|
In this mailing:
by Louis René Beres
• October 22, 2014 at 5:00 am
The
Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's
Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before
Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What
therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why
does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random
violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for
admission to statehood?
On
June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the
United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming
the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan
River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of
support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to
recall.
A
sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land
occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not
before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues
to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment
to Palestinian sovereignty.
|
No, no and NO. From left to right: 1) King Faisal of
Saudi Arabia, President Nasser of Egypt, President Sallal of Yemen,
Sheikh Sabah of Kuwait and President Arif of Iraq at the1967 Arab
League Summit in Khartoum; 2) Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud
Abbas; 3) Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.
|
When U.S. President Barack Obama announces in the United Nations
that he wants a two-state solution for Israel and "Palestine,"
and when U.S. Secretary of State repeated it recently -- and when Sweden
and the UK vote for a Palestinian State, and now possibly Spain and
France -- they should be more careful what they wish for.
Although there is no lawful justification for offering statehood,
but Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, on September 26, 2014, told the
United Nations that "the hour of independence of the state of
Palestine has arrived." Earlier, in 2012, the PA had already
received elevated status from the UN General Assembly to that of a
"nonmember observer state," but this elevation fell short of
full sovereignty.
There can also be no justification -- ethical, legal, or
geopolitical -- for waging war against the ISIS jihadis in Syria and
Iraq, while simultaneously urging statehood for the Hamas/PA jihadis in
West Bank [Judea and Samaria] and Gaza.
by Timon Dias
• October 22, 2014 at 4:00 am
It
looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to
parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful
way from within.
A
rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their
opponents "anti-Europe."
|
Nigel Farage (left), head of the UK Independence
Party, and Marine Le Pen, head of France's National Front party. (Image
source: Wikimedia Commons)
|
Two years ago, the European Commission proposed a law that would
authorize an "independent authority" within the European
Parliament [EP] to decide whether EP parties would receive an official
legal status as EP parties. This legal status is needed for a party to
obtain EP party subsidy, which is designed to cover 85% of party
expenditures.
Despite a British and Dutch lobby against the law, it was passed by
the EP on September 29, 2014.
Among the demands parties have to meet are that of "internal
party democracy" and that they must "respect the values on
which the European Union is based." Among these values are:
"pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and
equality between women and men." In addition, the parties must be
active in at least 7 out of 28 EU member-state countries.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment