Doc's Talk: Were you told the following: Protests of the Annapolis meeting opponents

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Were you told the following: Protests of the Annapolis meeting opponents – as of November 28, 2007 1

Protests in Judea and Samaria; The Gaza Strip; Iran and Lebanon 1. The PA's security forces used force to disperse a series of protest demonstrations against the Annapolis meeting. They were instigated by Hamas (which kept a low profile), the Islamic Liberation Party and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine . The Palestinian security forces deployed to disperse before the demonstrations began, following a decision by the Palestinian government in Ramallah to prevent people from congregating and demonstrating because of the Annapolis meeting.

2. The Islamic Liberation Party, which played a central role in the demonstrations, is a radical Islamic organization which operates in both the PA-administered territories and Arab-Muslim communities around the world. Its main support in the PA is located in Hebron and the Jerusalem-Ramallah sector. Its objective is to reestablish the Caliphate (which Ataturk ended in 1924), and its activities are both covert and overt in the PA, although it does not involve itself in terrorist activities. 2

Invitation sent by the Liberation Party to participate in parades protesting the Annapolis meeting in Ramallah, Bethlehem, Hebron, Jenin and Gaza City to express the opposition of the Islamic nation to the “cursed conference” and the “contempt of the rulers [i.e., Abu Mazen and the PA] for the land of Palestine.” According to the invitation, there will be many participants and the parades will be non-violent (Website of the Liberation Party). 3

3. The most conspicuous protests were held in Hebron , Ramallah, Nablus , Bethlehem and Jenin:

1) Hebron : The Palestinian security forces used force to disperse a mass demonstration organized by the Liberation Party. A demonstrator was killed and several dozen demonstrators and security personnel were injured. The Liberation Party and the Palestinian police in Hebron traded accusations as to who was responsible for the demonstrator's death.

Demonstration in Hebron
(Naif Hashlamon for Reuters, November 27).
2) Ramallah : The Palestinian security forces dispersed a demonstration held in the center of the city by the National and Islamic Forces. A senior Hamas activist in the West Bank , sheikh Faraj Rumanah, was detained during the demonstration and later released. The police prevented a parade organized by the Liberation Party from being held.

Demonstration in Ramallah (Al-Ayyam, November 28).

3) Nablus : Hundreds of civilians participated in a demonstration organized by the Popular Front, the Democratic Front, the People's Party and other groups. They expressed their rejection of the Annapolis meeting and warned against any waiving of “the right to return.” The security forces also dispersed a procession which was organized by the Liberation Party and set to leave from Nablus 's main mosque.

4) Bethlehem : The police dispersed a demonstration opposing the Annapolis meeting organized by the Liberation Party. A few dozen people attended. The security forces detained a number of Liberation Party activists.

The Gaza Strip

A mass rally in Gaza City

4. Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad held a rally in Gaza City to protest the Annapolis meeting attended, according to the Palestinian media, by hundreds of thousands of demonstrators. Senior Hamas and PIJ activists who spoke at the rally emphasized adherence to “the right to return,” the liberation of Jerusalem and Islam's holy places, not ceding one inch of Palestine land and “the path of resistance and jihad” (i.e. terrorism).

Cartoon published in the Hamas-affiliated newspaper Felesteen : “Summing up the Annapolis meeting.” Olmert (center) holds a doc reading “Plan to invade Gaza ,” while the embarrassed Palestinian leaves the meeting ( Felesteen , November 28).

Terrorist attacks during the meeting

5. During the meeting (November 27) five rockets and four mortar shells were fired at western Negev settlements. One of the mortar shells fell close to Kerem Shalom. There were no casualties and no damage to property. Responsibility for some of the attacks was claimed by the Popular Resistance Committees, which previously stated their intention to focus their attacks during the meeting. The attacks on November 27 were no more numerous than the routine of the past few weeks. In response the Israeli Air Force struck a Hamas position in the southern Gaza strip.

Iran

6. A spokesman for the Iranian government said that representatives of ten Palestinian organizations were expected to arrive in Tehran in the coming days to hold a convention rejecting the Annapolis meeting (Fars News Agency, November 27). Palestinian sources in Damascus said that Mussa Abu Marzuq, deputy head of Hamas' political bureau had arrived in Tehran on November 27. The sources added that other leaders were expected to arrive, among them senior PIJ figures and Ahmad Jibril, the head of the Popular Front – General Command (PFLP-GC), (Syria Life Website, November 27).

Lebanon

7. In the Palestinian refugee camps Al-Badawi in north Lebanon and Ain al-Hilweh in the south there were demonstrations protesting the Annapolis meeting. They were organized by the PFLP-GC, the Democratic Front and the Palestinian Liberation Front. The demonstrators said they were firm in their adherence to “the right to return” and that “ Palestine could only be liberated with guns.”

8. The issue of the election of a new president continues to top Lebanon 's political agenda. For that reason, and in view of Syria 's participation in the Annapolis meeting, so far Hezbollah has contented itself with issuing statements condemning Lebanon 's participation in Annapolis , but has not initiated broad protest actions against the Lebanese government on that account.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Follow-up of the Bulletin issued November 27, 2007.

2 For further information see our August 26, 2007 Bulletin entitled “The Islamic Liberation Party recently held mass rallies in Al-Bireh and other cities in the Palestinian Authority”

3 http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/arabic/index.php/news/single/2616 .
.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk