30 dec 2013
Member of Hamas's political bureau Mousa Abu Marzouk warned of a framework deal to be brokered by US secretary of state John Kerry between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, describing it as a new Oslo agreement. "This framework agreement, if it was agreed upon, the Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu would take it to the Zionist Knesset for approval and then sign it, but on the part of the Palestinians, who would sign it and to where he would take it?" Abu Marzouk said in remarks on his facebook page on Sunday.
"Neither presidential nor legislative elections have been held, and even we have not reached a national consensus regarding the reconciliation and ending the division, but if the [Palestinian] people were to be asked to vote on such a deal, as we heard lately, how will it happen and what have we done in this regard?" he stated.
He noted that this agreement contains serious issues affecting the future of all Palestinians.
"Neither presidential nor legislative elections have been held, and even we have not reached a national consensus regarding the reconciliation and ending the division, but if the [Palestinian] people were to be asked to vote on such a deal, as we heard lately, how will it happen and what have we done in this regard?" he stated.
He noted that this agreement contains serious issues affecting the future of all Palestinians.
19 dec 2013
Hamas representative in Lebanon Ali Baraka has received a delegation from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) headed by its political bureau member Marwan Abd al-A'al to congratulate him on the 26th anniversary of Hamas movement. The two movement's representatives discussed during the meeting Palestinian national issues particularly refugees' issue in Lebanon.
The two Palestinian factions' representatives renewed their total rejection to negotiation path, warning of a second Oslo accord in light the US continued pressures.
Hamas and PFLP representatives stressed the need to achieve national reconciliation and to put an end to the internal division and to rebuild the PLO on national and democratic basis, calling for drafting a national strategy in support of resistance option.
The two parties stressed the need for neutralizing Palestinian presence away from the Lebanese internal conflicts, denouncing attempts to target Lebanon's security and stability.
They also renewed their adherence to the right of return and their rejection to deportation attempts, calling for rehabilitating Nahr al-Bared refugee camp.
The two Palestinian factions' representatives renewed their total rejection to negotiation path, warning of a second Oslo accord in light the US continued pressures.
Hamas and PFLP representatives stressed the need to achieve national reconciliation and to put an end to the internal division and to rebuild the PLO on national and democratic basis, calling for drafting a national strategy in support of resistance option.
The two parties stressed the need for neutralizing Palestinian presence away from the Lebanese internal conflicts, denouncing attempts to target Lebanon's security and stability.
They also renewed their adherence to the right of return and their rejection to deportation attempts, calling for rehabilitating Nahr al-Bared refugee camp.
8 dec 2013
By Khalid Amayreh
Despite the fact that the ongoing American-mediated talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have achieved absolutely no progress toward reaching a prospective peace deal that would end decades of military occupation, the PA leadership seems prone to caving in to American-Zionist pressure and blackmail, which would violate long-standing Palestinian national constants.
Indeed, the very consent of Palestinian negotiators to discuss with Zionist counterparts Israeli whims, such as retaining occupation presence along the Jordanian-Palestinian borders draws a question mark on the Ramallah leadership's commitment to these constants.
This is the reason why virtually all Palestinian factions, apart from Fatah, are warning the Ramallah group that any farcical deal that might be reached with Israel under the current circumstances won't be binding to the Palestinian people.
The fears of the Palestinian Main Street that the PA leadership might be cajoled to cede inalienable Palestinian rights are not groundless or phobic in nature. On the contrary, they are too real to be dismissed as disingenuous.
The PA today is undergoing political and especially financial conditions that are very much similar to the conditions haunting the PLO prior to the conclusion of the Oslo Agreement.
We all remember that the PLO was in the early 1990s on the verge of bankruptcy which really forced it to harrow toward signing the infamous agreement, which enabled Israel to keep virtually all the assets of its military occupation by creating a police state without a state called the "self-rule authority," utterly bereft of any real power or authority.
The Oslo Accords were so vague that both Israel and the PLO held diametrically contradictory interpretations of the agreement. Israel said the agreement allowed it to go on building settlements while the PA continued to claim that the agreement was a first step toward the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
The scandalous contradictions of how the Oslo Agreement was understood by the two sides were eloquently voiced by Israeli President Shimon Peres who remarked that the agreement contained no stipulations preventing PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat from dreaming. "I cannot put guards at Yasser Arafat's lips," said Peres, the clearly-insolent certified war criminal.
