Doc's Talk: Palestinian Ambassador to Geneva: I was Implementing Instructions, Not Acting Independently

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Palestinian Ambassador to Geneva: I was Implementing Instructions, Not Acting Independently

Ali El-Saleh

London, Asharq Al-Awsat- Accusations against the Palestinian Authority [PA] and its President, Mahmoud Abbas, continued yesterday over the agreement to postpone discussing the Goldstone report on Israeli crimes committed during the Gaza war in the UN Human Rights Council until March 2010. Demands continued that the [Palestinian] officials responsible for making this decision be held accountable. Palestinian sources revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that during a meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit and Egyptian Intelligence chief Omar Suleiman in Amman on Monday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas categorically denied instructing Palestinian representative in Geneva, Ibrahim Khreisheh, to accept the idea of postponement.

The Palestinian sources declined to reveal to Asharq Al-Awsat whether Mahmoud Abbas was subject to American pressure to postpone discussion of the Goldstone report after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to freeze the peace process if the report was discussed in the Human Rights Council or submitted to the International Criminal Court. This is the official measure required to allow Israeli war criminals to be tried in court.

In an attempt to mitigate the campaign launched against the PA, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told AFP that President Mahmoud Abbas was thinking about asking the UN to discuss the Goldstone report.

Erekat, who accompanied President Mahmoud Abbas on an official visit to Italy and the Vatican, said that "President Abbas is seriously studying the possibility of asking the Arab and Islamic bloc to officially take the Goldstone report to international bodies, including the UN General Assembly and Security Council."

Erekat stressed that "in light of the controversy that has arisen due to the withdrawal of discussion of the report in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and some [officials] denying being responsible [for this decision], we in the Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] bear the responsibility of the Palestinian people and we do not shy away from this issue because we are responsible to the martyrs and wounded and the Palestinian people in Gaza."

Erekat added "We want to discuss the report in international bodies so they will take decisions on what emerged in the report, in order to ensure that the crimes committed by Israel against our people are never repeated."

Erekat also confirmed that following the Palestinian President's official visit to Italy, Mahmoud Abbas will return to Ramallah for a meeting with Palestinian leaders in order to take a decision on this issue [the Goldstone report]. Erekat stressed that "we are determined to study the decision to take [the Goldstone report] to international bodies, and we hope to receive support (from the Arab and Islamic bloc) to stand beside our people."

In this context, and in order to remove suspicions that he is responsible for this decision, President Mahmoud Abbas formed a commission of inquiry to investigate the circumstances that led to this controversial decision. Azzam al-Ahmed, a member of the Fatah Central Committee informed Asharq Al-Awsat that this committee is led by PLO Executive Committee member Hana Amireh, and also includes Azmi al-Shuaibi and Rami al-Hamdallah.

Al-Ahmed added that Mahmoud Abbas had called for this commission to complete its investigation within a few days "because investigation does not require a long length of time, things are clear, and it is clear who is involved, the first thing is to uncover the truth regarding Ambassador Ibrahim Khreisheh and then announce the results of the investigation in official media. [We must] identify who is responsible, whether this was [occurred] by deception or collusion, and then give the results [of the investigation] to the Palestinian institutes." Al-Ahmed also called for the end of squabbling in the media, until the completion of the investigation.

Khreisheh also said that we must wait for the results of the investigation, although he refused to name the party responsible for the acceptance of the postponement, denying that he himself was responsible for what happened. The Palestinian Ambassador to Geneva said that he did not take this decision himself, but was merely implementing instructions that he received from concerned parties, however he refused to identify whether this was the Palestinian presidency, or the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Khreisheh confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that he referred back to these unknown parties during each step of the discussion to postpone discussing the Goldstone report until March 2010. Khreisheh stuck to his previous position which he revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat on Saturday, namely that the decision to postpone was the right one, for if this did not take place the Goldstone report would suffer a similar fate to the report made by Archbishop Desmond Tutu into the 2005 Beit Hanoun massacre.

Contrary to the position taken by the Salam Fayyad government and the Fatah movement, Hamas considered the decision to form a commission of inquiry into the decision to postpone discussions into the Goldstone report as a "step to throw dust in the eyes, and a personal attempt from [Abbas] to escape from the direct political responsibility of requesting a postponement of the vote [on the Goldstone report]. In his capacity as President of the Palestinian Authority and President of the Executive Committee of the PLO, he is responsible for all diplomatic missions abroad."

Hamas added "the formation of a commission of inquiry is a desperate attempt by Abbas to deceive public opinion and to reduce the anger of the Palestinian people…Abbas carries the responsibility of being complicit in the protection of Zionist war criminals and complying with Zionist-American pressure."

The Hamas statement went on to say "We in Hamas still hold Abbas and the Oslo [Accords] team responsible for the crime of protecting Zionist war criminals from justice and for postponing the vote on the Goldstone report. We also call for each official who has the blood of [Palestinian] martyrs on their hands and denies the sacrifice made by the Palestinian people to be held accountable."

Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar, a member of the Hamas political bureau, called for Mahmoud Abbas and any "PA official involved with treason which is decided by [the acceptance] of the decision to withdraw the Goldstone report" to be stripped of their nationality. In a televised statement, al-Zahar said that this demand that Abbas be stripped of his Palestinian nationality "is a moral request in view of the absence of any official institute capable of implementing this." He pointed out that "if I had approached an official institute demanding the official revocation [of Mahmoud Abbas's nationality] it would not be moral."

Al-Ahmed responded to this by calling for Hamas to "withdraw its statement on the Goldstone report, because this will be settled between the victim and the oppressor via the issuance of a formal statement." Al-Ahmed also called for the completion of national Palestinian dialogue, and an end to inter-Palestinian division. He added "Those talking are the factions, not the PA, and it is up to the factions to end the divisions and unite, and prevent the division from being exploited for regulatory purposes as is currently occurring by Israel and the US as a means to escape from committing to the peace process."

Naif Hawatmah, the leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine [DFLP] described the decision to postpone the Goldstone report as a political and moral crime against the people of Jerusalem. During a ceremony organized by the DFLP in Gaza to celebrate Jerusalem being appointed 2009 Arab Capital of Culture, Hawatmah called for those responsible for taking the postponement decision to be publicly held accountable.

Ziad Nakhala, the deputy Secretary-General of the Islamic Jihad movement described the PA's position as being "a major scandal and disgrace in the history of our people and nations, and came following strong Palestinian-Arab-American complicity."

During the Conference of the General Assembly of the Islamic Radio and Television Union in Tehran, Nakhala described the postponement of the Goldstone report as being "akin to preventing victims from bringing their oppressors to trial, and absolving [the oppressors] of their crimes. The PA and those who colluded with them from the Arab system have been caught today washing the blood of our children and our people from the hands of the Zionists. This is a humiliation, a disgrace, and a shame, that can never be forgotten."

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