17 dec 2019
The picture taken on June 16, 2019, shows a poster in Gaza City denouncing US President Donald Trump's so-called peace plan, reading, "The deal of the century will not pass."
A Lebanese TV network has published what it reported to be a draft of US President Donald Trump’s controversial deal on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which envisages the establishment of a “new Palestine,” with occupied Jerusalem al-Quds remaining under mostly Israeli control and Saudi Arabia replacing Jordan as the custodian of the al-Aqsa Mosque.
According to Al-Mayadeen’s report on Monday, Trump’s so-called peace plan — which he calls the “deal of the century” — would see a trilateral agreement signed between Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Gaza-based Hamas resistance movement.
New Palestine
Under the deal, a “new Palestinian state” would be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, excluding the Israeli settlement blocs that would remain part of the occupied territories.
Shared Jerusalem al-Quds
Additionally, Jerusalem al-Quds — whose eastern sector was occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967 and illegally annexed — would not be split but would rather be “shared” between Israel and the Palestinian state, with the Arab population of the city becoming residents of Palestine.
The Jerusalem al-Quds municipality would become responsible for the entire city, while the Palestinian state would be responsible for education and would pay the Israeli municipality taxes and utilities.
Jews would not be allowed to purchase Arab homes and vice versa, while no additional areas would be annexed to Jerusalem al-Quds and the city’s holy sites would preserve their status quo.
Al-Aqsa custodianship shifts to Riyadh
Meanwhile, the al-Aqsa Mosque, which is currently administered by the Waqf — an arm of the Jordanian Ministry of Sacred Properties — will be placed under Saudi Arabia’s control.
Egypt gives territory to new Palestine
Regarding the Gaza Strip, the draft deal stipulates that Egypt would grant land to the new Palestinian state to be used for industrial, agricultural and commercial purposes as well as the building of an airport. However, Palestinians would not be allowed to live in the lands provided by Egypt.
Moreover, a highway and a pipeline for treated water would be built between Gaza and the West Bank.
$30bn funding
The wealthy Persian Gulf Arab states, the United States and the European Union would economically sponsor the Washington-crafted deal, providing 70, 20, and 10 percent of the funds, respectively.
“An amount of $30 billion will be allocated over a period of 5 years for projects related to the new Palestinian state,” the purported draft deal said.
The contributions by the Persian Gulf countries would be split proportionate to their oil production capacity.
Palestinians pay for protection
Furthermore, an agreement would be signed between Israel and the new Palestinian state, with the Tel Aviv regime providing protection to Palestine from “external aggression,” while Palestinians pay for it.
The amount the Palestinians will have to pay for protection would be negotiated between the Arab nations and Israel.
Timetable for ‘disarming’ Hamas, building Palestinian airport
Upon the signing of the so-called peace plan, Hamas would hand over its weapons to Egypt and its members would receive monthly salaries from Arab nations.
Gaza's sea borders and land crossings with Israel and Egypt would be opened to international trade.
A year after the agreement is implemented, elections would be held in Palestine.
All Palestinian prisoners would be gradually released from Israeli jails over a period of three years.
Within five years, a seaport and an airport would be constructed for the Palestinian state. Until that time, Palestinians would use Israeli ports.
Palestine's borders would be open to the passage of civilians and goods.
A Chinese company would build a highway that rises 30 meters above the ground connecting Gaza to the West Bank.
The Jordan Valley would remain under Israeli control. Highway 90 would be expanded to link the Palestinian state with Jordan.
Penalties for objection
If Israel rejects the deal, the US will end economic support for the regime.
If Hamas and the PLO oppose the agreement, Washington will end all financial support it provides to Palestinians and prevent funding provided by other countries.
If the PLO accepts the plan and Hamas or the Islamic Jihad dismiss it, then the two groups would bear the responsibility of their decision.
In any military confrontation between Israel and Hamas, the US will support Israel.
That US plan on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — which is widely reported to be biased towards the Tel Aviv regime — has already been unanimously rejected by all Palestinian factions.
