Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Monday, August 27, 2018

Palestinians Hate America But Love Its Money

US Aid, Palestinian Wakaha

by 
  • It is clear that the Palestinian boycott of the US administration did not include receiving funds from the Americans.
  • The Palestinians are entitled to voice their anger at the US. However, if they are so fed up with the US that they are even boycotting US administration officials, why are they demanding that the Americans continue to supply them with hundreds of millions of dollars each year?
  • The Palestinians are trying to blackmail the US by claiming, absurdly, that the recent US decisions jeopardize the two-state solution and prospects for peace in the Middle East. These are the very Palestinians, however, who have refused to resume peace talks with Israel for the past four years, since long before Trump was elected as president.
The question of Palestinian responsiveness is once again on display as Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and his senior officials in Ramallah step up their verbal attacks on the US administration after its decision to cut $200 million in American financial aid to the Palestinians.
Abbas and the PA leadership are again behaving like spoiled, angry children whose candy has been taken away from them, hurling abuse at the Trump administration. Recall that earlier this year, Abbas called US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman a "son of a dog."

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called David Friedman, the US Ambassador to Israel, a "son of a dog" in a televised speech, on March 19, 2018. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)

For the past 9 months, the Palestinian leaders have been waging a massive and unprecedented campaign of incitement and abuse against Trump and his administration. This campaign began immediately after Trump announced his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December 2017, and the campaign is continuing to this day as a reply to the US decision to slash $200 million from the American financial aid to the Palestinians.
Significantly, the PA and its leaders were the ones who initiated the crisis with the US administration. Their dissatisfaction with Trump's announcement on Jerusalem may be understandable, but they chose to take their protest to an extreme by boycotting the US administration and waging a smear campaignagainst Trump and his "Jewish advisors and envoys."
It is clear that the Palestinian boycott of the US administration did not include receiving funds from the Americans. One the one hand, the Palestinians have been boycotting and badmouthing US administration officials. On the other hand, Abbas and his representatives are now crying that the US administration is slashing $200 million of its financial aid to the Palestinians. If this isn't cheek in its finest form, what is?
The Arabic word for cheek, by the way, is wakaha. Were Abbas to behave in the same manner towards an Arab country for cutting financial aid to the Palestinians, he would have been accused by his Arab brothers of displaying wakaha at its best. Abbas, however, would think ten times before he uttered a bad word against any Arab country.
The Palestinians are basically telling the Americans: We have the right to condemn you every day, to burn your flags and photos of your president, to incite against you, to launch weekly protests against you, to accuse you of being under the "influence of the Jewish and Zionist lobby" and, at the same time, we have the right to continue receiving US taxpayer money.
Judging from their actions and assertions in the past few months, the Palestinians have turned the US into an enemy. They consider the US to be in "collusion" with the Israeli government and a "full partner in Israeli crimes against the Palestinians." They say they no longer trust the US to play any role in a peace process with Israel because of the Trump administration's "blind bias" in favor of Israel and its "hostile" policies towards the Palestinians.
The Palestinians, of course, are entitled to voice their anger at the US. However, if they are so fed up with the US that they are even boycotting US administration officials, why are they demanding that the Americans continue to supply them with hundreds of millions of dollars each year? Where's the vaunted Arab dignity, which requires an Arab not to humiliate himself in return for money, especially if it comes from someone you consider an enemy?
The answer to this question can be found in a statement issued on August 25 by PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat in response to the US decision to cut the $200 million in aid to the Palestinians. "The international community is not doing the Palestinians a favor by providing them with financial aid," Erekat argued. "This is a due duty of the international community, which bears responsibility for the continued Israeli occupation."
Erekat's statement reflects a long-standing Palestinian position according to which the US and the rest of the international community owe the Palestinians money for supporting Israel's existence. The Palestinian position stems from a belief that the international community, specifically the Americans and Europeans, were responsible for the establishment of Israel in 1948 at the cost of the Palestinians. This position was best echoed by Abbas himself, who has said that Israel is a "colonial project" imposed on the Palestinians by Western powers.
This attitude means that the Palestinians have never seen the massive financial aid they have received from the West as a gift but rather as something that the world owes them for imposing a "colonial project" on them. The billions of dollars the Palestinians have received in the past few decades have evidently left no positive impression on the Palestinians, who feel that the funds are something they are fully entitled to because of the world's support for the existence of Israel.
The Palestinians, in other words, apparently do not feel they have to be grateful to those who have been funding them for decades. If the Europeans were to take a similar decision today and cut funding to the Palestinians, they too would be condemned by Abbas and his officials for being "hostile" towards the Palestinians and "biased" in favor of Israel.
The ongoing Palestinian rhetorical attacks on the US administration are dangerous because they further radicalize the Palestinian public and turn the Americans into an enemy in the eyes of many Palestinians. In recent months, we have seen increased hostility towards American officials and citizens visiting the West Bank as a direct result of this incitement.
Last July, the US Consul-General in Jerusalem was forced to cancel a visit to the Palestinian city of Nablus after Palestinians threatened to stage protests against him and his entourage.
A month earlier, Palestinian protesters expelled a US consular delegation from the city of Bethlehem and threw tomatoes at their vehicles. No one was hurt, but the incident, which was documented on camera, was impolite and degrading for the Americans.
The Palestinians are now accusing the US of attempting to "blackmail" them by cutting the funds. According to the Palestinians, the US administration wants to force them to accept Trump's yet-to-be-unveiled plan for peace in the Middle East.
It is worth noting, however, that the US administration has not yet presented its purported plan to the Palestinians or to any other party. So how can the US administration be trying to pressure or "blackmail" the Palestinians when no peace plan has ever been made public? Can the Palestinians point to one US administration official who asked them to accept the unseen plan or support Trump's policies? Of course not.
There is indeed blackmail going on -- but in precisely the opposite direction. The Palestinians are trying to blackmail the US by claiming, absurdly, that the recent US decisions jeopardize the two-state solution and prospects for peace in the Middle East.
These are the very Palestinians, however, who have refused to resume peace talks with Israel for the past four years, since long before Trump was elected as president.
Common sense would have it that the US has a right to demand something from any party it helps to support -- including the Palestinians. But the Palestinians see things differently. In their view, billions of dollars are owed to them as some sort of divine right. And if their behavior calls into question whether they deserve that money -- well, those asking questions can just go back where they came from.
Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East.
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Another Win!

