Land for Peace ?

ϟ Hamas Has Nothing to Teach Abbas About Promulgating Hate

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has just hired a new adviser, the Jerusalem Post reports. Mahmoud Awad Damra is one of the prisoners Israel freed to ransom kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit in October; he was then five years into a 15-year sentence for his role as planner and logistics coordinator of several deadly terror attacks whose victims included three U.S. citizens. That, combined with his previous job running Yasser Arafat’s Force 17 security service, clearly qualifies him for his new role of advising Abbas on local government.

Two weeks ago, during a working visit to Turkey, Abbas took time out to meet with Amna Muna and 10 other convicted terrorists who were also freed in the Shalit deal, but whom Israel considered particularly dangerous and therefore refused to allow back into the West Bank. Muna used an Internet romance with a 16-year-old Israeli to lure him to Ramallah, where her partners in crime murdered him. When Israel protested this meeting, Abbas adviser Nimer Hamad insisted it was “natural” for a president to “meet his people wherever they are.” But of course: American and European presidents always make a point of meeting with convicted murderers during overseas trips – just like they always hire convicted terrorists as special advisers. Isn’t that how “moderate,” “peace-seeking” leaders are supposed to behave?

Then there’s the children’s magazine Zayzafuna, which is partially funded by the PA and has several PA officials on its advisory board, including Deputy Education Minister Jihad Zakarneh. As Palestinian Media Watch revealed in a damning expose, the magazine combines genuinely positive educational content with gems like an essay by a teenage girl citing Hitler as one of her four heroes, because he’s “the one who killed the Jews.” The essay describes a dream in which she meets all four; Hitler receives her thanks for the sage advice he offers.

After PMW’s report was published, the Simon Wiesenthal Center urged UNESCO to end its support for the magazine, and surprisingly, UNESCO promised to do so. But there’s been no similar contrition from the PA. Indeed, as PMW noted, the latest issue ofZayzafuna contains new gems: an essay by a school principal lauding Arafat for demanding “the liberation of all the Palestinian land, without bargaining, without compromise,” and a map that makes the same point by showing all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza painted as a Palestinian flag.

All this begs the question of why American taxpayers should be supporting such activity: While the Obama administration demanded  UNESCO halt funding for Zayzafuna, it has simultaneously been urging Congress to approve funding for the PA – and since money is fungible, that helps Abbas finance projects like the magazine and Damra’s salary.

But it also underscores the absurdity of expecting the recent unity deal between Abbas’s Fatah party and Hamas to moderate the latter. When it comes to inciting terror and promulgating hatred of Jews and Israel, Hamas has nothing to teach Abbas, only something to learn: For unlike Hamas, Abbas has figured out how to traffic in hatred while still being lauded worldwide as a peace-maker.

ϟ Abbas’ demands violate Oslo

There is an interesting aspect of Abbas’ demand that there be a ‘halt’ to what he terms the construction of ‘settlements’. The word ‘settlement’ itself is carefully chosen to convey the sense of illegality and illegitimacy which Abbas desires to associate with Jewish presence in a land that has quite literally been Jewish for millenia, and which was Arab for nineteen years - and even then, only because of a crime against international law committed by the Jordanians in 1948. 

Much more insidious, however, is Abbas’s demand that Israel not build in these areas. The very act of making such a demand constitutes a violation of the Oslo Accords, or more precisely of the Interim Agreements between the Israelis and the Arabs, signed and witnessed by the European Union, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, and Norway, and of course by the United States, on 28 September 1995 (see Article XVII, para. 1). See inter alia annex to UN document A/48/486-S/26560 dated 11 October 1993. 

