negotiator now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Mr. Netanyahu’s dual messaging has embodied the split over what annexation represents.

In Israel, he and his closest allies insist that two pillars of the Trump plan — a Palestinian state and a four-year freeze of construction in the settlements — are not in the offing.

But Mr. Netanyahu’s ambassador to the United States, Mr. Dermer, wrote in The Washington Post on Saturday that annexation would “open the door to a realistic two-state solution” under the Trump plan.

Another Netanyahu confidant, the lawmaker Tzachi Hanegbi, said the key word was “realistic.”

“We don’t care if you call it a state-minus or autonomy-plus, as long as you understand that it’s not really sovereign,” Mr. Hanegbi said.

But Mr. Ross suggested that Mr. Kushner might draw a different conclusion. “What it probably says to Jared is, ‘For Bibi and company right now, this is just an annexation plan,’” he said, using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname. “‘And that’s not what we put out.’”

Elizabeth Dias contributed reporting from Washington, and Adam Rasgon from Tel Aviv.

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/3fR7YXM

#World Wide News

0 notes

mastcomm · 5 years ago

Text

Trump’s Mideast Plan Is Seen Mainly as an Election Lift for Netanyahu

LONDON — Less than a month after being sworn in, President Trump welcomed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to the White House with a bold promise: He would broker a peace accord between the Israelis and the Palestinians — the diplomatic unicorn that had eluded half a dozen of his predecessors.

“I think we’re going to make a deal,” he said in 2017. “It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand.”

“As with any successful negotiation,” Mr. Trump continued, “both sides will have to make compromises. You know that, right?” he added, turning to his guest.

Mr. Netanyahu grinned. “Both sides,” he replied.

The Israeli leader will return to the White House for meetings Monday and Tuesday, and Mr. Trump is expected at last to lay out the details of that long-awaited plan. Mr. Netanyahu said Sunday he hoped to “make history” on the visit.

But far from a bold effort to bring old enemies together — one that demands painful concessions from both sides — Middle East experts now expect the plan to be mainly a booster shot for Mr. Netanyahu’s desperate campaign to stay in power.

Benny Gantz, again Mr. Netanyahu’s rival in Israel’s third election in less than a year, will have his own separate meeting with Mr. Trump on Monday. He had at first resisted the invitation, fearing a political trap in which Mr. Netanyahu would get to play the statesman while Mr. Gantz would look puny by comparison. But analysts said he could not afford to snub the president, given Mr. Trump’s enduring popularity in Israel.

The Palestinians, who stopped talking to Mr. Trump after he ordered the United States Embassy to be moved to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv in December 2017, will not be at the White House to be briefed on the plan. They have vowed to reject it.

“For him to do this in the middle of an Israeli election, without any Palestinian participation and with no intention to follow up with any of the participants, shows this is not a peace plan at all,” said Martin S. Indyk, who served as special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations under President Barack Obama.

“It is a farce from start to finish,” he said.

Mr. Indyk’s verdict is harsh but not uncommon among diplomats who have worked on past peace efforts. Like other veterans of those fruitless negotiations, in both Democratic and Republican administrations, Mr. Indyk watched the early days of Mr. Trump’s diplomacy with fascination and even muted hope — that this most undiplomatic of presidents might achieve a breakthrough where they had failed.

That triumph of hope over experience was shared by some in the region. Palestinians and Israelis took to calling it Mr. Trump’s “deal of the century,” outdoing his own description of it as the “ultimate deal.”

The president brought a deal maker’s swagger and a property developer’s instincts to a problem that, after all, involves disputed territory. His close ties to Mr. Netanyahu — something Mr. Obama lacked — raised hopes that he might be able to extract real concessions from Israel. In a sign of the importance Mr. Trump attached to the effort, he put his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in charge of it.

Mr. Kushner led a team that included Jason D. Greenblatt, the Trump Organization’s former chief lawyer, and David M. Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer with ties to the Jewish settler movement who became Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Israel. He would emerge as the most influential adviser to Mr. Trump on Israel.

For months, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Greenblatt traveled around the Middle East, meeting with Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other nations. Their strategy, known as “outside-in,” was designed to build a coalition of Arab support for a peace plan. The Arab leaders, the White House hoped, would pressure the Palestinian Authority to accept whatever Mr. Trump offered.

Mr. Kushner devoted particular attention to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, with whom he had cultivated a friendship of like-minded scions. Prince Mohammed expressed a willingness to establish relations with Israel and said the Israelis “have the right to have their own land.”

At home, Mr. Trump’s pro-Israel supporters were growing restive. They worried that he might put too much pressure on Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Trump told him that a rapid expansion of settlements was not conducive to an agreement. After meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, in May 2017, Mr. Trump said that it was an “honor” — a post that later vanished from his Twitter feed.

Any such worries, however, were laid to rest seven months later when Mr. Trump announced he would move the embassy, formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The move delighted evangelicals, as well as pro-Israel donors like Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate.

But it drove away the Palestinians, who cut off contact with the White House, and doomed the White House’s efforts to build Arab support for its plan. King Salman of Saudi Arabia was among those who condemned the decision, declaring, “East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian territories.”

Mr. Trump reacted harshly to the Palestinian rejection. He punished them by cutting off hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority, as well as funding for the United Nations agency that helps Palestinian refugees.

The State Department shut down the office of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Washington. It downgraded the American consulate in Jerusalem, which had been a key channel to the Palestinians, by merging it with the embassy under Mr. Friedman, who later said Israel had the right to annex parts of the West Bank.

Even as the rift with the Palestinians widened, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Greenblatt labored on their plan. Working under a veil of secrecy, they compiled a multipage document, with annexes, that officials said would propose solutions to all the key disputes: borders, security, refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

While the plan never leaked — a rarity in the sievelike world of Middle East diplomacy — its general contours became known. It is not expected to call for a two-state solution or give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Nor will it offer Palestinian refugees a right of return or other compensation.

Mr. Kushner and Mr. Greenblatt, who has since left the administration, predicted in March 2018 that the Israelis and the Palestinians would each find things in the plan to embrace and oppose. But it was already clear that it would be tilted heavily in Israel’s favor — or more precisely, in the favor of their embattled ally, Mr. Netanyahu.

Facing indictment on multiple corruption charges in early 2019, the prime minister was fighting for his political life. With Mr. Netanyahu facing a closely fought election that April, Mr. Trump gave him an election-eve gift, announcing in March that the United States would reverse decades of policy and recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which was seized by Israeli troops in 1967.

With the release of his plan stymied by the instability in Israel, Mr. Kushner turned his attention to economics. In June, he announced the United States would raise more than $50 billion to improve the lives of the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. His 38-page plan, titled “Peace to Prosperity,” had slick graphics and the promotional tone of a real estate prospectus.

Mr. Kushner followed up with a two-day workshop in Bahrain, which was boycotted by the Palestinians and shrugged off by other Arab leaders, for whom the peace project had faded into irrelevance.

Even after Mr. Trump’s shift on the Golan Heights, Mr. Netanyahu was unable to cobble together a majority to form a government. After a second election, in September, he found himself again short of a majority.

If Mr. Trump releases his plan this week, analysts said, it will be less about delivering the “deal of the century” than giving Mr. Netanyahu one last electoral lift.

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/event/trumps-mideast-plan-is-seen-mainly-as-an-election-lift-for-netanyahu/

#Event

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years ago

Text

Mike Pompeo: Last in His Class at West Point in Integrity https://nyti.ms/2QuZ3lk

Another Trump donor U.S Ambassador David Friedman and Mike Pompeo, reverses decades of U.S. Policy over settlements in the West Bank, blowing up any possibility of peace with Palenstians.

In Shift, U.S. Says Israeli Settlements in West Bank Do Not Violate International Law

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the reversal of decades of American policy that may doom any peace efforts.