The US unveiled the economic portion of its initiative during a conference in Bahrain in June despite a Palestinian boycott.
Palestinians stopped recognizing the US as a mediator in the conflict with the Tel Aviv regime in 2017, after Trump recognized occupied Jerusalem al-Quds as Israel’s “capital” in defiance of international law.
A Lebanese TV network has published what it reported to be a draft of US President Donald Trump’s controversial deal on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which envisages the establishment of a “new Palestine,” with occupied Jerusalem al-Quds remaining under mostly Israeli control and Saudi Arabia replacing Jordan as the custodian of the al-Aqsa Mosque.
According to Al-Mayadeen’s report on Monday, Trump’s so-called peace plan — which he calls the “deal of the century” — would see a trilateral agreement signed between Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Gaza-based Hamas resistance movement.
New Palestine
Under the deal, a “new Palestinian state” would be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, excluding the Israeli settlement blocs that would remain part of the occupied territories.
Shared Jerusalem al-Quds
Additionally, Jerusalem al-Quds — whose eastern sector was occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967 and illegally annexed — would not be split but would rather be “shared” between Israel and the Palestinian state, with the Arab population of the city becoming residents of Palestine.
The Jerusalem al-Quds municipality would become responsible for the entire city, while the Palestinian state would be responsible for education and would pay the Israeli municipality taxes and utilities.
Jews would not be allowed to purchase Arab homes and vice versa, while no additional areas would be annexed to Jerusalem al-Quds and the city’s holy sites would preserve their status quo.
Al-Aqsa custodianship shifts to Riyadh
Meanwhile, the al-Aqsa Mosque, which is currently administered by the Waqf — an arm of the Jordanian Ministry of Sacred Properties — will be placed under Saudi Arabia’s control.
Egypt gives territory to new Palestine
Regarding the Gaza Strip, the draft deal stipulates that Egypt would grant land to the new Palestinian state to be used for industrial, agricultural and commercial purposes as well as the building of an airport. However, Palestinians would not be allowed to live in the lands provided by Egypt.
Moreover, a highway and a pipeline for treated water would be built between Gaza and the West Bank.
$30bn funding
The wealthy Persian Gulf Arab states, the United States and the European Union would economically sponsor the Washington-crafted deal, providing 70, 20, and 10 percent of the funds, respectively.
“An amount of $30 billion will be allocated over a period of 5 years for projects related to the new Palestinian state,” the purported draft deal said.
The contributions by the Persian Gulf countries would be split proportionate to their oil production capacity.
Palestinians pay for protection
Furthermore, an agreement would be signed between Israel and the new Palestinian state, with the Tel Aviv regime providing protection to Palestine from “external aggression,” while Palestinians pay for it.
The amount the Palestinians will have to pay for protection would be negotiated between the Arab nations and Israel.
Timetable for ‘disarming’ Hamas, building Palestinian airport
Upon the signing of the so-called peace plan, Hamas would hand over its weapons to Egypt and its members would receive monthly salaries from Arab nations.
Gaza's sea borders and land crossings with Israel and Egypt would be opened to international trade.
A year after the agreement is implemented, elections would be held in Palestine.
All Palestinian prisoners would be gradually released from Israeli jails over a period of three years.
Within five years, a seaport and an airport would be constructed for the Palestinian state. Until that time, Palestinians would use Israeli ports.
Palestine's borders would be open to the passage of civilians and goods.
A Chinese company would build a highway that rises 30 meters above the ground connecting Gaza to the West Bank.
The Jordan Valley would remain under Israeli control. Highway 90 would be expanded to link the Palestinian state with Jordan.
Penalties for objection
If Israel rejects the deal, the US will end economic support for the regime.
If Hamas and the PLO oppose the agreement, Washington will end all financial support it provides to Palestinians and prevent funding provided by other countries.
If the PLO accepts the plan and Hamas or the Islamic Jihad dismiss it, then the two groups would bear the responsibility of their decision.
In any military confrontation between Israel and Hamas, the US will support Israel.
That US plan on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — which is widely reported to be biased towards the Tel Aviv regime — has already been unanimously rejected by all Palestinian factions.
