Posts Tagged ‘palestine’

Preface: This post uses the current interpretation of ‘Palestinian’ (non-Jewish). Several years ago Jews in Israel were called by the same name.20140302-140434.jpg

You are expecting the headline to be deceptive or just plain false? Well, it’s based on poll data specifically around confidence in & criticism of PA leadership on the topics of human rights & democracy. Frankly, in 2014, Palestinians still prefer to be ruled by Israel rather than the PA. The quite illogical disclaimer could maybe have been that some Palestinians would prefer worse human rights & democracy, if only they could have Sharia, but the first quoted extract below disproves that.

Read the articles linked to, and the quotes below, carefully, and see if they seem authentic & decide for yourself. Note details like: “The total sample size of this poll is 1319 from Palestinians 18 years and older, in the West Bank (814) and the Gaza Strip (505) Interviewed face-to-face, in 120 locations.”

2014:

Mohamed Samara, a chemical engineer and football coach who spoke with the Post, is a resident of Tira, an Israeli Arab city to the west of Rout 6. He said he is against Liberman’s plan. “We are happy here; we have all the rights and live well and don’t want to be sacrificed,” said Samara. “We do not want to be in a Palestinian state, under a new political area,” he said. “We work here,” he said, noting that his city has good relation with Jews. Asked if he identifies with Palestinians in the West Bank, Samara responded that he has feelings for them and has some family members that live there. However, at the same time Samara says he identifies with being an Israeli citizen. Asked what percentage of residents of Tira would agree with his views, he responded, “90 percent.”

2002:

Only 19% give PA democracy a positive evaluation and only 17% expect a democratic system in the Palestinian state. But 66% of the Palestinians give a positive evaluation to the status of democracy and human rights in Israel.

These are the results of opinion poll # 6, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) between 14-20 November 2002. The poll deals with the Peace Process, reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, political reform and new Palestinian government, corruption, democracy and constitution, Arafat’s popularity and political affiliation. The total sample size of this poll is 1319 from Palestinians 18 years and older, in the West Bank (814) and the Gaza Strip (505) Interviewed face-to-face, in 120 locations. The margin of error is 3%.

1996:

The CPRS polls carried out between September 26 and October 17, 1996 and later between 26-28 December, reflect a great concern among the Palestinians for democracy and human-rights practices. Not more than 36% believe the PNA is heading towards democratic rule and 60% would like to see the executive branch of the PNA implement all decisions taken by the legislative.
There is also widespread denouncement of corruption (51%) and wasta (personal connections and nepotism), where 57% of respondents think that employment is obtained through personal contacts. Regarding freedom of expression, 52% think it is impossible to criticize the PNA without fear and only 28% think the press is free.
However, a sizable percentage of respondents (44%) give the transition to democracy in Palestine a positive evaluation in comparison to Jordan and Egypt (both 34%), but not in comparison to France (60%), the US (68%) and Israel (78%). Such concern with democracy is a healthy sign, which reflects a high level of awareness and appreciation of the democratic process among the Palestinian public. Hopefully this will work as an incentive and a guarantee for a democratic future.

The audio below is an interview with Palestinian Media Watch founder – monitoring Arabic-language media.

Listen to the audio below, or download it here.
Listen to full audio here.

Line of Fire Radio – 02.27.14 Shocking News from the Middle East and Answers to Jewish Questions

UNRWA vs UNHCR with different rules about temporary vs perpetual refugee status? Are all refugees not equal? Why? What is the point & objective to be classified as a refugee?

Check the audio above & text extracts from Wikipedia below.

A United States Sentaor claims that UNRWA is an example of a United Nations anti-Israel bias, and that Palestine refugees should be treated the same as all others with refugee status around the world.

Critics of UNRWA say that the present definition gives Palestine refugees a favored status when compared with other refugee groups, which the UNHCR defines in terms of nationality as opposed to a relatively short number of years of residency. For example, journalist Arlene Kushner stated that:

Other refugees worldwide are tended to by the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, which works under the guidelines of the Convention on Refugees of 1951. Only UNRWA and its Palestinian Arab protégés stand apart from this: UNRWA is the only agency that is dedicated to a single group of refugees and establishes its own rules for them. The High Commission is mandated to help refugees get on with their lives as quickly as possible, and works to settle them rapidly, most frequently in countries other than those they fled. UNRWA policy, however, states that the Palestinian Arabs who fled from Israel in the course of the 1948 war–and their descendants!–are to be considered refugees until they return to the homes and villages they left more than half a century ago (which actually no longer exist).