By Lara Jakes and David M. Halbfinger | Published Nov. 18, 2019 Updated 5:11 PM ET | New York Times | Posted November 18, 2019 |

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration declared on Monday that the United States does not consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank a violation of international law, reversing four decades of American policy and removing what has been an important barrier to annexation of Palestinian territory.

The announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was the latest political gift from the Trump administration to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has vowed in two elections this year to push for the annexation of the West Bank. His chief opponent, Benny Gantz, has until Wednesday night to gather a majority in Israel’s Parliament or he will relinquish his chance to form a new government, raising the prospect of a third round of elections.

The United States has in the past described the settlements as illegitimate, and Palestinians have demanded the land for a future state, a goal that has been backed by the United Nations, European governments and American allies across the Middle East.

But President Trump has been persistent in changing United States policy on Israel and the Palestinian territories — moves aimed at bolstering political support for Mr. Netanyahu, who has failed to form a government after two rounds of elections with razor-thin outcomes.

Mr. Pompeo said the new decision — reversing a 1978 legal opinion by the State Department — was not inconsistent with international law. As it stands, he said, the earlier settlements ruling “hasn’t advanced the cause of peace.”

“We’ve recognized the reality on the ground,” Mr. Pompeo told reporters at the State Department.

The settlements have been a main sticking point in peace negotiations that have failed to find a solution for generations. The settlements are home to Israelis in territory that Palestinians have fought to control, and their presence makes negotiations for a two-state solution all the more difficult.

Mr. Netanyahu praised the decision and said it reflected “historical truth — that the Jewish people are not foreign colonialists in Judea and Samaria,” a term for the West Bank. He said Israeli courts were better suited to decide the legality of the settlements, “not biased international forums that pay no attention to history or facts.”

Mr. Gantz, a former army chief and centrist candidate who has the support of the Israeli left and some Arab lawmakers, politely welcomed the announcement but said that the fate of West Bank settlements “should be determined by agreements that meet security requirements and that can promote peace.”

Palestinian officials, by now used to unwelcome policy shifts from Mr. Trump, nonetheless summoned new outrage.

“We cannot express horror and shock because this is a pattern, but that doesn’t make it any less horrific,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a veteran Palestine Liberation Organization official. “It sends a clear signal that they have total disregard for international law, for what is right and just, and for the requirements of peace.”

And Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said the Trump administration’s decision was the latest of “unceasing attempts to replace international law with the ‘law of the jungle.’”

In Washington, Mr. Pompeo said the decision would provide greater space for the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate over the status of the settlements. He said that the issue could be largely left to Israeli courts to decide, and that it had no bearing on legal conclusions regarding similar situations elsewhere in the world.

Instead, Mr. Pompeo said, the issue must be solved by the Israelis and the Palestinians. “And arguments about who is right and wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace,” he said.

The new policy was first reported by The Associated Press.

The timing of Mr. Pompeo’s announcement is almost certain to bolster Mr. Netanyahu’s political fortunes should Israel be headed to a third round of elections this year.

If Mr. Gantz fails to form a government by midnight Wednesday, the Israeli Parliament has 21 days to come up with a candidate who can command a majority of 61 of the 120 seats. And if that effort falls short, Israel will call a new election.

Before the first vote, in April, Mr. Trump officially recognized the contested Golan Heights as Israeli territory. It then was widely expected that the Trump administration would soften its stance on the Israeli settlements in the West Bank before the second round of elections, which were held in September.

And earlier, in December 2017, Mr. Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and ordered the United States Embassy to move there from Tel Aviv, a symbolic decision that outraged Palestinians who also claim territory in the city.

A prime mover in the policy change was David Friedman, the United States ambassador to Israel, who has pushed each of the Trump administration’s major policy gifts to Mr. Netanyahu.

Mr. Friedman signaled a shift in United States policy toward settlements in occupied Palestinian territory in June, in an interview with The New York Times. He said that Israel had the right to annex some, but “unlikely all,” of the West Bank.

Oded Revivi, a spokesman for the Yesha Council, an umbrella group of West Bank settlements, said that Mr. Friedman confided to him recently that he had been pressing within the Trump administration for the policy change on the Hansell Memorandum for months.

Mr. Revivi said he believed the timing of the announcement — which Mr. Friedman tipped him to two weeks ago — sought to both help Mr. Netanyahu remain in power and also bolster Mr. Trump among evangelical and Jewish voters in the United States who support the current right-wing government in Israel. He also said it served as a reminder to right-wing Israelis to reap whatever more windfalls the Trump administration might supply.

“It’s an indication to the Israeli public, look where you can go with this president — you’re wasting time,” said Mr. Revivi, the mayor of Efrat, a West Bank settlement near Jerusalem.

He said the policy shift was a move toward endorsing annexation and also served as a clear indication to the Palestinians who have resisted reopening negotiations with the Trump administration. “You’re not willing to hear a compromise; the train has left and you’ll be left with nothing at the end of the day,” he said.

Opponents of annexation, however, warn that it puts Israel’s status as a Jewish democracy at risk in two ways: If the West Bank’s Palestinians are made Israeli citizens, the country’s Arabs could quickly outnumber its Jews. If they are not given full citizenship rights, Israel would become an apartheid state.

“We are strong enough to deter and defeat our enemies,” said Nimrod Novik, a former aide to Shimon Peres and longtime supporter of a two-state solution. He added, referring to Israel’s air-defense system: “What we don’t have is an Iron Dome system to defend us from friends who threaten to end the Zionist vision.”

A secretive Trump administration plan to revive peace negotiations has been delayed repeatedly, but it is widely believed to bolster Mr. Netanyahu and fail to break a stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians. Few details have been released beyond a call for major new economic development in Palestinian areas.

The Trump administration’s peace effort is run by Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, to deliver what the president has described as the “ultimate deal.”

Ilan Goldenberg, who worked on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at the State Department during the Obama administration, said Monday’s decision undercut the United States’ ability to credibly mediate the stalled peace process.

“The notion this somehow advances peace, as Secretary Pompeo claims, is laughable,” said Mr. Goldenberg, who is now director of Middle East security at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕

Mike Pompeo: Last in His Class at West Point in Integrity

The secretary of state’s behavior has been cowardly and self-serving.

By Thomas L. Friedman, Opinion Columnist | Published Nov. 18, 2019 | New York Times | Posted Nov 18, 2019 |

It seems like every story you read about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo always includes the sentence that he graduated “first in his class” from West Point. That is not a small achievement. But it is even more impressive in Pompeo’s case when you consider that he finished No. 1 even though he must have flunked all his courses on ethics and leadership. I guess he was really good in math.

I say that because Pompeo has just violated one of the cardinal rules of American military ethics and command: You look out for your soldiers, you don’t leave your wounded on the battlefield and you certainly don’t stand mute when you know a junior officer is being railroaded by a more senior commander, if not outright shot in her back.

The classes on ethics and leadership at West Point would have taught all of that. I can only assume Pompeo failed or skipped them all when you observe his cowardly, slimy behavior as the leader of the State Department. I would never, ever, ever want to be in a trench with that man. Attention all U.S. diplomats: Watch your own backs, because Pompeo won’t.

Pompeo knows very well that his ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was an outstanding foreign service officer, whose tour of duty in Kiev had been extended by his own State Department in March 2019 until 2020 — because of the excellence of her work. But, alas, she was suddenly told to get on the next plane out in late April, after President Trump — having marinated himself in conspiracy theories about Ukraine showered on him by Rudy Giuliani and his corrupt Ukrainian allies — demanded she be yanked.

As Yovanovitch put it to the House Intelligence Committee on Friday: “Individuals, who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated U.S. policy against corruption — that is, to do the mission — were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador, using unofficial back channels. As various witnesses have recounted, they shared baseless allegations with the president and convinced him to remove his ambassador, despite the fact that the State Department fully understood that the allegations were false and the sources highly suspect.’’