Preliminary NAFTA Deal Reached

 Between Mexico And U.S.

  • 08/27/2018 
  • Source: TTN
    •  
  • by: TTN Staff
52 29 3  128
image: https://structurecms-staging-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/
trumptrain/media/picture/59b9/50a1/6970/2d22/5e4b
/0a00/content_U.S._President_Donald_Trump_signed_executive_orders_in_
White_House_Orval_Office_on_January_23__2017.jpg?1505317037
Preliminary NAFTA Deal Reached Between Mexico And U.S.


The United States and Mexico have reached a preliminary agreement on NAFTA.
 The new negotiations have not included Canada, another partner to the deal, but 
specifically focused on the auto industry.

President Trump has called the existing NAFTA deal one of the worst in history 
and a new agreement could be a big win for the president in his ongoing trade 
war with Canada, Mexico, the E.U., and China.

According to the New York Times:
WASHINGTON — The United States and Mexico have reached agreement to

revise key portions of the 24-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement

and a preliminary deal could be announced on Monday, a crucial step toward

revamping a trade pact that has appeared on the brink of collapse during the

past year of negotiations.

Reaching an agreement on how to revise some of the most contentious portions

of what President Trump has long called the worst trade pact in history would

give Mr. Trump a significant win in a trade war he has started with countries

around the globe, including Mexico, Canada, the European Union and China.

Still, a preliminary agreement between the United States and Mexico would

fall far short of actually revising Nafta. The preliminary agreement still excludes

Canada, which is also a party to Nafta but has been absent from talks held in

Washington in recent weeks. It centers on the rules governing the automobile

industry and leaves aside other contentious issues that affect all three countries.

...