Déjà vu
Following the conclusion of the ignominious Oslo Agreement, PLO officials and spokespersons sought to justify the historic failure by saying that the PLO leadership had to sign the accords in order to save itself from demise.
Now, we are afraid that the current leadership of the same PLO will commit even a greater blunder by signing a decidedly and manifestly treasonous accord with Israel under the rubric of saving whatever can be saved.
Under such a criminal deal, billions of dollars would be pouring on the West Bank from all directions and Palestinians would be once again induced with the illusionary prospect of becoming the Singapore of the Middle East. And as in 1993, many Palestinians and Arabs would be carried away with the false euphoria, and people like this writer, who display reservations and objections about the crime, would be called all sorts of names, including "enemies of peace," "nay-Sayers," "perennially-pessimists" and "day-dreamers"- if not terrorists and enemies of the people.
Needless to say, such epithets would probably find acceptance and understanding by certain sectors among Palestinians, who are tired and exhausted of the conflict.
None the less, the truth must be proclaimed, even at the risk of opposing the current, at the local, regional, and international level.
And the truth is that the deal that might be struck under the current circumstances would be uglier than ugliness itself. Such a deal would result in the decapitation of the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees uprooted from their ancestral homeland at the hands of invading Jewish terrorist gangs coming from overseas, with the aid of Western Christian powers in Europe and North America.
The deal would mean that the bulk of Arab East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli control, which means hundreds of criminal Jewish colonies would be rendered "legitimate." But as we all know, and the world knows, these illegitimate colonies are the offspring of acts of rape. Hence, legitimizing them would be akin to legitimizing rape.
The deal would also mean that Israel would remain in control of Palestinian border-crossings, air space, and territorial water and water resources for a prolonged period while giving Palestinians a false semblance of sovereignty.
Yes, the Palestinians would have the right to use the grandest of names to call their "state." But this state would be eviscerated of substance even of dignity, as it lacks viability, sovereignty, and territorial contiguity.
Needless, to say, such a "state" would be a greatest disaster that might befall the Palestinian people and their enduring national cause. It would be the laughingstock of the world.
Hence, we all must be vigilant as to the direction of the so-called peace talks between Israel, a state thoroughly intoxicated by its insolence and arrogance of power, and the PA, a de facto vanquished supplicant that cannot really be entrusted with our people's legitimate rights, including first and foremost the sacred right of return.
Now a final word to the Israelis: Don't you ever think that Mahmoud Abbas or Sa'eb Urikat or any other Palestinian leader is authorized to cede or even compromise Palestinian rights. If Yasser Arafat couldn't do it, it would be a great folly to think that Mahmoud Abbas would or could.
Khalid Amayreh is an American-educated Palestinian journalist living in Hebron in the West Bank.
Despite the fact that the ongoing American-mediated talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have achieved absolutely no progress toward reaching a prospective peace deal that would end decades of military occupation, the PA leadership seems prone to caving in to American-Zionist pressure and blackmail, which would violate long-standing Palestinian national constants.
Indeed, the very consent of Palestinian negotiators to discuss with Zionist counterparts Israeli whims, such as retaining occupation presence along the Jordanian-Palestinian borders draws a question mark on the Ramallah leadership's commitment to these constants.
This is the reason why virtually all Palestinian factions, apart from Fatah, are warning the Ramallah group that any farcical deal that might be reached with Israel under the current circumstances won't be binding to the Palestinian people.
The fears of the Palestinian Main Street that the PA leadership might be cajoled to cede inalienable Palestinian rights are not groundless or phobic in nature. On the contrary, they are too real to be dismissed as disingenuous.
The PA today is undergoing political and especially financial conditions that are very much similar to the conditions haunting the PLO prior to the conclusion of the Oslo Agreement.
We all remember that the PLO was in the early 1990s on the verge of bankruptcy which really forced it to harrow toward signing the infamous agreement, which enabled Israel to keep virtually all the assets of its military occupation by creating a police state without a state called the "self-rule authority," utterly bereft of any real power or authority.