Yes, Pompeo knew 100 percent that it was all a setup. We know that because, when Senator Bob Menendez asked Pompeo’s deputy secretary of state, John Sullivan, about Yovanovitch — at Sullivan’s Senate confirmation hearing on Oct. 30 to become the next U.S. ambassador to Moscow — he stated that she had served “admirably and capably.” When Menendez asked Sullivan whether Giuliani was behind her removal, Sullivan baldly declared that Giuliani was “seeking to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch, or have her removed. I believed he was, yes.”

Those were the words of Pompeo’s own deputy!

But they’ve never come out of Pompeo’s mouth. Though he reportedly argued privately to the President to keep Yovanovitch in place, Pompeo faithfully executed Trump’s order without uttering a word to defend his ambassador’s reputation in public.

Pompeo instead let his ambassador to Ukraine — who depended on him for protection — be stabbed in her back with a Twitter knife, wielded by the president, rather than tell Trump: “Sorry, Mr. President, if you fire her, I will resign. Because to do otherwise would be unjust and against my values and character — and because I would lose the loyalty of all my diplomats if I silently went along with such a travesty of justice against a distinguished 33-year veteran of the foreign service.”

Trump, the cowardly bully that he is, probably would have backed down had Pompeo showed some spine. But Pompeo did not attempt that, because he wants to run for president after Trump — and did not want to risk alienating Trump. It is as simple as that, folks.

Or it’s as simple as this: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?” — Mark 8:36.

I have only met Pompeo once. I found him in private smart and engaging — but then we didn’t discuss ethics. So many in the State Department have now lost all respect for him — with good reason. His behavior is one of the most shameful things I have seen in 40 years of covering U.S. diplomacy.

How can Pompeo think he’s got what it takes to make the hard decisions needed to lead a nation as president, and send soldiers to war, when he can’t make a clear-cut easy decision to protect one of his own diplomats from being smeared by people acting outside our system.

As two now retired, longtime State Department diplomats, Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky, wrote on CNN.com on Saturday, “At the very least, Pompeo enabled the smear campaign to go unchallenged, acquiesced in the Giuliani back-channel effort with Ukraine and failed to say a word in defense of Bill Taylor, George Kent or Marie Yovanovitch. These are breathtaking acts of craven political cowardice and beneath the dignity of any secretary of state.”

Mike Pompeo: Last in his class at West Point on ethics in leadership.

I get the fact that Congressman Devin Nunes and Senator Lindsey Graham have a contest going over who can debase themselves in public the most by defending indefensible actions by Trump. (It’s neck and neck.) But they’re G.O.P. politicians, people we now know who will do anything to avoid giving up their $174,000-a-year salaries and free parking at National Airport.

But Pompeo is the secretary of state. That is such a privilege and responsibility. Thomas Jefferson was the first person to hold that job. Pompeo is no Jefferson. All he is doing now is trying to hide as much as possible from public view, counting on the next Trump outrage to wash away his own outrageous behavior. But the mark of Cain on his forehead will not wash off. He didn’t even have the decency or courage to speak to Yovanovitch personally, to look her in the eye and at least say, “Hey, I’m sorry.’’

Reporters and columnists need to ask Pompeo every chance they get: “What moral code are you operating by that would justify such behavior?’’

I wanted to make sure that I was not being unfair to the secretary of state, so I Googled the phrase “Pompeo Defends Yovanovitch” — just to make sure that I hadn’t missed anything. These were the headlines that came up: “Pompeo Is A ‘Coward’ For Not Defending Marie Yovanovitch,” “Pompeo Doesn’t Address Concerns Raised by Yovanovitch,” “Pompeo ducks questions about State’s lack of support for Yovanovitch” and “Senior State Adviser: Pompeo’s Silence on Yovanovitch Attacks Absolutely Killed Morale.”

So it’s now clear that Pompeo had not taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. He took an oath to defend and protect Donald J. Trump and Pompeo’s own future political career — above all else — and that’s exactly what he’s been doing. Shame on him.

As for Ambassador Yovanovitch, thank you for your service. You are a credit to our nation and its ideals — everything your boss was not. Hold your head high. Jefferson would have been proud of you.

🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕

0 notes

thisdaynews · 5 years ago

Text

Israel bars Omar, Tlaib from entering country, as Trump lashes out

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/israel-bars-omar-tlaib-from-entering-country-as-trump-lashes-out/

Israel bars Omar, Tlaib from entering country, as Trump lashes out

Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib were slated to arrive in Israel this weekend, but President Donald Trump had lobbied Israeli leaders to bar them from entering the country. | J. Scott Applewhite, File/AP Photo

Congress

Democrats blasted the decision and warned it would hurt the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Israel’s government on Thursday barred Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from entering the country as part of a landmark visit, in a move that quickly set off a political firestorm in Washington.

Omar and Tlaib — the first two Muslim women in Congress — were slated to arrive this weekend, but President Donald Trump had lobbied Israeli leaders to block them from entering the country and again lashed out at the pair on Thursday.

Story Continued Below

Omar hit back, saying, “Trump’s Muslim ban is what Israel is implementing, this time against two duly elected members of Congress.”

“The irony of the ‘only democracy’ in the Middle East making such a decision is that it is both an insult to democratic values and a chilling response to a visit by government officials from an allied nation,” the Minnesota Democrat added in an afternoon statement.

The controversial decision by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came despite pleas from top lawmakers in both parties to allow the delegation to make its trip. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) denounced the decision, saying she was “deeply saddened” by the move after the Israeli ambassador announced last month that the two lawmakers would be allowed to visit.

“Israel’s denial of entry to Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar is a sign of weakness, and beneath the dignity of the great State of Israel,” Pelosi said in a statement.

Netanyahu defended his decision, saying he changed his mind after learning more details of their trip earlier this week.

“Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting the legislation of boycotts against Israel in the American Congress,” Netanyahu said a statement. “Only a few days ago, we received their itinerary for their visit in Israel, which revealed that they planned a visit whose sole objective is to strengthen the boycott against us and deny Israel’s legitimacy.”

Netanyahu did say that a “humanitarian request” by Tlaib to visit her relatives in the West Bank would be accepted “on the condition that she pledges not to promote boycotts against Israel during her visit.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who led a delegation of dozens of House Democrats to Israel earlier this month, had repeatedly asked Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders to allow the freshman lawmakers to enter the country, only to be rejected.

Hoyer and other pro-Israel Democrats, like Nita Lowey of New York, Brad Schneider of Illinois, Ted Deutch of Florida and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, also personally lobbied Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., to allow the visit. Dermer stated several weeks ago that Israel would let the trip go ahead.

Gottheimer, who has previously sparred with Omar and Tlaib over their controversial comments about Israel, said refusing to allow them to visit the country “regardless of their views and misguided, planned itinerary, is a serious, strategic mistake.”

An irate Hoyer called Thursday’s decision “outrageous” and pointed to Dermer’s earlier pledge to let Omar and Tlaib enter the country.

“This action is contrary to the statement and assurances to me by Israel’s ambassador to the United States that ‘out of respect for the U.S. Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America, we would not deny entry to any Member of Congress into Israel,’” Hoyer said. “That representation was not true.”

Even the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, criticized the announcement.

“We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib’s support for the anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] movement, along with Rep. Tlaib’s calls for a one-state solution,” AIPAC said in a statment. “We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand.”

Republicans, meanwhile, have been largely silent about the move. House and Senate GOP leaders have avoided commenting on the controversy. Even Trump’s most loyal boosters on Capitol Hill were mostly quiet, showing how poorly the decision was received by lawmakers in both parties.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said Tlaib and Omar “should have come with the rest of the U.S. delegation to Israel,” referring to the recent trips headed by Hoyer and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

“I stand fully with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel regarding their right to deny admittance to anyone who advocates against the interests of Israel,” Roy said.