To qualify for zero tariffs under Nafta, car companies would be required to

manufacture a greater proportion of an automobile’s value in North America

under the new rules. They will also be required to use more local steel,

aluminum and auto parts, and have a certain proportion of the car made by

workers earning at least $16 an hour, a boon to both the United States and

Canada.
The absence of Canada will make for a contentious road ahead, as the U.S.
 and Mexico will have to work to get Canada on board. Congress will also have
 to ratify the deal once one is fully reached. But the agreement in principle
 between the U.S. and Mexico is an encouraging sign and another win for the 
Trump administration.

Read more at http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/preliminary-nafta-deal-reached-between-mexico-and-u-s#2kfJ3PIGYP4zdkgl.99
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Isn't It Interesting How The Left Reacts To Anti-White Actions Verses Anti-Black Ones

Tucker Carlson Tackles South African Farm Murders And Land Appropriation Efforts - Liberal Heads Explode

Scott Morefield
Scott Morefield
|
Posted: Aug 27, 2018 12:01 AM
  Share (270)   Tweet
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
Tucker Carlson Tackles South African Farm Murders And Land Appropriation Efforts - Liberal Heads Explode
  
Tucker Carlson is a man who’s never been afraid of tackling sacred cows, but when the Fox News host waded into the South Africa land appropriation issue last Wednesday night, even he was likely not prepared for the backlash he was about to endure.
Indeed, Carlson’s Wednesday segment calling South African President Cyril Ramaphosa "a racist" and decrying the U.S. State Department’s lackluster response to the spectre of uncompensated land grabs and the ongoing slaughter of (mostly) white South African farmers brought the ire of all the ‘Usual Suspects,’ including the Anti-Defamation League, Right Wing Watch, the establishment media, liberals of all stripes, and even the South African government itself.
CARTOONS | MICHAEL RAMIREZ
VIEW CARTOON
Because if you take umbrage at the targeting of white people because of their race, you must be a “white nationalist,” or something.
But the wailing and gnashing of teeth hit a stratospheric level when President Trump himself, a regular Tucker Carlson Tonight viewer, promised via tweet to look into the issue along with a mention for Carlson and Fox News.
Needless to say, if it hadn’t happened before, liberal heads were definitely exploding all over the place now. And predictably, they played the “R-word” with gusto. 
“White farmers: how a far-right idea was planted in Donald Trump's mind,” read the Guardian headline, as if white people being murdered and displaced is somehow only a “far right” concern. (To the Guardian - To paraphrase something my mother said a time or two - If the “far right” were against jumping off bridges, would you be for it?”)
“WTF,” tweeted David Rothkopf. “Seriously, WTF.  The president, who doesn't know where South Africa is and wonders when they changed the name from South Shithole is concerned about the appropriation of land from 'white farmers'?!  Down deep beneath his racist veneer are many layers of even deeper racism.”
“Cool that Tucker Carlson is acting as direct pathway communicating narratives between white nationalists and the President of the United States,” tweeted Reveal’s Aaron Sankin.
HuffPost’s Jessica Schulberg called Trump’s tweet a “blatant nod to white nationalists in South Africa.”
The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple, who mockingly calls Carlson’s show “White Grievance Tonight,” noted a couple of minor differences in the Fox News host’s Wednesday and Thursday broadcasts, one of which included a stunning revelation by Wemple himself. 
“And whereas Carlson on Wednesday accused Ramaphosa of changing the country’s constitution to facilitate stealing, here’s how he phrased matters on Thursday night: ‘The president of the country, Cyril Ramaphosa, has pledged to change South Africa’s Constitution in order to legalize the seizure of property without compensation. That’s currently being debated in the Parliament in South Africa.’ Sounds like democracy in action.”
Did you catch that last sentence? - “Sounds like democracy in action.”
In other words, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple is totally cool with “democracy” “acting” to steal people’s land without compensation. 
At least we know where he stands.
There’s plenty more, but you get the picture. Only “white nationalists” and “racists” are against South African farm murders and taking people’s land without compensation, because only “white nationalists” and “racists” would be concerned that the victims this time happen to be white people and seem to be targeted simply because of that one immutable characteristic.
By that logic, should those us concerned when blacks are victimized on the basis of race be considered “black nationalists?”