If you consult the above documentation, in particular Article 27 of Annex III (Civil Affairs Annex), you will note that full rights for construction powers are granted to the respective authorities (in this case, the Israeli Government, and the ‘PA’ or ‘Palestinian Authority’). Judea & Samaria were split into three zones: A, B and C. In Zone A, all control (including security) was handed over to the PA. In Zone B, all control except security, was handed over to the PA. Only in Zone C - which includes Israeli villages and Israeli military installations, was full control retained by the Israeli authorities. In all of these zones (including C), the situation was agreed upon by the Israelis, the ‘Palestinians’, and was given official sanction in the aforementioned UN documents (supra).

So in fact, it is legal and moral nonsense, to refer to Israel as ‘the occupying power’ in any of the above zones, or to assert that Israel must ‘halt construction’ in Zone C. During the discussions which led to the Interim Agreement of 1995, the PA had requested the addition of a ‘side letter’ which would restrict construction in Zone C. This request was ultimately withdrawn. 

As for the ‘settlements’ themselves, the usual rationale for ‘illegality’ is that their existence is a violation of the IV Geneva Convention. This is not the case, because Article II of the aforementioned Convention deals with ‘partial or total occupation’ of the territory of a High Contracting Party. As Jordan’s seizure and subsequent annexation of Judea & Samaria came about following a war of aggression, Jordan does not enjoy this status. (International Law, Malcolm N. Shaw, Fifth Edition, Cambridge University Press 2003, pp. 1061-1063. See also Article XLII, Hague Regulations 1907 and A. Gerson, Israel, the West Bank and International Law). To accord the status of ‘High Contracting Party’ to Jordan from 1948 onwards would be to legitimize a posteriori armed aggression and land theft. [Obviously, the PLO is not a “high contracting party” either. - EoZ]

The second reason the Convention does not apply can be found in Paragraph 6 of Article XLIX, which states: ‘The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies’. To quote Prof. Eugene V. Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School and US Under Secretary of State, ‘The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are most emphatically volunteers. They have not been “deported” or “transferred” to the area by the Government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population it is the goal of the Geneva Convention to prevent’. 

Also, to cite Professor Julius Stone (former Challis Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the University of Sydney and visiting Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales), ‘Irony would…be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that…the West Bank…must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6)’.

I repeat: there is no legal impediment whatsoever to Israeli construction in Zone C, and this is where the currently disputed ‘settlements’ are located. By demanding that construction be halted, Mahommed Abbas is committing yet another violation of the Oslo Accords (as he did when he went to the UN in September of 2011), and showing that neither he nor his ‘Palestinian Authority’ can be trusted. 

---

I would add that the PLO leaders regularly say that Israel, by continuing to build in the areas of existing communities, are violating “signed agreements.” They seem to be referring to the Roadmap of 2003. But Israel made clear at the time that it did not accept certain parts of the roadmap, and spelled them out.

ϟ What we can learn from Salam Fayyad’s threat

From WAFA:

Prime Minister Salam Fayyad Monday condemned the Israeli deliberations on a bill submitted to the Knesset for declaring Jerusalem, including West and the East Jerusalem, to be the capital of Israel and the Jewish people.

Fayyad, in a press conference while signing a cooperation agreement between the Palestinian Investment Promotion Agency and Jordan Investment Board in Ramallah, stressed that no one has the right to decide the future of occupied East Jerusalem.

“There will never be a solution unless Jerusalem becomes the eternal capital of the Palestinian state,” said Fayyad, adding that the Israeli government, Knesset or any Israeli political party cannot deliberate on the Palestinian inalienable right to self-determination.

There is a contradiction between the two statements. Fayyad is not saying that “no one has the right” to determine the future of the parts of Jerusalem across the Green Line, he is saying that only Palestinian Arabs have the right to determine it.

When Fayyad says “there will never be a solution unless…” he is implicitly saying that “there will never be peace unless…” What he is saying is that without Palestinian Arab control of the historic parts of Jerusalem, there will continue to be fighting, terror, war and whatever else the Arab world wants to serve up.

Palestinian Arab leaders can make such threats with impunity, and without any fear that any Western leaders or the UN will criticize the fact that they are essentially acting like the mob, saying that if you don’t want to get hurt, do what they say.