The US unveiled the economic portion of its initiative during a conference in Bahrain in June despite a Palestinian boycott.
Palestinians stopped recognizing the US as a mediator in the conflict with the Tel Aviv regime in 2017, after Trump recognized occupied Jerusalem al-Quds as Israel’s “capital” in defiance of international law.
14 dec 2019
The New York Times opinion section doesn’t play fair. That is not exactly a revelation but sometimes enough is enough and the newspaper’s anti-Palestinian bias needs to be reiterated.
A new executive order signed by President Donald Trump threatens the First Amendment rights of students. They could be punished merely for saying that Israel is a racist endeavor because it denies equal rights to all people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Trump’s embrace of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism means federal dollars could well be cut or pulled entirely over certain criticisms of Israel.
Students face the prospect, mind you, of being told it is anti-Semitic to advocate for equal rights for Palestinians or for advocating that Israel become a state for all citizens rather than an exclusivist Jewish state.
In the face of this emerging government attack on free speech, what does the newspaper of record do? It gives first word to Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and courtesy of the administration’s nepotism a senior adviser to the president, providing space for an op-ed to defend the executive order.
Of course, Kushner is silent in the op-ed on his father-in-law’s own anti-Semitic speech from the prior weekend. That speech gave succor to the bigoted views of white nationalists with its suggestion of Jews as “brutal killers” driven by their wealth and indulged in misrepresentations of the Palestinian-led movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions. tweet
For Trump and Kushner, the only good Palestinian is a quiet Palestinian – or a dead one as their support for Israeli attacks on Palestinians in Gaza has made clear, along with their decisions to cut off vital aid to Palestinian refugees.
Kushner is clear in expressing the administration’s view that opposing Zionism – Israel’s state ideology – amounts to anti-Semitism.
If that’s the case, Palestinians and their allies will be expected to shut up about how Israel’s state ideology has dispossessed them or how they’re living under the boot of a racist state with discriminatory laws.
That’s the new anti-Semitism identified by the Trump administration – while no one in the administration seems to have ideas on how to stop violent anti-Semitic attacks from Jersey City to Pittsburgh to Poway.
One thought: Stop employing racist language to divide Americans and stop praising racists as “very fine people.”
Will intimidation work or backfire?
The Trump-Kushner tandem think they can intimidate their way to quiescent students on US campuses.
I suspect, however, that they’ve seriously miscalculated and will get more pushback than ever with louder calls than ever for equal rights for Palestinians. Government coercion intended to curtail calls for equal rights may well lead to students being more, not less, vocal about the injustices faced by Palestinians.
Students being told they need to keep quiet about Palestinian rights seems like a surefire means to produce the opposite result.
But that’s not certain. University action to kick student activists off campus will be closely watched around the country and could suppress opposition.
If government intimidation wins the day, with administrators helping carry out a silencing campaign, there’s no telling what might be ordered next.
But the assault on free speech rights is plenty alarming without speculating on whether or not it will work.
And in that effort, it must be said that James Bennet, New York Times editorial page editor overseeing the opinion department, is helping lead the way with the Kushner piece.
Kushner has been given first shot at defining the issue, much as cable news outlets consistently provide Israeli spokespeople with first go at framing the narrative around Israeli military attacks on Gaza.
The Kushner op-ed, of course, follows Bennet’s hiring of Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss, notorious anti-Palestinian writers.
Weiss, in particular, has pushed to the fore a crackdown on campus free speech, both from her days working against Palestinian academics at Columbia University and her more recent writing for The New York Times.
A freedom movement deserves better
But The New York Times wasn’t done. It also ran an editorial of its own on the subject (while running this better op-ed the next day).
The editorial rightly included mention of violent right-wing anti-Semites with their deadly attacks on American Jews and pointed to free speech concerns.
Yet it also found time to attack the BDS movement and misrepresent student actions at Emory University.
“Whatever its intent,” the editorial declared, “BDS has helped to create a hostile environment for Jewish students, most of whom support Israel. At Emory University, for example, students with mezuzot on their door posts were served with mock eviction notices.”
