The Obama Administration is reacting angrily to reports that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), at a loss as to what to do with peace talks indefinitely stalled, is considering dismantling the Palestinian Authority (PA) and turning control over autonomous parts of Palestine back to Israel.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki warned the move would have “grave implications” for US relations with the Palestinian Authority, which of course would no longer exist under this scenario.
Psaki, emphasizing US subsidies to the PA over the past several years, warned that the future aid to the PA could be seriously impacted by the PA not existing any longer.
While Israel’s right wing is shrugging off the reports, pro-peace Israeli politicians have warned the move underscores the need to get the talks back on track, noting the enormous cost Israel would face in providing basic services to 2.5 million Palestinians, and the very real possibility that Israel could face further international isolation and even sanctions if and when it fails to live up to that obligation as an occupying power.
Psaki says, "grave implications?" Does Psaki mean implications worse than Israeli occupation? Even still more Israeli confiscation of Palestinian lands? Worse Israeli apartheid than the apartheid Israel works on Palestinians at present? The stark realization that US diplomockery is in full faceplant mode?
The only 'grave implication' here is that Psaki is blowing disingenuous flatulent bubbles and the world can sense her stench at distance.
Very well said, Don. I particularly like the "flatulent bubbles" part. It made me laugh.
Thank you rybo1. Sometimes the 'implications' are comedic without intent.
Speaking of comedy…this whole Psaki statement sounds like something out of an old (well, at this point they're all old, I guess) Monty Python skit. For example, "future aid" might be impacted if the PA not longer existed. Really?
"The PA is dead".
"No, its not. Its just resting".
The only way out is for WH and EU to start a meaningful relation to Palestinians issues and boycott Israel totally, rest what is said by this or that WH or black house spook person is nothing but hot air.
Least we forget what Nuland trying in the Ukraine with 5billion in borrowed money.
America has allowed herself to be in a vice by the zionist over Palestine secretly want the Zionist to control all of as they would say"disputed lands"they are following how America dealt with the native americans.
The only grave implications are for Abbas and his corrupt crew who have been living off of American/Zionist funds and betraying their people. The dismantling of the PA may actually be a reality as Hamas waits in the wings to see the "negotiations" fall flat on its face. They will join the PLO, hold elections and throw out the scum that has been polluting the Palestinian issue for so long.
and then head directly to the UN and press for full member status (and protections.)
I am not sure about that only because full recognition would lock us in to recognizing Israel on more than 70% of historical Palestine. Not all Palestinians are willing to give up all their rights for a shadow of a state.
No, Palestinian Arab statehood would not require the new state to "recognize" Israel suddenly becoming seven times as large as it is now (presumably by invading/annexing the vast majority of historical Palestine now known as "Jordan").
Not sure who the "invading" is in reference to but if we go to the UN by default the majority of nations will recognize the west Bank, Gaza and maybe East Jerusalem. Agreed that in future the dynamics may change but going to the UN has its own drawbacks given that it is a failed system which basically functions on the premise that "might makes right". Palestinians would prefer to liberate their nation and force a reality on the ground rather then receive recognition from the UN. However, given the corruption of the Abass and his gang I don't think the PA will disband nor with they go to the UN for recognition of the state of Palestine. Willing to wait out though.
@Thomas L. Knapp: «Israel suddenly becoming seven times as large … the vast majority of historical Palestine now known as "Jordan"»
Me: Kindly substantiate this "seven times" assertion – else withdraw it.
Tip: substantiate v. (-ting) prove the truth of (a charge, claim, etc.). substantiation n. [POD]
skrik,
Why should I have to substantiate someone else's (Ashraf's) assertion?
He's the one that says "full recognition would lock us in to recognizing Israel on more than 70% of historical Palestine."
Since Israel at present comprises about 10% of historical Palestine, and since the bulk of the remainder of historical Palestine is in what is now called "Jordan," the math isn't especially challenging. In order to cover "more than 70% of historical Palestine," Israel would have to seize about 2/3 of Jordan.
You have been repeatedly requested to provide proof of this, *your own assertion* before; kindly do not drag in yet another diversion, nor try to offload any responsibility onto an essentially innocent bystander. Should I go to my archive, to quote chapter and verse on your apparent evasiveness? What I do know is that you continually duck and weave, and here *again* refuse point-blank to give a forthright response, let alone demonstrate exactly why your "Israel at present comprises about 10% of historical Palestine" assertion has either truth or relevance – to this discussion, to the Zionist armed-theft of Palestinian land in general, or even to the price of fish? IF no relevance THEN it's a total red-herring = diversion of proper debate = fallacy. Anyone can try googling this: "extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community" site:en.wikipedia.org/ IF you had some legitimate info, THEN why not give it to us? Why is it that you a) repeatedly assert this but b) refuse to substantiate it? Normal rules of debate require providing support for any challenged statement – or the statement is considered conceded as 'inoperative,' and struck off as worthless. As a supposed representative of antiwar, frankly I expect an honest, detailed response from you – I expect other readers may judge you based on your behaviour, or perhaps someone should appeal to the management for assessment + adjudication of your assertion.
"Problem, Jen?"
It is simple. The Palestinians should all become citizens of Israel. The one state solution which Israel has wanted all along but with the arab in Jordan and not as citizens of Israel. The first think the Palestinians will do is take advantage of the first class medical system which Israel has created for its citizens. As citizens hopefully the Palestinian will be able to get building permits. The future great comics of the world will be the Israel officials who tell the Palestinians they did not have a building permit so the government is going to knock down the Palestinian home and building a home for a citizen of Israel. That new home for a citizen will be funded by low interest loan from the USA banking system. Yes it will be a different place with three million new voters in Irael