But another prominent Republican, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, called the decision “a mistake.”

“Being blocked is what they really hoped for all along in order to bolster their attacks against the Jewish State,” Rubio said on Twitter. Thursday morning, Trump slammed Tlaib and Omar — two fierce critics of the president who have called for his impeachment — and encouraged Israel to block them.

“It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!”

Tlaib had planned to see her grandmother, who lives in the West Bank. Instead, Hoyer met with Tlaib’s grandmother during his congressional trip.

On Thursday afternoon, Tlaib sent a letter to her fellow freshman Democrats asking for their help in getting the decision reversed, although her request called Palestine “a sovereign state,” which angered some pro-Israel lawmakers in the class.

In her letter, the Michigan Democrat called on her fellow freshmen to support her publicly: “Many of you have more of an influence than I do and I am asking as your colleague to advocate that I am allowed to enter (even if just to allow transport into another sovereign state — Palestine).”

She also defended the trip, saying that their agenda had no meetings planned with Israeli or Palestinian Authority officials — rebutting one of Netanyahu’s chief complaints about the itinerary.

Senior Democrats, including longtime pro-Israel advocates, blasted the move as one that will hurt U.S.-Israeli relations in the long run.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the Israeli decision “is a sign of weakness, not strength. It will only hurt the U.S.-Israeli relationship and support for Israel in America. … Many strong supporters of Israel will be deeply disappointed in this decision, which the Israeli government should reverse.”

“It is utterly egregious for the Israeli government to deny entry to two sitting members of the United States Congress,” added House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.). “I strongly condemn this decision.”

“Democracies are marked by the ability to express opposing views,” added Lowey, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. “By blocking entry by these representatives, the Israeli government is missing an opportunity for engagement in dialogue with those they disagree with, instead empowering those who seek to create a wedge between our two countries.”

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said “no member of Congress should visit Israel until all members of Congress are welcome.”

Democratic presidential candidates also called on Israel to reverse course.

“Israel doesn’t advance its case as a tolerant democracy or unwavering US ally by barring elected members of Congress from visiting because of their political views,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). “This would be a shameful, unprecedented move.”

The trip by the two Democratic freshmen would be historic. Tlaib has long touted the trip as an alternative to the annual AIPAC-funded trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories, which pro-Palestinian advocates have argued is intended to promote Israel’s political positions.

Israeli leaders said they would deny the lawmakers’ entry into the country because of their support for the global BDS movement, which is intended to force Israel to improve its treatment of the Palestinians.

Most Democrats have strongly rejected the BDS effort, and the House passed a resolution last month on a 398-17 vote condemning the movement. Omar and Tlaib were among the lawmakers who opposed the resolution.

Before that vote, Hoyer had worked with Dermer to ensure that Tlaib and Omar would be able to go ahead with their Israel trip, according to a Hoyer aide.

Dermer recently told Democratic lawmakers that Israeli officials were unsettled by the lawmakers’ itinerary — which did not include meetings with any of the country’s diplomats or visits to historic sites — and was largely focused on the territories.

“They see the point of the trip to cause problems, not to learn,” said one lawmaker describing Dermer’s comments.

But the move threatens to open a new rift on Capitol Hill over Israel, especially inside the Democratic Party.

Progressive champions Omar and Tlaib have sharply criticized Israel’s political influence in Washington and they’ve faced charges of anti-Semitism. Both freshman Democrats, and Omar in particular, have become a favorite target of Trump and conservative media.

Democrats, meanwhile, counter that Trump is fueling a rise in white nationalism and anti-Semitism with his divisive racial rhetoric — not the Israel critics in their party.

“Netanyahu choosing to ban the only 2 Muslim women in Congress from entering tells the US that only *some* Americans are welcome to Israel, not all,” tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a close ally of Tlaib and Omar. “Trump is exporting his bigotry & making matters worse.”

#Foreign #lashes #Politics #Trump

0 notes

ocheme1 · 6 years ago

Quote

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Trump´s Tweets *🐦 “It’s the attack strategy of harass. This is not about the Attorney General, who is very sophisticated & knows it isn’t about him, it’s about trying to destroy President Trump through an assault on his AG for upholding the rule of law. He released a massive amount of......* *🐦 information! As long as President Trump is President, his opposition will use every tool, and misuse every tool available, to make his life miserable.” [TomFitton] [JudicialWatch] [ LouDobbs] Sadly, this proves I am doing a great job - Also, Best Economy and Employment Numbers EVER!* *🐦 The unexpectedly good first quarter 3.2% GDP was greatly helped by Tariffs from China. Some people just don’t get it!* *🐦 Bernie Sanders, “The Economy is doing well, and I’m sure I don’t have to give Trump any credit - I’m sure he’ll take all the credit that he wants.” Wrong Bernie, the Economy is doing GREAT, and would have CRASHED if my opponent (and yours), Crooked Hillary Clinton, had ever won!* Trump took a swipe at his own FBI director overnight as he echoed allegations that Christopher Wray is protecting members of the bureau who, in the words of one critic, worked to “overthrow” him. The president, sending a signal about his apparently dimming view toward the sitting bureau boss, tweeted comments recently made by the head of conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, on Fox Business Network’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” Fitton's comments, and Trump's promotion of them, were aimed in part at congressional Democrats who have been ramping up Trump administration probes in the wake of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report. This includes a new effort to hold Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt of Congress for not turning over an unredacted version of that report and underlying materials. _(from Fox News)_ (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); *🐦 I say openly to President Xi & all of my many friends in China that China will be hurt very badly if you don’t make a deal because companies will be forced to leave China for other countries. Too expensive to buy in China. You had a great deal, almost completed, & you backed out!* *🐦 Joe Biden let China get away with cheating when he was Vice President, and he continues to naively dismiss China today. China is stealing from American businesses, hurting our workers, and [realDonaldTrump] is right to fight back!* *🐦 There is no reason for the U.S. Consumer to pay the Tariffs, which take effect on China today. This has been proven recently when only 4 points were paid by the U.S., 21 points by China because China subsidizes product to such a large degree. Also, the Tariffs can be.....* *🐦 ...completely avoided if you buy from a non-Tariffed Country, or you buy the product inside the USA (the best idea). That’s Zero Tariffs. Many Tariffed companies will be leaving China for Vietnam and other such countries in Asia. That’s why China wants to make a deal so badly!...* *🐦 ..There will be nobody left in China to do business with. Very bad for China, very good for USA! But China has taken so advantage of the U.S. for so many years, that they are way ahead (Our Presidents did not do the job). Therefore, China should not retaliate-will only get worse!* Trump announced Monday that he'll meet face-to-face with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit late next month amid the latest escalation in trade tensions between the two countries. Trump predicted that his meeting with Xi will likely be "very fruitful" and said he believes China wants to reach a deal, even as he vented about China reneging earlier this month on key portions of the deal being negotiated between the two economic powers. Earlier Monday, China announced tariffs on $60 billion in US exports in retaliation for Trump's moves last week to hike existing tariffs imposed last year on Chinese goods -- and to start the process of adding duties to almost everything else China sends to the US. _(from CNN)_ (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); *🐦 Has anyone noticed that all the Boston [RedSox] have done is WIN since coming to the White House! Others also have done very well. The White House visit is becoming the opposite of being on the cover of Sports Illustrated! By the way, the Boston players were GREAT guys!* Trump tried to take credit on Monday for a sudden turnaround in the Boston Red Sox’ season. The Red Sox, who visited the White House last Thursday, swept all three of their home games over the weekend against the Seattle Mariners, scoring 34 runs across the three games. Boston has won eight of its last 10 games, a stretch that predates the team's reception with the president. _(from Politico)_ *🐦 Democrat Rep. Tlaib is being slammed for her horrible and highly insensitive statement on the Holocaust. She obviously has tremendous hatred of Israel and the Jewish people. Can you imagine what would happen if I ever said what she said, and says?* Last week, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., said in an interview that it gave her "a calming feeling" to think of her Palestinian ancestors giving up their lives and their land to create a safe haven for Jews fleeing the persecution of the Holocaust. She added that her ancestors had to give up their dignity at the same time, which is why she now supports a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Monday, Tlaib accused Trump and GOP lawmakers of "spreading outright lies" about her. Given the deeply polarized atmosphere in Washington now, and Tlaib's outspoken criticism of Israel's current government policies, her statement immediately caused a furor. "GOP leadership, including President Trump, have twisted and misconstrued my words to spread falsehoods rooted in hate," Tlaib said. _(from NBC News)_ *🐦 Under my Administration, we are restoring [NASA] to greatness and we are going back to the Moon, then Mars. I am updating my budget to include an additional $1.6 billion so that we can return to Space in a BIG WAY!* The White House is requesting an additional $1.6 billion "down payment" for next year to help finance its ambitious new goal of returning American astronauts to the moon in 2024. But it declined to reveal where the money will come from. The _budget amendment,_sent to Capitol Hill Monday night, is in addition to the $21 billion already requested by NASA for the fiscal year that begins in October. _(from Politico)_ *🐦 We must protect our Great Lakes, keeping them clean and beautiful for future generations. That’s why I am fighting for $300 million in my updated budget for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.* Trump has announced that his updated budget proposal will include full funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The program has typically received $300 million per year, but the 2020 budget plan that Trump's administration released in March included only $30 million for the initiative. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative uses its funding remove toxic pollution, prevent algae blooms and species invasions, and restore wildlife habitat. _(from WDIO - ABC)_ *🐦 Today, I officially updated my budget to include $18 million for our GREAT [SpecialOlympics], whose athletes inspire us and make our Nation so PROUD!* (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Trump said Monday he had followed through on a decision from earlier this year to reverse course and support federal funding for the Special Olympics. The President's budget is generally taken as a statement of administration priorities and does not reflect actual government appropriations. The initial call for cuts to Special Olympics funding was likewise considered unlikely to be passed by Congress. _(from CNN)_ *🐦 Great to welcome Chairman Shin from Lotte Group to the WH. They just invested $3.1 BILLION into Louisiana-biggest investment in U.S. EVER from a South Korean company, & thousands more jobs for Americans. Great partners like ROK know the U.S. economy is running stronger than ever!* Lotte’s chemical manufacturing facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana, is expected to produce annually 1 million tons of ethylene, an ingredient used in the plastics industry. Construction and use of the plant, which was officially opened in a ceremony last week, is expected to result in the creation of 2,500 jobs in the state, according to Louisiana Economic Development. _(from Bloomberg)_ *🐦 Wishing former President Jimmy Carter a speedy recovery from his hip surgery earlier today. He was in such good spirits when we spoke last month - he will be fine!* Former President Jimmy Carter is recovering after falling and breaking his hip this morning, according to a statement from the Carter Center. The center said Carter, 94-year-old, was preparing to go turkey hunting when he fell in his home. _(from NPR)_