20131029-224940.jpg20131029-225433.jpg

Extract from: INR – The False History of Oslo. Listen to full audio here.

Blood libel (also blood accusation) is a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims—alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration—have been a major theme in European persecution of Jews. (Wikipedia)

A note on ‘Palestine’. Consider the continued Jewish presence in Palestine & the quotes below. Who can lay claim to Palestine is its “original inhabitants”? Surely the Jews cannot be excluded, at least.

In 1888, Professor Sir John William Dawson wrote: Immigration took place from Europe, from North Africa (mainly to Jaffa) and from the Yemen.

“Until today (1888), no people has succeeded in establishing national dominion in the Land of Israel. No national unity, in the spirit of nationalism, has acquired any hold there. The mixed multitude of itinerant tribes that managed to settle there did so on lease, as temporary residents. It seems that they await the return of the permanent residents of the land.” (Wikipedia)

Prior to the Ottoman Empire’s dismemberment, the population of the area comprising modern Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip was not exclusively Muslim. Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire in the mid-16th century, there were [?no more than?] 10,000 Jews in Palestine, (Wikipedia)

Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.

Statehood is based on sovereignty of a nation. How were nations formed & accepted before the UN existed? Listen to the legal challenges brought up in the following audio segment. Extract from Wall Street Journal article also posted below.

Quote:
The U.N.—General Assembly or Security Council—has no power to create states or to grant all-important formal ‘recognition’ to state aspirants. The right to recognize statehood is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty and the United Nations is not a sovereign. Those who cite as precedent the General Assembly’s 1947 resolution providing for the partition of Palestine misread that instrument and its legal significance.

Resolution 181 outlined a detailed (and rigorous) process whereby the British Mandate in Palestine was to end and two new states, one Jewish and one Arab, were to be established. It recommended that process to Great Britain (as the mandate-holder) and to other U.N. members. It did not create or recognize these states, nor were the proposed states granted automatic admission to the United Nations. Rather, once the two states were established as states, the resolution provided that “sympathetic consideration” should be given to their membership applications.

In the event, the Arab countries rejected partition and Israel declared (and successfully defended) its independence. Israel’s statehood was recognized, in accordance with international law, by other states—including the United States and the Soviet Union.

The Palestinian Authority, by contrast, does not meet the basic characteristics of a state necessary for such recognition. These requirements have been refined through centuries of custom and practice, and were authoritatively articulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. As that treaty provides, to be a state an entity must have (1) a permanent population, (2) a defined territory, (3) a government, and (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

As of today, the PA has neither a permanent population nor defined territory (both being the subject of ongoing if currently desultory negotiations), nor does it have a government with the capacity to enter into relations with other states. This pivotal requirement involves the ability to enter and keep international accords, which in turn posits that the “government” actually controls—exclusive of other sovereigns—at least some part of its population and territory. The PA does not control any part of the West Bank to the exclusion of Israeli authority, and it exercises no control at all in the Gaza Strip.

The PA does not, therefore, qualify for recognition as a state and, concomitantly, it does not qualify for U.N. membership, which is open only to states. All of this is surely understood by the PA and its backers, and is also why the administration has correctly labeled this effort as a distraction—”stunt” being a less diplomatic but even more accurate term in these circumstances. What is unfortunate is that the Obama administration has failed to present the case against a Palestinian statehood resolution in legal rather than tactical terms, even though these arguments are obvious and would greatly reinforce the U.S. position, also providing a thoroughly neutral basis for many of our allies, particularly in Europe, to oppose Mr. Abbas’s statehood bid.

The stakes in this battle are high. The PA’s effort to achieve recognition by the U.N., even if legally meaningless, is not without serious consequences. To the extent that state supporters of that measure may themselves have irredentist populations or active border disputes with their neighbors—as do Russia, China, Britain and Turkey—they will certainly store up future trouble for themselves.

Source: Wall Street Journal

Listen to full audio here.

Should a documentary that apparently tries to promote reconciliation demonize one of parties among which reconciliation is attempted? Note the many inaccuracies in this video.

Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.