An interesting subtext to his statement is that Fayyad is tacitly admitting that Israel wants peace and that Palestinian Arabs consider peace to be of secondary importance - not as important as getting their demands met. After all, there is no legal, logical or moral reason a solution must include Jerusalem as part of “Palestine.” A solution can certainly be found - and reached quite quickly - if Palestinian Arabs would compromise on their demands. But if we take Fayyad’s words at face value, he is saying that his people are less interested in a solution to the conflict as they are in gaining all of the land they claim exclusively.

The funny thing is that everyone knows this. Arabs know it, the UN knows it, the EU knows it:  Israel craves peace and is willing to compromise to reach an agreement. Palestinian Arabs are more interested in getting 100% of their demands met - to them, it is more important than peace, or independence, or gaining a land that could be a refuge for the descendants of 1948 Arab refugees.

The relative priorities of both sides are neatly encapsulated by Fayyad’s demand.

(Source: elderofziyon.blogspot.com)

Abbas, look in the mirror

From Ha’aretz:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Friday in an interview with Channel 2 that the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations’ 1947 plan to partition Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state.

The Palestinian and Arab refusal to accept a UN plan to partition the then-British-controlled mandate of Palestine sparked widespread fighting, then Arab military intervention after Israel declared independence the following year. The Arabs lost the war.

”It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole,” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told Channel 2.

Yet Abbas is just as rejectionist as the Palestinian Arab leaders were in 1947, as he has rejected offers of peace that would end the conflict - and today keeps adding pre-conditions before even talking to Israel.

So while hindsight is 20/20, Abbas cannot learn the obvious lessons:

ϟ Netanyahu: Israel to refuse talks if Hamas joins PA

PM declares Israel will not renew peace negations if terror group joins Palestinian government. ‘I will not allow a Palestinian state to turn into Gaza, Lebanon,’ he states

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Sunday that if Hamasjoins the Palestinian government, Israel will not enter into negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

“I will not allow a Palestinian state to turn into…Gaza andLebanon,” he said, referring to Hamas and Hezbollah’s missile arsenals.

“The Palestinians will have to recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people. This precondition is non-negotiable,” said Netanyahu during a conference for Israeli ambassadors at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem.

Read More

ϟ Abbas Remains the Obstacle to Peace

Abbas: Refusing to Negotiate, Demanding Preconditions

Time and again, Israeli leaders have offered direct negotiations to their Palestinian neighbors. Unfortunately, Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rebuffed Israeli entreaties, set preconditions for talks and turned to bodies like the United Nations. The United States and the international community should continue to urge the Palestinians to end their long campaign of rejectionism and make a real effort to achieve peace through negotiations with the Jewish state.

June 2009: Netanyahu Accepts Two-State Solution and Calls for Immediate Talks;Abbas Refuses to Negotiate.

• Israeli Step for Peace: Just weeks after his government is formed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced in a major policy address at Bar-Ilan University that he for the first time accepts—and is prepared to negotiate—a two-state solution to the conflict: a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state of Israel. “In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect,” Netanyahu said. “Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.”

• Palestinian Rejection: Rather than moving to the peace table, the Palestinian leadership rebuffed Netanyahu. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, Abbas’ spokesman, said: “Netanyahu’s remarks have sabotaged all initiatives and paralyzed all current efforts.”

November 2009: Israel Implements 10-Month Settlement Construction Freeze; Abbas Refuses to Negotiate

• Israeli Step for Peace: Netanyahu implemented an unprecedented 10-month settlement freeze to facilitate negotiations starting in November 2009. “My cabinet authorized this far-reaching step because of our deep desire for peace,” Netanyahu said. “We hope that this decision will help launch meaningful peace negotiations to reach a historic peace agreement that will finally end the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel.”