http://www.labpixels.xyz/2019/05/trumps-tweets_14.html

#SEO #Trump´s Tweets http://www.labpixels.xyz/2019/05/trumps-tweets_14.html

0 notes

todaynewsstories · 6 years ago

Text

Palestinian refugees angry and dismayed at U.S. for halting funds to U.N. agency

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Palestinian refugees reacted with dismay on Saturday to a United States decision to halt funding to a U.N. agency, warning that it would lead to more poverty, anger and instability in the Middle East.

A Palestinian man pushes a cart with bags of flour at an aid distribution center run by United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip September 1, 2018. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

The U.S. announcement on Friday that it will no longer support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has deepened a cash crisis at the agency, and heightened tensions with the Palestinian leadership.

The 68-year-old UNRWA provides services to about 5 million Palestinian refugees across Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank and Gaza. Most are descendants of the roughly 700,000 Palestinians who were driven out of their homes or fled the fighting in the 1948 war that led to Israel’s creation.

In Gaza, Nashat Abu El-Oun, a refugee and father of eight, said: “The situation is bad and it will become worse…People can hardly afford living these days and if they became unable to earn their living they will begin thinking of unlawful things.”

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said on Friday that UNRWA’s business model and fiscal practices were an “irredeemably flawed operation” and that the agency’s “endlessly and exponentially expanding community of entitled beneficiaries is simply unsustainable.”

UNRWA rejected the criticisms, with spokesman Chris Gunness describing it as “a force for regional stability.”

Speaking in Jordan, where more than 2 million registered Palestinian refugees live, including 370,000 in ten refugee camps, Gunness said: “It is a deeply regrettable decision…some of the most disadvantaged, marginalized and vulnerable people on this planet are likely to suffer.”

Gunness said UNRWA provides health clinics, schooling for 526,000 refugee children across Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and food assistance to 1.7 million people – a million of them in Gaza.

The agency will now ask existing donors for more money, and seek new sources of income.

“Our funding gap is $217 million (£167.5 million)… so although we have opened up our schools just this week we have made it clear that we only have money until the end of September,” he said.

BIGGEST DONOR

The United States, by far UNRWA’s biggest donor, slashed funding earlier this year, paying out only $60 million of a first instalment in January, and withholding $65 million. It had promised $365 million for the whole year.

Washington said the agency needed to make unspecified reforms and called on the Palestinians to renew peace talks with Israel.

A Palestinian man carries a bag of flour at an aid distribution center run by United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip September 1, 2018. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

The last Palestinian-Israeli peace talks collapsed in 2014, partly because of Israel’s opposition to an attempted unity pact between the Fatah and Hamas Palestinian factions and to Israeli settlement building on occupied land that Palestinians seek for a state.

There was no immediate comment from the Israeli government to the decision by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, which was issued during the Jewish sabbath. But it was welcomed by some Israelis.

Israeli opposition lawmaker Yair Lapid said on Twitter: “Aside from providing cover to terror, UNRWA is responsible for the fact that the 750,000 people they registered originally (most of whom have since died) became 5.5 million fake refugees. UNRWA lost sight of its purpose long ago.”

Earlier this year Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged action against UNRWA.

“We already have great-great-grandchildren of refugees who are not refugees,” he said in January. “I suggest a gradual conversion of all funds going to UNRWA to other agencies to deal with the question of refugees.”

On Friday, before the U.S. decision was confirmed, the head of the international U.N. refugee agency UNHCR, Filippo Grandi, was asked by reporters in Beirut if his agency could assume UNRWA’s role. “The Palestinian refugees in the region are the responsibility of UNRWA,” he said, making no further comment.

The UNRWA move is the latest in a number of actions by the Trump administration that have alienated the Palestinians, including the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the decision to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Slideshow (3 Images)

That move was a reversal of longtime U.S. policy and led Palestinian leadership to boycott the Washington peace efforts led by Jared Kushner, Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law.

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat on Saturday accused Washington of implementing the agenda of “Israeli extremists who have done nothing but to destroy the prospect of peace between Palestinians and Israelis.”

Speaking in Ramallah, he said: “The United States may have the right to say that we don’t want to give taxpayers’ money, but who gave the U.S. the right to approve the stealing of my land, my future, my aspirations, my capital, my Aqsa Mosque, my Holy Sepulchre Church?”

In Jalazone refugee camp near Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, Ayoub Abeidi, whose family once lived in what is now the city of Lod in Israel, said the decision was political.

“Trump wants to finish off UNRWA so he can terminate the right of refugees (to return),” said Abeidi, 53. “Our right to return exists and neither Trump nor anybody else can cancel it.”