Carlson himself spoke to the double-standard the next day. 
“As land seizures based on skin color shows, South Africa is once again becoming a place where an entire group of people is targeted for discrimination and violence on the basis of their skin color,” Carlson said on Thursday as he addressed some of the blowback from his previous day’s segment. “We oppose that obviously. It was wrong 25 years ago, it is wrong now.”
"In the west, we punish only the guilty. We do not punish their descendants or everyone with the same hair and eye color ... No one is alleging that the individual farmers in South Africa stole their land, they're saying that people who resemble them, [hundreds of years ago] did, and that is enough,” he continued. “The elites see no problem with this standpoint, and that should worry you. A lot."
By the logic liberal elites and the South African would-be land grabbers employ, the United States should give all its land back to the descendants of Native Americans. Hell, maybe Israel should find out who the descendants of the Canaanite tribes are so they can give their land back too.
"This is not an appeal to a racial group," Carlson told the Chicago Tribune Friday in an interview. "This is an appeal to universal principles that protect all racial groups that are true regardless of people's color. We don't mete out justice based on what people look like."
The Tribune piece, entitled “Fox's Tucker Carlson stunned by reaction to stories on South Africa,” goes on to paint the issue as a “white nationalist” one alone. But Carlson had a comeback for that too - “Joseph Stalin loved his daughter. I love my daughters. Does that make me a Stalinist? That's such a stupid question I don't know what to say.”
Predictably, none of the media hand-wringers gave the Fox News host a modicum of credit for also opposing Apartheid:
"Everyone in the country understands what these are, they're racial attacks,” Carlson said on his show. “OK say defenders of the South African government in this country, the [white] South African government also seized land on racial grounds. That is absolutely true, they did do that. And it is one of the reasons so many decent people opposed Apartheid. Apartheid was evil and wrong.”
“Things have changed though,” he added. “Now our elites endorse the idea of a racial spoils system, and that is the scariest part. Our ruling class now believes in collective punishment. That is the opposite of justice."
It’s also the opposite of human decency, given that these vilified “white farmers” generally aren’t out there robbing, raping, murdering, and running drugs. Instead they are, you know, FEEDING the entire freaking country. 
Sadly, people who draw comparisons to Zimbabwe aren’t far off. The Daily Caller’s Chris White reported that country’s similar land confiscation effort “destroyed the country’s once thriving agricultural sector and forced the government to rely on international aid to feed 25 percent of its population,” resulting in a $12 billion decline in agricultural revenue between 2000 and 2009.
None of that will matter to liberals, of course, because to them, the perception of being against murdering white people and taking their land for free is far worse than actual starving black children. 
Though they’ll often defend the land grabs, it’s hard for even a liberal to defend the outright farm murders, at least vocally. So instead they cite reports, like this one by AgriSA, saying farm attacks are “down” to “only” 561 attacks and 47 murders (of course, “down” also are the numbers of farmers - you know, what with all the rapes and gruesome murders and all), still making the job of being a South African farmer literally the “most dangerous job in the world.” 
As to exactly how many, DailyMail reports that “none of the figures can be verified because the South African government has refused to release farm murder statistics since 2007. Some of the killings are reported to have been barbaric, with farm owners tortured, raped, burned alive and slaughtered in front of their families.”
But even so, it’s a “conspiracy theory” to say white people are being persecuted,” despite the above evidence ... and the below quote from a prominent South African leader:
“I’m saying to you, we’ve not called for the killing of white people, at least for now. I can’t guarantee the future,” South African politician and leader of the country’s third largest political party Julius Malema told Turkish media earlier this year in a clip played by Carlson. Further, the man who once said he wants to “cut the throat of whiteness” responded with a hearty “"cry babies, cry babies!" when asked if he understood that his statement could be considered a call to genocide.
Move along. There’s nothing to see here, and you’d better shut up. You wouldn’t want someone to call you a “white nationalist,” now would you?
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)