• Palestinian Rejection: Abbas refused Netanyahu’s call for talks until the final month of the moratorium—only to cynically claim that its expiration would make it impossible for him to continue. 

February 2011: Israel Calls for Talks, Implements Goodwill Gestures; Abbas Continues to Turn His Back on Peace

• Israeli Step for Peace: Netanyahu called for a resumption of talks and implemented goodwill gestures to enhance the Palestinian economy in the West Bank, including expediting the building process for Palestinian schools and clinics. “We want to have genuine, comprehensive discussions about the right way to establish a stable and durable peace in an unstable region, peace that can weather the storms of this turbulent region,” Netanyahu said. “Israelis and Palestinians have many differences between them. But there is only one way to resolve those differences – a negotiated settlement, not through unilateral steps.”

• Palestinian Rejection: Instead of seizing the opportunity for talks, the Palestinians pursued efforts to attack Israel at the United Nations in defiance of the United States. Rejecting President Obama’s personal request to Abbas urging him to drop the matter, the Palestinians and their allies proposed a one-sided U.N. Security Council resolution that would have condemned Israel for settlement construction. 

May 2011: Netanyahu Prepared for “Painful Compromises” for Peace; Abbas Continues to Refuse to Negotiate

• Israeli Step for Peace: In an address to a joint meeting of Congress, Netanyahu called for negotiating a two-state solution that would include significant territorial concessions. “I’m willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace,” Netanyahu said, adding: “The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. … In any real peace agreement, in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders.”

• Palestinian Rejection: Abbas dismissed Netanyahu’s speech, saying that it had “nothing we can build on” for the peace process and that the remarks “traveled far from peace.” 

September 2011: Netanyahu Calls for Immediate Direct Talks; Abbas Continues to Refuse to Negotiate and Initiates Efforts to Achieve Palestinian U.N. Membership

• Israeli Step for Peace: In his address to the U.N. General Assembly, Netanyahu called on Abbas to negotiate with him that very day. “President Abbas, why don’t you join me?” he said. “We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let’s just get on with it. Let’s negotiate peace.”   “The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through U.N. resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties,” Netanyahu stressed. “The truth is that, so far, the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace.”

• Palestinian Rejection: Abbas refused to meet with Netanyahu while both were in New York and pressed ahead with Palestinian efforts to achieve statehood recognition at the United Nations. He said he would return to talks with Israel only if it meets certain preconditions: agreeing to start negotiations based on the 1967 lines and ending all settlement construction—preconditions that would prejudge critical elements of the negotiations process.

(Source: aipac.org)

ϟ Which side wants peace again?

From JPost:

In the second incident of its kind in the past week, Palestinian political activists Tuesday thwarted a meeting between Israelis and Palestinians in east Jerusalem.

The activists are opposed to such meetings under the pretext that they are designed to promote “normalization” between Palestinians and Israelis.

Tuesday’s meeting was initiated by the Palestine-Israel Journal, a non-profit organization founded in 1994 by Ziad Abu Zayyad and Victor Cygielman, two prominent Palestinian and Israeli journalists.

The group states that its main goal is to encourage dialogue between the civil societies and broaden the base of support for the peace process.

The title of Tuesday’s meeting was the “Arab Spring’s impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

However, the event was called off at the last minute after the organizers learned that a group of Palestinian activists belonging to various factions, including Fatah, PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s party, was planning to stage a demonstration in front of the conference hall.

“As a result of circumstances beyond our control, we regret to announce that the conference scheduled to take place today is postponed,” the organizers said in a statement.

The article goes into more detail of last week’s episode:

Last week, another organization called the Israeli Palestinian Confederation was forced to cancel a conference at the Ambassador Hotel in east Jerusalem after scores of Palestinians demonstrated outside the building. Some of the protesters stormed the hotel and confiscated leaflets and signs belonging to the organization.

Al Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh, who was invited to address the conference, did not show up after receiving threats from the anti- “normalization” activists.