This is profoundly misleading, to the extent that a correction ought to be issued.
First, many readers will conclude from the framing that only Jewish students received the eviction notices. This is false as Emory officials have themselves admitted, some more candidly [pdf] than others.
Secondly, what were these eviction notices? They were educational material explaining what happens to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.
That critical detail goes unnoted.
Nearly simultaneous Islamophobia at Emory, meanwhile, passes without notice by The New York Times. Of course, that’s hardly surprising as Emory’s police somehow determined that the desecration of a Muslim ablution room was an “accident.”
The urine and feces, however, suggest otherwise.
An article on the subject by The Emory Wheel reads like a subtle report on a police cover-up. Edward Ahmed Mitchell, executive director of the Georgia Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told The Electronic Intifada that he was “skeptical” this was an “innocent mistake.”
A more thoughtful editorial from The Times would have covered events at Emory more fully and fairly and said far more about what the BDS movement is attempting to accomplish.
Such omissions are no surprise.
Just a day earlier, Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman wrote an explanatory New York Times article on Trump’s executive order which described BDS as a “movement against Israel.” A different New York Times article published online Thursday evening referred to “the burgeoning anti-Israel movement on college campuses.”
Missing from both articles – the second article didn’t even reference BDS – were key facts. Namely, BDS is a nonviolent movement. It’s calling for equal rights for Palestinian citizens, an end to the Israeli occupation and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
A “movement against Israel” is more menacing, however, and so that’s what readers got.
Spin that emphasizes anti-Israel sentiment rather than calls for Palestinian freedom and equal rights is misleading and unfair. It keeps readers uneducated about a powerful social justice movement modeled on the effort to divest from apartheid South Africa.
This freedom movement deserves better, more honest coverage.
Where, it should be asked, are the Palestinian voices on the op-ed page who can raise profound concerns about government intimidation and the trampling of the First Amendment, while saying in their own words what the BDS movement advocates?
Or should would-be government censors always be given priority by the newspaper of record?
A new executive order signed by President Donald Trump threatens the First Amendment rights of students. They could be punished merely for saying that Israel is a racist endeavor because it denies equal rights to all people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Trump’s embrace of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism means federal dollars could well be cut or pulled entirely over certain criticisms of Israel.
Students face the prospect, mind you, of being told it is anti-Semitic to advocate for equal rights for Palestinians or for advocating that Israel become a state for all citizens rather than an exclusivist Jewish state.
In the face of this emerging government attack on free speech, what does the newspaper of record do? It gives first word to Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and courtesy of the administration’s nepotism a senior adviser to the president, providing space for an op-ed to defend the executive order.
Of course, Kushner is silent in the op-ed on his father-in-law’s own anti-Semitic speech from the prior weekend. That speech gave succor to the bigoted views of white nationalists with its suggestion of Jews as “brutal killers” driven by their wealth and indulged in misrepresentations of the Palestinian-led movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions. tweet
For Trump and Kushner, the only good Palestinian is a quiet Palestinian – or a dead one as their support for Israeli attacks on Palestinians in Gaza has made clear, along with their decisions to cut off vital aid to Palestinian refugees.
Kushner is clear in expressing the administration’s view that opposing Zionism – Israel’s state ideology – amounts to anti-Semitism.
If that’s the case, Palestinians and their allies will be expected to shut up about how Israel’s state ideology has dispossessed them or how they’re living under the boot of a racist state with discriminatory laws.
That’s the new anti-Semitism identified by the Trump administration – while no one in the administration seems to have ideas on how to stop violent anti-Semitic attacks from Jersey City to Pittsburgh to Poway.
One thought: Stop employing racist language to divide Americans and stop praising racists as “very fine people.”
Will intimidation work or backfire?
The Trump-Kushner tandem think they can intimidate their way to quiescent students on US campuses.
I suspect, however, that they’ve seriously miscalculated and will get more pushback than ever with louder calls than ever for equal rights for Palestinians. Government coercion intended to curtail calls for equal rights may well lead to students being more, not less, vocal about the injustices faced by Palestinians.