Successive Israeli government have ruled out any right of return, fearing the country would lose its Jewish majority.

[GRAPHIC: tmsnrt.rs/2P0TJmx]

Reporting by Bushra Shakhshir in Amman, Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza and Ali Sawafta in Ramallah. Writing by Stephen Farrell in Jerusalem; Editing by Ros Russell

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source link

The post Palestinian refugees angry and dismayed at U.S. for halting funds to U.N. agency appeared first on Today News Stories.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2MHoNKs via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

newsnigeria · 6 years ago

Text

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/hezbollah-at-war/

Hezbollah at War (3): Missiles on Haifa (July 16, 2006) / Saudi Arabia Unmasked

An Algerian publicly unmasks Sheikh Al-Sudais, Imam of Mecca

Translation: unz.com/sayedhasan

Support this work and subscribe to the Facebook Page and Dailymotion Channel to get around censorship.

Following a conference in Geneva on June 27, 2018 devoted to “Security, its importance, and the means for its realization and its preservation”, the Imam of Mecca, Sheikh al-Sudais, who had affirmed that Trump and Ben Salmane “were leading the world and mankind to a haven of peace and security”, was long questioned by a one-legged Algerian, who eloquently denounced the criminal Saudi policy, aligned with that of Washington & Tel Aviv.

Despite the servile efforts of the promoters to silence him, and especially to prevent anyone from filming the scene, it made the buzz on social networks and Arab media not controlled by the Saud, including Al-Jazeera. Sudais pitifully retreated without making a single reply, except the affirmation, without the least embarrassment, that there was no embargo against Qatar (sic).

While only a few years ago, Muslims, both in the East and in the West, were widely hypnotized by the great Sheikhs of Saudi Arabia, of whom, thanks to the petrodollars, almost every Muslim household had recitations of the Quran, their aura is greatly degraded today, as evidenced by the sparse audience of this conference, and the reactions of solidarity that have manifested themselves on both video and social networks. Henceforth, the Wahhabi Saud are no longer assimilated to Islam, of which they only constitute a heretical and barbaric cult perfectly embodied by ISIS, but to what they have always been, namely an artificial entity created of all pieces and maintained by imperialism (formerly British, now American), a Western Trojan horse in the East, just like Israel.

The forthcoming announcement of the so-called “Deal of the Century”, supposed to definitively liquidate the Palestinian cause, by the triumvirate Trump-Netanyahu-Ben Salman (an archetypal Team of Losers, if ever there was one), will certainly sign the death sentence of the Saud dynasty, already moribund because of its defeat in Yemen and the monumental failure of the American project in Syria. Apart from Washington, Tel-Aviv (and their satellites, agents and mercenaries) and Islamophobes of all stripes, the world can only welcome such a development.

Sayed Hasan

Hezbollah at War (3): Missiles on Haifa (July 16, 2006)

Speech by Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah, on July 16, 2006, the fourth day of the war against Israel, in which Haifa was hit for the first time.

Translation: unz.com/sayedhasan

“We concentrated our missile / rocket strikes exclusively on military positions, without striking any Israeli settlements or urban centers in the north of occupied Palestine. But the enemy’s army, unable to face Hezbollah fighters, started from day one to target cities, villages, civilians and civilian facilities, as well as Lebanon’s infrastructure. […] So we had no choice but to keep the promise we made ourselves, and we hit the city of Haifa. [..] Our weapons are not weapons of vengeance, but weapons of deterrence, weapons whose purpose is to bring back some reason and common sense to the madmen in the Olmert government, so that they put an end to their arrogance, hubris, and I can even say their very peculiar imbecility and stupidity.” Hassan Nasrallah, July 16, 2006. Unsurprisingly, in the first days of the war, Israel poured out its destructive fury on Lebanon and the Lebanese population, purposely striking the infrastructure (bridges, power plants, airport…) in order to paralyze the country, as well as the urban centers to inflict a collective punishment on the Lebanese people –especially the Shiite-majority areas of the southern suburbs of Beirut, to exact the highest price from the Hezbollah base–, sparing neither homes nor convoys of civilians fleeing the areas bombed and in particular the south, nor the ambulances, the refuges, nor the food industry, subjecting the country to a real blockade. Robert Fisk had reported the war crime of Marwaheen, a particularly vile and spiteful act of vengeance, mentioned by Hassan Nasrallah in this speech:

“[Lebanon] is being vandalized and smashed up by a country which says it believes in purity of arms. And these civilian deaths, I don’t believe that they’re by chance. I don’t believe it was a mistake when they hit that army barracks of logistic soldiers, who are trying to repair [a bridge and restore electricity in] their own country, which they have every right to do.

And Marwaheen is a particular — this is a village in Southern Lebanon, where Mossad, the Israelis, ordered the villagers out. I should add that this is a village closest to the scene of the killing and capture of the Israeli soldiers on Wednesday. They were ordered to leave the village. They did so in a convoy of cars, 20 of them. They went to the United Nations, who ordered them away — Ghanaian Battalion, shamefully — and set off to Tyre. And an F-16 came down and burned them all alive with bombs. Outrageous massacre.”

In a few days, there were more than 300 dead, almost exclusively civilians, thousands of wounded and nearly one million displaced. The Lebanese army, scandalously neutral in this conflict –we would learn much later that Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who called on Hezbollah to return the soldiers to Israel, making the Resistance de facto responsible for the war, had given instructions for the army to hinder Hezbollah activity–, was not even spared in its civil engineering actions. Anxious to maintain as much as possible the national cohesion and not to play the game of the enemy, Hassan Nasrallah would not evoke these facts until 2008, nor the collusion of the Gulf monarchies, and Saudi Arabia in particular, with the Israeli aggression.

But while Israel emerged as the criminal army it has always been, Hezbollah, for its part, demonstrated its ethics, targeting Israeli civilians only after several days of restraint. having no other choice to protect its own population (the final civilian / military ratio of Hezbollah victims will be the reverse of Israel’s, 1/10 versus 10/1), as well as its great military expertise: while the Lebanese guerrillas achieved success after success (Israel corvette destroyed, military bases of the north localized and hit…), Israel revealed to all the incapacity of its infantry, whose attempts of incursion were immediately stopped, and even of its services intelligence, essential auxiliaries of the air force. On the first day, Olmert had pompously announced the destruction of almost all of Hezbollah’s ballistic capacity, but he received a stinging denial from the ever-increasing rocket and missile strikes that hit Israel daily, until the last day of the confrontation, up to Haifa and, as the next stage will show, well beyond Haifa. This discourse, where victory and reconstruction are evoked as soon-to-be and certain perspectives, clearly shows that Hezbollah always was in a position of strength in this conflict.

Sayed Hasan

Transcript:

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

“– Say: Nothing (bad) can happen to us except what God has decreed for us. He is our Protector: and on God let the believers put their trust. – Say: Can you expect for us (any fate) other than one of two glorious things (victory or martyrdom)? But (as for us), we can expect for you either that God will send His punishment from Himself or by our hands. So wait (expectant); we too will wait with you (the outcome of our battle).” (Quran, IX, 50-51)

God the Almighty and Most High has spoken the truth.

Peace be upon you and God’s mercy and blessings.

In this speech, I wish to speak to you again on this day, Sunday [July 16], shortly before 1pm, to discuss with you some points relating to the battlefield and the political (situation), that I must evoke in this particularly sensitive and important situation we are living today.

First, regarding the events on the ground. From the beginning, we tried to act with calm, precision and without precipitation. We announced clear positions and clear warnings. The first day, we focused our missile/rocket strikes exclusively on military positions, without targeting any Israeli settlement or urban center in northern occupied Palestine. But the army of the enemy, unable to face the mujahedeen (Hezbollah fighters), started from day one to target cities, villages, civilians and civilian facilities as well as (Lebanon’s) infrastructure.