Earlier this week, Hatem Abdel Kader, a senior Fatah operative, announced that his faction has declared “war” on meetings aimed at promoting “normalization” with Israel.

Nusseibeh denied Tuesday that the purpose of last week’s conference was to promote “normalization” between Israeli and Palestinian academics.

“On the contrary – the goal was to end the occupation and lay a mechanism for a better future for both sides,” he wrote in an article published in the Palestinian daily Al Quds.

He said that those who resorted to violence to foil the conference caused damage to the Palestinian leadership by making it appear as if it’s not interested in peace.

Maybe I missed it, but I never saw any extreme-right wing warmongering hawkish Likudniks ever protesting and threatening people interested in a dialogue with Arabs. 

That seems to be exclusively the purview of moderate, peace-seeking Fatah members. 

(Notice also that even the most moderate of “moderates,” Sari Nusseibeh, feels compelled to distance himself from any hint of “normalization” with Israel. Of course, even he has a big problem with facts.)

 Mahmoud Abbas is…The Rejectionist 

Moderate, shmoderate.

It is time to remove the blinders. If Abbas tells us in every conceivable language that he is not a peace partner, maybe we should start believing him.

ϟ Abbas and the company he keeps

Amna Muna, or “Sali” as she called herself while chatting over the Internet with the young Ofir Rahum, watched with great interest as Hassan al-Qadi riddled Ofir’s body with a Kalashnikov rifle.

Afterwards, she and her girlfriends went out for a nice meal before she hurried off to a defensive driving course. Ever since being freed in the Shalit deal, she and her terrorist friends have enjoyed the generous sponsorship of PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

At public appearances broadcast on Palestinian television, our “peace partner” is careful to laud and praise these terrorists in no uncertain terms. Shortly after the prisoner exchange deal, he announced that he would allocate $5 million as a “token of our esteem for the prisoners and as a personal gesture from the president.” 

At a speech in Ramallah he told the murderers that “your sacrifice and efforts were not in vain.” About a month ago he met with failed suicide bomber Amal Juma’ah and presented her with a map of Greater “Palestine” (including all of Israel’s territory) inscribed with the lines of a poem: “Mother, death has come, prepare the shroud/Mother, I march toward death without hesitation.”

Re-read those poetic lines and then take another look at the photo of the civilized, clean-shaven man wearing a suit and tie. He does not even bother to hide his views. Gone is the double-speak and pretense of the Arafat era. Abbas speaks with open mockery and defiance of Israel. In 2005 he told a Jordanian newspaper: “I had the honor of firing the first bullet against Israel. Since that time, he looks on benevolently at his thousands of devoted students who fire bullets at Israel.

On Tuesday night, Abbas met with the murderer who seduced young Ofir Rahum to his death. We must not let him seduce us to our deaths.

It is time to remove the blinders. If Abbas tells us in every conceivable language that he is not a peace partner, maybe we should start believing him.

ϟ ‘Abbas putting extremist murderers on pedestal’

Read More

ϟ Honesty is not the best policy for the Palestinian Authority

Last week Israeli premier Netanyahu declined when The New York Times asked him to write an op-ed for the paper. In a letter to the paper Ron Dermer, Netanyahu’s most senior advisor, explained that The New York Times had failed to heed the late Senator Moynihan’s admonition that ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinion but that no one is entitled to their own facts’.

Dermer also gave examples of the distortions and lies the New York Times had published this year. One of them was a historical revision by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in an op-ed for NYT in May 2011.

Abbas wrote at the time:

It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter,Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued.

The truth of course is, that Arab forces attacked the Jews in Palestine as soon as the UN voted in favor of partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.