Students being told they need to keep quiet about Palestinian rights seems like a surefire means to produce the opposite result.
But that’s not certain. University action to kick student activists off campus will be closely watched around the country and could suppress opposition.
If government intimidation wins the day, with administrators helping carry out a silencing campaign, there’s no telling what might be ordered next.
But the assault on free speech rights is plenty alarming without speculating on whether or not it will work.
And in that effort, it must be said that James Bennet, New York Times editorial page editor overseeing the opinion department, is helping lead the way with the Kushner piece.
Kushner has been given first shot at defining the issue, much as cable news outlets consistently provide Israeli spokespeople with first go at framing the narrative around Israeli military attacks on Gaza.
The Kushner op-ed, of course, follows Bennet’s hiring of Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss, notorious anti-Palestinian writers.
Weiss, in particular, has pushed to the fore a crackdown on campus free speech, both from her days working against Palestinian academics at Columbia University and her more recent writing for The New York Times.
A freedom movement deserves better
But The New York Times wasn’t done. It also ran an editorial of its own on the subject (while running this better op-ed the next day).
The editorial rightly included mention of violent right-wing anti-Semites with their deadly attacks on American Jews and pointed to free speech concerns.
Yet it also found time to attack the BDS movement and misrepresent student actions at Emory University.
“Whatever its intent,” the editorial declared, “BDS has helped to create a hostile environment for Jewish students, most of whom support Israel. At Emory University, for example, students with mezuzot on their door posts were served with mock eviction notices.”
This is profoundly misleading, to the extent that a correction ought to be issued.
First, many readers will conclude from the framing that only Jewish students received the eviction notices. This is false as Emory officials have themselves admitted, some more candidly [pdf] than others.
Secondly, what were these eviction notices? They were educational material explaining what happens to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.
That critical detail goes unnoted.
Nearly simultaneous Islamophobia at Emory, meanwhile, passes without notice by The New York Times. Of course, that’s hardly surprising as Emory’s police somehow determined that the desecration of a Muslim ablution room was an “accident.”
The urine and feces, however, suggest otherwise.
An article on the subject by The Emory Wheel reads like a subtle report on a police cover-up. Edward Ahmed Mitchell, executive director of the Georgia Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told The Electronic Intifada that he was “skeptical” this was an “innocent mistake.”
A more thoughtful editorial from The Times would have covered events at Emory more fully and fairly and said far more about what the BDS movement is attempting to accomplish.
Such omissions are no surprise.
Just a day earlier, Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman wrote an explanatory New York Times article on Trump’s executive order which described BDS as a “movement against Israel.” A different New York Times article published online Thursday evening referred to “the burgeoning anti-Israel movement on college campuses.”
Missing from both articles – the second article didn’t even reference BDS – were key facts. Namely, BDS is a nonviolent movement. It’s calling for equal rights for Palestinian citizens, an end to the Israeli occupation and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
A “movement against Israel” is more menacing, however, and so that’s what readers got.
Spin that emphasizes anti-Israel sentiment rather than calls for Palestinian freedom and equal rights is misleading and unfair. It keeps readers uneducated about a powerful social justice movement modeled on the effort to divest from apartheid South Africa.
This freedom movement deserves better, more honest coverage.
Where, it should be asked, are the Palestinian voices on the op-ed page who can raise profound concerns about government intimidation and the trampling of the First Amendment, while saying in their own words what the BDS movement advocates?
Or should would-be government censors always be given priority by the newspaper of record?
13 dec 2019
The US-based group Jewish Voice for Peace issued the following statement in response to Donald Trump’s latest executive order.
Their statment reads as follows:
The impending Executive Order by President Trump will do nothing to make Jewish students safer on college campuses, and Jewish Voice for Peace is appalled at this blatant attempt to silence criticism of Israel.
Trump’s Executive Order allegedly targeting campus antisemitism is the culmination of decades of attempts by anti-Palestinian organizations to suppress Palestinian organizing, advocacy, research and teaching on college campuses.