Despite this, we have waited and continued our struggle (targeting only enemy) soldiers and military forces, and military positions in the north of occupied Palestine. And very important strikes took place successfully, especially one that targeted several Command centers of Brigades in the north (of Israel), whether the Command of the northern zone, the Command of the naval forces or the Command of air operations in Meron, and the impact and damage caused by these unprecedented strikes were considerable. But in spite of that, we saw that the Zionists concentrated their strikes on civilians and civilian facilities.

(The enemy) tried to advance in the area of ‘Ayt al-Sha`b, but the mujahedeen (fighters) faced him and destroyed an Israeli tank that is among the strongest that exists to this day in Israel. A second tank approached and was also destroyed, and a third came forward and was damaged. And this event was an opportunity to humiliate the Israeli infantry at the Mount Amel border.

The main cities of Lebanon were hit by Israel, as well as villages, and they killed civilians in their homes. In several villages, civilian homes were destroyed, and the husband, the wife and children (whole families) got killed. Here, there are 10 martyrs; there, 8 martyrs; there again, 7 martyrs, etc. (Their crimes went as far as) the terrible and atrocious martyrdom of refugees of the city (South Lebanon) of Marwaheen, mostly women and children (fleeing the combat zone at Israel’s request), and destructive strikes against a number of towns, and especially against the southern suburb of Beirut.

It seems that the enemy has misinterpreted our restraint of the early days. In truth, we have been patient against this aggression and retaliated by hitting only military (targets), to confirm that our battle is with them, even if we consider that all (the Israelis) are accomplices (of the attack). But as long as we were not forced to hit civilian targets, we had no reason to do so. We waited (patiently) and achieved a great success when we hit the Israeli military corvette (who operated) off the coast of Beirut, as a clear sign that we punish those who strike our cities and infrastructure, and assault our people.

But the Zionists continued (their widespread strikes) regardless of our warnings, and their false reading of (our restraint) lead them to continue their wide aggression against southern Lebanon, the Bekaa, especially against the cities of Baalbek-Hermel, up to the north, and always target more civilian facilities and infrastructure. We didn’t have a choice today but to keep the promise we had made ourselves, and we hit the city of Haifa. We know the importance of this city and its particular sensitivity. And if we had launched our missiles on chemical and petrochemical plants, a major disaster would have hit the inhabitants of this city. But we have deliberately avoided these plants, which are within the range of our missiles, due to our care not to push things to the unknown, and to ensure that our weapons are not weapons of vengeance, but weapons of deterrence, weapons (aiming to) bring back some sanity and common sense to the madmen in the Olmert government, to put an end to their arrogance, their hubris, and I can even say the idiocy and stupidity by which they truly stand out.

But the fact that we have avoided (hitting chemical installations, cities or settlements) does not mean that this is an irrevocable decision: at any time, we consider that we are responsible to defend our country, our people and our families, and therefore all means in our power to ensure that defense will be implemented. As long as the enemy will lead its aggression without limits or red line, we also (have every right to) organize our Resistance without limits or red line.

O noble Lebanese people to whom I address this speech, I also want to confirm some points after the presentation of the situation on the ground. We still have, thank God, our full power and our full strength. It is we who have the initiative of the time and place (of confrontation), and the enemy cannot force us to resort to any means of defense, nor can he impose the time at which we use them.

We continue to carry out our Resistance in a precise and organized way, something the enemy did not expect: Israel assumed that in the first days, his violent strikes would lead to a dismemberment of the (Hezbollah) Command and of our (military) base, but no such thing happened, and I will get back to this issue later. And one of our major strong points is that the enemy does not know our power and our capabilities. And when they announce their position or make their calculations, they base them on erroneous data and false information. For example… And this is why the enemy also resorts to lies.

For example, the first day, all the targets hit in the villages of southern Lebanon are civilian homes, civilian houses in which there were no launching pads nor storage of missiles/rockets, nor anything resembling what the Israelis alleged to have targeted. Then the Israelis announced that the largest portion of the ballistic (missiles/rockets) power of Hezbollah was destroyed on the first day. I tell the Israeli Army that these information are false and unfounded. The people you killed are civilians, women and children. And the houses you destroyed are civilian homes, empty of any missile or rocket you mention. (Hezbollah’s) arsenal that you dread so much and consider very thoughtfully in all your calculations is still intact, and what we have launched so far is only a small part of this arsenal. We always have the ability to launch a large number of rockets/missiles.

Today, the Zionists based all their plans and calculations on the assumption that the number of rockets or missiles in the hands of Hezbollah able to strike Haifa, Acre, Tiberias or beyond Haifa does not exceed a few dozen. If your battle is based on this postulate, then I bring you good news of your defeat (to come), by the grace of God. It only makes us more optimistic and enthusiastic, stronger and more confident in our ability to defeat you.

And I say to the Zionist people that your government and your army deceive you. During the operation “Grapes of Wrath” (1996), they organized their entire battle on the (erroneous) assumption that all what Hezbollah actually had in terms of Katyusha rockets did not exceed 500. Then they were surprised to find out that this information was false. On this point, I can confirm that the enemy is completely unaware of (the full extent of) our ability. He ignores what we have at all levels. And this is our most important strength, and we have always prided ourselves of it within the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon (Hezbollah). We take pride in the fact that we are not infiltrated by the Israeli intelligence services. We are proud to have built our strength, in every respect, with the required concealment and secrecy as we were preparing carefully for the day Israel would try to avenge the defeat Lebanon inflicted on it (in 2000).

For the next stage, we will keep behaving as we do now, since it is they who have opted for this open war, and we will be careful to avoid targeting civilians as much as possible, except when we are compelled to it. In the previous step, even when we were forced to target civilians, we focused our strikes on main cities and large settlements, though we had the ability to hit every settlement, every village and every city, at least those in the north of occupied Palestine, but we chose to keep things in the limit required to pressure the government of this enemy. But as I have said, even in this context, when the Zionists act on the principle that there are no rules, no red line and no limit to their aggression, then we also have the right to behave the same way in return.

Today, Israelis speak of a violent bombardment (from them), as if what happened in the early days was a light bombardment. Many towns and villages of Lebanon have suffered these (massive) strikes, including the southern suburb of Beirut last night, which suffered a methodical destruction of certain neighborhoods. The world will see the reality of it all, and although during the first stage, we wanted some scenes (particularly atrocious) not to be broadcast, the world is beginning to see the extent of the destruction inflicted by the enemy to the buildings (and of the massacres). But can it alter our determination, our will or our decision? Never, under any circumstances.

We will continue to fight, and we have very, very large abilities, and we are only at the beginning. And the Zionists will infallibly see, I repeat it again and again, that what I say and promise is the absolute truth (and will certainly happen).

Today, we also hear in Zionist circles (military / media) about the idea of launching a ground incursion towards certain places. They already tried to advance on the Raheb position located west of Ayt al-Sha`b, and tried again last night (in vain). We heard today that they would use weapons prohibited by the international community. Anyway, we are present in the south, our mujahedeen (fighters) are just as ready (to fight) as one can conceive, they have a passion for combat and an enthusiastic desire to inflict a (stinging) defeat on the enemy. This is not a desperate people seeking martyrdom, but an optimistic people certain of his victory, who wants to offer Arabs a new example (of victorious Resistance). And therefore, as we have surprised them at sea (with the destruction of their corvette), as we surprised them (when we hit) Haifa, and as we will surprise them (when we strike) beyond Haifa, I also promise them a surprise with their ground offensive. And we look forward to it with great hope, because it will give us the opportunity to directly hit the enemy tanks and soldiers, who are currently hiding in fortified retreats and planes; and obviously, as their Air Force is the most powerful in the region, they may be out of our reach because they strike us from very high locations in the sky. Any ground incursion will be very good news for the Resistance because it will get us closer to victory and allow us to humiliate the Israeli enemy, as we humiliated him in recent days. This prospect does not worry us.