The Oslo Accords were so vague that both Israel and the PLO held diametrically contradictory interpretations of the agreement. Israel said the agreement allowed it to go on building settlements while the PA continued to claim that the agreement was a first step toward the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
The scandalous contradictions of how the Oslo Agreement was understood by the two sides were eloquently voiced by Israeli President Shimon Peres who remarked that the agreement contained no stipulations preventing PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat from dreaming. "I cannot put guards at Yasser Arafat's lips," said Peres, the clearly-insolent certified war criminal.
Déjà vu
Following the conclusion of the ignominious Oslo Agreement, PLO officials and spokespersons sought to justify the historic failure by saying that the PLO leadership had to sign the accords in order to save itself from demise.
Now, we are afraid that the current leadership of the same PLO will commit even a greater blunder by signing a decidedly and manifestly treasonous accord with Israel under the rubric of saving whatever can be saved.
Under such a criminal deal, billions of dollars would be pouring on the West Bank from all directions and Palestinians would be once again induced with the illusionary prospect of becoming the Singapore of the Middle East. And as in 1993, many Palestinians and Arabs would be carried away with the false euphoria, and people like this writer, who display reservations and objections about the crime, would be called all sorts of names, including "enemies of peace," "nay-Sayers," "perennially-pessimists" and "day-dreamers"- if not terrorists and enemies of the people.
Needless to say, such epithets would probably find acceptance and understanding by certain sectors among Palestinians, who are tired and exhausted of the conflict.
None the less, the truth must be proclaimed, even at the risk of opposing the current, at the local, regional, and international level.
And the truth is that the deal that might be struck under the current circumstances would be uglier than ugliness itself. Such a deal would result in the decapitation of the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees uprooted from their ancestral homeland at the hands of invading Jewish terrorist gangs coming from overseas, with the aid of Western Christian powers in Europe and North America.
The deal would mean that the bulk of Arab East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli control, which means hundreds of criminal Jewish colonies would be rendered "legitimate." But as we all know, and the world knows, these illegitimate colonies are the offspring of acts of rape. Hence, legitimizing them would be akin to legitimizing rape.
The deal would also mean that Israel would remain in control of Palestinian border-crossings, air space, and territorial water and water resources for a prolonged period while giving Palestinians a false semblance of sovereignty.
Yes, the Palestinians would have the right to use the grandest of names to call their "state." But this state would be eviscerated of substance even of dignity, as it lacks viability, sovereignty, and territorial contiguity.
Needless, to say, such a "state" would be a greatest disaster that might befall the Palestinian people and their enduring national cause. It would be the laughingstock of the world.
Hence, we all must be vigilant as to the direction of the so-called peace talks between Israel, a state thoroughly intoxicated by its insolence and arrogance of power, and the PA, a de facto vanquished supplicant that cannot really be entrusted with our people's legitimate rights, including first and foremost the sacred right of return.
Now a final word to the Israelis: Don't you ever think that Mahmoud Abbas or Sa'eb Urikat or any other Palestinian leader is authorized to cede or even compromise Palestinian rights. If Yasser Arafat couldn't do it, it would be a great folly to think that Mahmoud Abbas would or could.
Khalid Amayreh is an American-educated Palestinian journalist living in Hebron in the West Bank.
7 dec 2013
Dr. Yousef Rizqa, political adviser to Palestinian Prime Minister in Gaza, warned of imposing a new Oslo accord on the Palestinian people similar to the Oslo agreement signed by the PLO and the Israeli government in 1993. In a statement to Quds Press, Rizqa said that US Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to Israel and occupied Palestinian territories came to reassure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, especially after reaching an agreement with Iran, of Washington’s backing.
This visit came to calm down Netanyahu and his government after the Iranian agreement by highlighting Israel's benefits from that agreement and by putting pressure on the Palestinians to meet Netanyahu's demands, he explained.
“As he has succeeded in the Iranian file,” Rizqa continued, “Kerry wants to succeed in the Palestinian file as well by pressuring the Palestinians to offer more concessions in favor of the Israelis”.