The EO, which would codify a dangerous and overly broad definition of antisemitism into federal civil rights law, fails to offer any protection to Jewish students.
Instead, it will usher in a climate of fear on college campuses, where university administrations will be incentivized to silence student activism, faculty research, and teaching about Palestine – while white supremacist organizing, which has been steadily increasing under Trump, will go unchecked.
Rabbi Alissa Wise, acting Co-Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace, said:
“Three days ago, Trump said Jews would vote for him because they like money. And yet now he suddenly pretends to care about Jewish safety? He has never cared about stopping antisemitism – this Executive Order is about silencing Palestinians and the people who speak up with them. The Executive Order is his way of forcing through a deeply unpopular and unconstitutional bill. Jewish Voice for Peace calls on members of Congress to immediately condemn this Executive Order and commit to overturning this authoritarian act.”
This EO essentially duplicates legislation that has failed to garner bipartisan support in the House or Senate for years. Opposition to the so-called “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” has grown steadily, including objections from activists and free speech groups.
Most recently, over 250 Jewish students opposed the 2019 act. In 2016, over 60 Jewish Studies professors, and over 300 Jewish students, opposed this definition.
When this definition was proposed by anti-Palestinian activists to the University of California in 2015, over 300 UC faculty came out in opposition, along with the LA Times editorial board, American Civil Liberties Union, and California Scholars for Academic Freedom [pdf].
The EO relies on the work of Kenneth Marcus, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education. Marcus, and his organization the Brandeis Center, has long harassed students and faculty who disagree with his extremist and right-wing views on Israel.
He openly advocates for defunding Middle East studies departments who are too critical of Israeli policy, and has, in his capacity as head of the Brandeis Center, gone after individual students who protest Israeli actions.
Their statment reads as follows:
The impending Executive Order by President Trump will do nothing to make Jewish students safer on college campuses, and Jewish Voice for Peace is appalled at this blatant attempt to silence criticism of Israel.
Trump’s Executive Order allegedly targeting campus antisemitism is the culmination of decades of attempts by anti-Palestinian organizations to suppress Palestinian organizing, advocacy, research and teaching on college campuses.
The EO, which would codify a dangerous and overly broad definition of antisemitism into federal civil rights law, fails to offer any protection to Jewish students.
Instead, it will usher in a climate of fear on college campuses, where university administrations will be incentivized to silence student activism, faculty research, and teaching about Palestine – while white supremacist organizing, which has been steadily increasing under Trump, will go unchecked.
Rabbi Alissa Wise, acting Co-Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace, said:
“Three days ago, Trump said Jews would vote for him because they like money. And yet now he suddenly pretends to care about Jewish safety? He has never cared about stopping antisemitism – this Executive Order is about silencing Palestinians and the people who speak up with them. The Executive Order is his way of forcing through a deeply unpopular and unconstitutional bill. Jewish Voice for Peace calls on members of Congress to immediately condemn this Executive Order and commit to overturning this authoritarian act.”
This EO essentially duplicates legislation that has failed to garner bipartisan support in the House or Senate for years. Opposition to the so-called “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” has grown steadily, including objections from activists and free speech groups.
Most recently, over 250 Jewish students opposed the 2019 act. In 2016, over 60 Jewish Studies professors, and over 300 Jewish students, opposed this definition.
When this definition was proposed by anti-Palestinian activists to the University of California in 2015, over 300 UC faculty came out in opposition, along with the LA Times editorial board, American Civil Liberties Union, and California Scholars for Academic Freedom [pdf].
The EO relies on the work of Kenneth Marcus, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education. Marcus, and his organization the Brandeis Center, has long harassed students and faculty who disagree with his extremist and right-wing views on Israel.
He openly advocates for defunding Middle East studies departments who are too critical of Israeli policy, and has, in his capacity as head of the Brandeis Center, gone after individual students who protest Israeli actions.
Page: 51 - 50 - 49 - 48 - 47 - 46 - 45 - 44 - 43 - 42 - 41 - 40 - 39 - 38 - 37 - 36 - 35 - 34 - 33 - 32 - 31 - 30