Abbas

This week Abbas was caught lying again when he claimed that Hamas had renounced the use of armed resistance against Israel. Speeking to European reporters Abbas said the following about his meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal a month ago:

“We set the agreement’s pillars, and Hamas agreed with us that resistance will be popular and adopt peaceful ways, rather than military resistance,” the Palestinian president said. “The solution is the establishment of a state in the 1967 borders, and Hamas agreed to that, as well as to holding the elections on May 5, 2012.”

Peaceful resistance? Last week when Hamas celebrated its 23th anniversary in Gaza Hamas PM Haniyeh called upon the Muslim Brotherhood to start a war to liberate Jerusalem (Al Quds). He then specified that Jerusalem means East and West and also said the following:

“We affirm that armed resistance is our strategic option and the only way to liberate our land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the River [Jordan]. God willing, Hamas will lead the people… to the uprising until we liberate Palestine, all of Palestine”.

This week Hamas reiterated that it would never give up armed resistance against Israel. Salah al-Bardwil a member of Hamas’ Political Buro said that the issue was never raised in the negotiations between Fatah and Hamas.

Arekat

The lies of Abbas pale in comparison to those of PA chief negotiator Sa’eb Arekat.

In an op-ed hilariously entitled ‘The moment of truth’ that was published by The Jerusalem Post last week, Arekat asked the Israeli public to support the Palestinian bid for UN admission because, in his words, ”it is a peaceful, positive and collective investment in peace”.       

The facts are that other Fatah leaders called this ‘investment in peace’ the beginning of the end of Israel.

Abbas Zaki explained on Lebanon TV that ‘when we say that the settlement should be based upon these (1967) borders, President [Abbas] understands, we understand, and everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go.If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end’.

Moment of truth?

Arekat’s  most famous lie is perhaps the one about the ‘IDF massacre’ in Jenin in 2002. He then told CNN that 500 Palestinians were ‘massacred’ by IDF forces. In reality 52 Palestinians, mostly gunmen, and 23 IDF soldiers died in a battle. In his ‘Moment of truth’ article however, he outdoes himself.

Here are just a few examples of the lies in his Jerusalem Post article:

In the first sentence Arekat claims the following: “The two state solution on the 1967 borders has been the official (PLO) position for the past 23 years”.

In fact no reference to the pre-1967 lines was made in either the 1988 PLO statement to the UN, or the 1988 ‘Declaration of Independence’. The Arabic version of the declaration even demanded all the land west of the Jordan and never referred to Israel as a nation.

Peace process

A bit further on  he writes: “Twenty years of peace process have passed without a conclusion to the conflict. In fact, most Palestinians have witnessed their situation go from bad to worse in the past two decades, while Israel enjoys unprecedented economic growth and prosperity”.

The facts are that the conflict could have be concluded in 2000 during the Camp David summit. Instead Arafat launched a preplanned terror war. As a result, the Palestinian economy collapsed.  Current PA president Mahmoud Abbas had another chance to end the conflict in 2008. However, he never responded to Olmert’s final offer to establish a state on 98,5 % of the territories conquered in the 1967 Six Day War.

Arekat knows very well that the real unprecedented economic growth over the last five years took place in the Palestinian Authority. This happened after Israel removed restrictions in the West Bank, and prime minister Salam Fayad started to deal with the widespread corruption in the PA.

In a famous 2009 interview with Jason Diehl in the Washington Post,  Abbas said the following about the situation of the Palestinians in the West Bank: “ In the West Bank we have a good reality……the people are living a normal life”.

Read More

ϟ PM’s spokesperson slams PA for saying it is near collapse

The Prime Minister’s spokesperson to the Arab media criticized Tuesday the Palestinian Authority for saying it is on the verge of collapse while simultaneously rejecting “Israel’s repeated calls for peace talks.” 

“PA official [Saeb] Erekat says [sic] PA will collapse without the peace process, so why do they keep on rejecting Israel’s repeated calls for peace talks?” spokesperson Ofir Gendelman tweeted. 

Read More

(Source: jpost.com)

Mahmoud Abbas is…The Rejectionist