I have a word to say to the (Lebanese) people, this generous people, enduring, honorable, pure, from which we heard these days in the media expressions of patience, support, assistance and love (for the Resistance ). You are truly��a great people, and these are not (vain) bragging words, exaggeration or embellishment (of reality). You are a historical people, on which rests the hope to get Lebanon and even all this (Arab-Muslim) Community, the whole Community, out of the state of submission and humiliation in which it is today, and to reinvigorate it with hope. I assure you once again that with your support, your embrace, your love, your patience and endurance, we will be victorious.

The houses and buildings that are destroyed will surely be rebuilt, with our cooperation and that of the institutions of the Lebanese State, but in this respect, I declare to you: do not worry at all about all that is destroyed by the Israeli war machine (because we will rebuild everything). We only wish recovery to the wounded, and long life to all the Lebanese in health and well-being; and as to what is bombed and destroyed, with the help of God Almighty and Exalted, with the help of the Lebanese State and also with the help of Hezbollah, which is an interested and concerned party, we are determined to be serious and effective in rebuilding all that was destroyed; and I tell you, without going into details now, that we have friends (Iran) seriously engaged in this issue, who have a great ability to help us with clean, pure and honorable money, without any political conditions. Do not worry about the reconstruction of our country. The importance today is to resist, and to emerge victorious from this battle.

I also have a word to say on some points currently raised by the media of the enemy, and I will conclude with a word that I will address the peoples of the Arab and Muslim worlds.

The enemy today resorts to lies and strong psychological warfare, which is quite natural, especially with an enemy like this. For example, they first tried to say that no Zionist warship was destroyed at sea, then they eventually recognized it. And I can confirm, and we also have elements that confirm this: a corvette was hit by two missiles. That’s the first point. And as for the fact that they have tried to make people believe that the missiles of the Resistance struck a commercial vessel or something like that, the days have shown that this was part of the Israeli lies. In the event that a commercial vessel would indeed have been targeted or hit, certainly, it would be the action of Israeli warships.

Another point in this regard, the fact that they talk of Iranian soldiers, and that it would be Iranians who have launched or helped to launch the two (ground-sea) missiles (that struck the corvette). Israeli reconnaissance aircraft were present above the area where the missiles were launched and watched every move. How could this confined area contain Iranian soldiers? Anyway, I categorically deny the presence of any Iranian soldier, either during this operation or any other. Those who have the comprehensive expertise and themselves use these (military) capabilities present in Hezbollah’s hands are Lebanese, children of Lebanese and belong to Lebanese families since hundreds of years. The Israelis speak of Iranians and Iranian soldiers, and could speak tomorrow of North Koreans, Japanese, Russians or Chinese in order to lessen (our abilities) and insult us, as they always have done with us, the Lebanese and Arab peoples, considering that we are at a lower level, and that we are not sufficiently developed, capable or do not have the necessary expertise for a confrontation of this nature. This is part of the lies that the Zionists resort to in this war. I really wanted to clarify that. And therefore, by the grace of God, in the next stage, through the arms of the mujahideen (fighters) and honorable Lebanese Resistance, we will continue our struggle and defeat our enemy.

Finally, I wish to address the Arab and Muslim peoples. Of course, I am speaking to them to clarify things and make them face up to their responsibilities. I am not going to implore, call for help or request anything.

Since the first moments of Operation “Truthful Promise” and the confrontations that ensued, we resolved and we are bound by common consent, me and my brothers, to ask nothing to any man in this confrontation. And many people have contacted us and offered assistance, but we said we do not need anything, and we never took the initiative to ask for anything, whether at the material, political, media, popular, military levels, etc. Of course, we pray, we ask, we invoke and we intercede only to God, the Almighty and Exalted, because we believe in Him, in His abilities, in His omnipotence, that He embraces all things, and He is true to His promise of victory addressed to (true) believers. And “God suffices us and He is the best of Protectors.” (Quran, III, 173).

And today, when I address the Arab and Islamic peoples, it is certainly not to tell them to come to our rescue, to save us, absolutely not. We’re perfectly fine, thank God, and we are in a position of strength, and at the beginning of a confrontation on which we pin great hopes. But I wish only to make them face up to their responsibilities.

Yesterday you saw, especially the Arab peoples, the results of the Council of Arab Ministers, and what the Arab League can do. They talk themselves of the failure of what they refer to as the “Peace process”, and it has also become clear that they are unable, as governments, leaders and regimes, to do anything at all. Anyway, we never counted on them.

You, Arab and Muslim peoples, have the duty to take a stance, for the sake of your (life in the) Hereafter, in case you do believe in Heaven, and for the sake of your mortal life, your fate, your dignity, your honor, your future and the future of your children and grandchildren.

Here is the situation today: if, in this confrontation, God forbid, Israel managed to defeat the Resistance in Palestine and the Resistance in Lebanon, then all the Arab world, both governments and peoples, would be drowned forever in humiliation, without any way of salvation. The arrogance of the Zionists against Arab governments and peoples would only grow, as well as that of their US masters, who stand behind them, American and Israeli interference in the affairs of our peoples and governments would grow, and therefore, the looting of our resources would continue and worsen, as the trampling down on our civilization and culture. This region would be dislocated and dismembered, and pushed into internal sedition, etc.

Today, the Arab community and the Muslim community have an historic opportunity to unite, to get out of the division, sectarian strife and civil wars in which the United States are pushing our region and our peoples. The peoples of the Arab and Muslim worlds are now facing a historic opportunity to achieve a major historic victory against the Zionist enemy. It is not the question of who will impose his conditions on who. Today, an exceptional opportunity of this nature is before us, and I do not exaggerate.

In Lebanon, in 2000, we have offered, with limited capacity, modest efforts and a very limited number of fighters, equipment and weapons, a true example of Resistance that can defeat the army of occupation. Today, we offer an example (of Resistance), alongside the Lebanese people and all of Lebanon, even if we (Hezbollah) are the spearhead of the war, with the villages, towns and neighborhoods where our popular base is strongest, these being most heavily subjected to death and destruction. Even if no Lebanese is spared, it is mainly on our popular basis that the strikes are focused.

We also try to offer another example (different from the traditional Arab submission) in terms of endurance, power, patience, strength, courage and ability to inflict a defeat on the enemy. And in fact, this battle is not an equal battle in terms of material means (weapons and technology, where Israel clearly has the upper hand), but with regards to the soul, the spirit, the will, reason, wisdom, planning, perseverance and confidence in God the Almighty and Exalted, it is unequal but in our favor.

Where are you, O Arab and Muslim peoples? What are you doing ? How will you behave? That concerns you. As for us, when we started the Resistance in 1982, we were not looking beyond the borders (of Lebanon for any help), no. We were not expecting anything from anyone, except from God, and we relied (solely) on our people and our mujahedeen (fighters). Today we do the same.

But what I wanted to say in this sensitive time, and after several military exploits in recent days, after several surprises befallen and coming by the grace of God, I tell you this: No, today, Hezbollah is not leading Hezbollah’s battle nor Lebanon’s battle. Today, we are leading the battle of the whole (Arab and Muslim) Community. Whether we like it or not, whether the Lebanese like it or not, today, Lebanon and the Resistance in Lebanon are leading the battle of the Community.

Where is the (Arab and Muslim) Community in this battle? This is a question that I address you out of concern for your mortal life and for your life in the Hereafter.

O my brothers and sisters, and above all, O our enduring Lebanese people, O our enduring people in occupied Palestine, O honorable Resistants, put your trust in God, and ask Him for His help because He is the Best of Helpers and Assistants to achieve Victory.

Peace be upon you and God’s mercy and blessings.

#Hezbollah #Israel

0 notes