The political adviser pointed out that US President Barack Obama wants, before leaving office, to achieve some accomplishments for his Democratic Party through satisfying the Zionist lobby in the US by putting pressure on the Palestinians.
Rizqa warned of imposing a new Oslo accord on the Palestinian people, stressing that the PLO did not negotiate during the first Oslo accords but rather it accepted the Israeli plan offered at the time.
This visit came to calm down Netanyahu and his government after the Iranian agreement by highlighting Israel's benefits from that agreement and by putting pressure on the Palestinians to meet Netanyahu's demands, he explained.
“As he has succeeded in the Iranian file,” Rizqa continued, “Kerry wants to succeed in the Palestinian file as well by pressuring the Palestinians to offer more concessions in favor of the Israelis”.
The political adviser pointed out that US President Barack Obama wants, before leaving office, to achieve some accomplishments for his Democratic Party through satisfying the Zionist lobby in the US by putting pressure on the Palestinians.
Rizqa warned of imposing a new Oslo accord on the Palestinian people, stressing that the PLO did not negotiate during the first Oslo accords but rather it accepted the Israeli plan offered at the time.
20 nov 2013
Israeli occupation forces (IOF) demolished agricultural installations in Khirbat Al-Tawil hamlet, near Nablus, on Wednesday morning. Yousef Diriya, an activist in the hamlet, said that IOF soldiers escorted huge bulldozes that razed a water reservoir used for irrigation and a shed for storing agricultural tools.
He said that the demolition did not stop and could target other installations in the hamlet, which are constantly targeted by the IOF at the pretext of being built in area “c” that is under full Israeli civil and security control according to the Oslo accords.
He said that the demolition did not stop and could target other installations in the hamlet, which are constantly targeted by the IOF at the pretext of being built in area “c” that is under full Israeli civil and security control according to the Oslo accords.
6 nov 2013
The Secretary General of the Islamic-Christian Commission in Jerusalem and the expert on international law, Hanna Issa, said that Israel continued to persecute Jerusalemites since 1948 in order to grab their land. They have been earlier displaced, while today they are subjected to a systematic repressive policy to confiscate their land under various pretexts as part of the Israeli Judaization schemes, he said.
He stressed that all Israeli parties and successive governments adopt confiscation policy, considering the confiscation of Palestinian lands a flagrant violation of the Palestinian people's rights.
Israeli authorities confiscated Palestinian lands under various justifications including declaring it military zones. However, the lands are used in favor of settlement construction plans, Issa clarified.
The expert in International Law stressed that the political process and peace agreements did not stop Israeli confiscation schemes and settlement activities, by contrast Israeli confiscation policy has been intensified.
The Israeli successive governments have escalated confiscation policy since Oslo Accords at the expense of Palestinian lands and in favor of settlement projects in occupied Jerusalem and West Bank in violation to international humanitarian law topped by Hague Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention, he added.
He stressed that all Israeli parties and successive governments adopt confiscation policy, considering the confiscation of Palestinian lands a flagrant violation of the Palestinian people's rights.
Israeli authorities confiscated Palestinian lands under various justifications including declaring it military zones. However, the lands are used in favor of settlement construction plans, Issa clarified.
The expert in International Law stressed that the political process and peace agreements did not stop Israeli confiscation schemes and settlement activities, by contrast Israeli confiscation policy has been intensified.
The Israeli successive governments have escalated confiscation policy since Oslo Accords at the expense of Palestinian lands and in favor of settlement projects in occupied Jerusalem and West Bank in violation to international humanitarian law topped by Hague Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention, he added.
6 oct 2013
Palestinian activists called on all Palestinians to take part in “Palestinian Spring” revolution to be launched on the 2nd of November to resist Oslo Accords and its godfathers. The statement, released by Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, accused the PA of helping the Israeli occupation to achieve its goals in expanding towards the “Arab region”, conceding the Palestinian unalienable rights including the right of return, and relinquishing the holy places for the sake of keeping the authority over the Palestinian people.
The statement called for the fall of Oslo Accords in order to correct the “historical mistake” and “to clean our struggle record from this shameful agreement”.
The statement called for the fall of Oslo Accords in order to correct the “historical mistake” and “to clean our struggle record from this shameful agreement”.
Page: 2 - 1
