Trump Is Allowing Israel 'to Annex Jerusalem': Ashrawi

The city of Jerusalem has its historical, religious and political significance, and is a prominent symbol for the Palestinian cause, or what is left of it. The US, which undertook the role of peace broker between Israelis and Palestinians for over two decades, has become the first country in the world to recognise the whole of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Hanan Ashrawi, executive committee member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, told Al Jazeera why she believes Trump's move will allow Israel to "annex" Jerusalem from the Palestinians.

WIKI: Hanan Ashrawi »

Why Is Washington Closing the PLO's Office? – Inside Story

Over the past 50 years since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there have been countless talks, negotiations and UN resolutions. And the Palestinian Liberation Organization has been at the forefront of peace talks over the years. But now, Donald Trump's administration says it will shut down the PLO's office in Washington D.C. That's in response to Palestinian efforts to raise the issue of Israel's occupation at the International Criminal Court.

If the U.S. goes ahead with its plans, Palestinians say they will end all communication with Washington. But what will this move mean for Trump's Middle East peace plan?

Presenter: Laura Kyle | Guests: Qais Abdel Karim - Member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, PLO; Hillary Mann Leverett - Former White House National Security and State department Official; Ian Black - Visiting Senior Fellow at the Middle East Centre, London School of Economics.

EU Mideast Policy: Morality and Enlightment or Fear and Greed?
GLOBAL POLITICIAN: The Italian government, it has just come to light, let Palestinian terrorist groups operate freely in its country from the 1970s onward as long as they promised not to attack Italians. As former President Francesco Cossiga explained, the agreement with the PLO and PFLP was that if you "don't harm me... I won't harm you." Thus, these groups could move terrorists and equipment destined for use in murdering [non-Italian] civilians in and out of Italy-protected by Italian security agencies.



In 1995, after PLO terrorists took 545 passengers on the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro hostage (and killed one American passenger), U.S. Navy fighters intercepted the escaping gunmen's flight and forced it to land in Italy. The Italian government was so eager to avoid trouble with Arafat that it let their leader escape and soon freed most of the terrorists as well.



Yet this is hardly new or unique. It was long known that France followed a similar policy and so, at least at times, did Britain. In 1969 British policy, as one official put it in an internal document was "to distinguish between Fatah, which is going out of its way to emphasize its disapproval of wanton terrorism, and the PFLP, a small group which does present a threat." Another British diplomat urged London not to offend Fatah and the PLO since they were powerful and "may one day be a government." One would never guess that at the time Fatah was staging terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians; was the PFLP's close ally; openly declared it would wipe Israel off the map; was subverting Jordan's government, Britain's closest Middle East ally; and would within a little more than a year launch a massive international terrorist campaign against British targets.



It is not surprising then, that the PLO came to believe terrorism was a no-risk strategy and that it had infinite time in which to wage his revolution. No wonder, too, did terrorism become such a popular strategy in general from the 1960s down to the present day.



But there's another point to be made here as well. European countries and much of the elites there and in the United States claim that they sympathize with the Palestinians-or at least are far more critical of Israel-due to a sympathy with the underdog and a higher knowledge about how peace can be made and extremism defused. In fact they are motivated far more by fear (of being attacked themselves) and greed (for trade to the Arabic-speaking world and Iran). EU Mideast Policy: Morality and Enlightment or Fear and Greed? >>> By Prof. Barry Rubin | September 1, 2008

The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Dust Jacket Hardcover, direct from the publishers (US) >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Paperback, direct from the publishers (US) >>>

Soft Europe, Hard Europe
THE TRUMPET.COM: An unseemly revelation in an Italian newspaper illustrates a side of the Continent that is about to slip into history.

In the 1970s, Italy made a blood pact with Muslim terrorists. Groups like the Palestinian Liberation Organization were allowed free movement in Italy—receiving prosecutorial immunity while they plotted terrorist murders—in exchange for pledges not to launch attacks on Italian soil.

This revelation emerged last month, when former Italian President Francesco Cossiga published a letter of confession in the newspaper Corriere della Sera. The deal—which, he says, was essentially “don’t harm me and I won’t harm you”—was approved and directed by the premier at the time, Aldo Moro.

“During my time as interior minister I learned that plo people were holding heavy artillery in their homes and protected by diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab league,” Cossiga wrote.

“The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country,” he wrote, “and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were ‘handled’ by the secret services.” Similar deals existed between these groups and the governments of France and Britain.

This ugly truth typifies a cancerous, self-preserving opportunism that infects much of Europe to this day. It masquerades in moralistic rhetoric and political correctness—respect for the religion and culture of Muslims and such. But in truth, it’s just naked fear.

“[E]very attempt is made to prevent what radical Islamists perceive as insults even at the cost of throwing away key democratic freedoms,” Barry Rubin wrote in Global Politician after Cossiga’s admission. “This is not sensitivity to perpetrating bigotry but sensitivity to violence being perpetrated on themselves.”

The idiocy of these shortsighted, terrorist-friendly policies has since proven itself in at least two predictable ways. First, these deals were an open invitation to extremists of all stripes. From the 1980s, Europe became a hive of Islamist activity. The policy of toleration made European governments abettors in creating one of the most extensive terrorist networks on the planet. Most of modern history’s most famous terrorist attacks were planned on European and British soil, including 9/11.

And this gaggle of violent extremists was embedded within a massive exodus of Muslims into Europe: some 20 million over the last 30 years—equal to the combined populations of Ireland, Belgium and Denmark. UN reports say that Muslim communities throughout Europe have grown over 100 percent in just a decade and a half. Islam has become Europe’s second-largest religion. Says Bernard Lewis: “Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.” Soft Europe, Hard Europe >>> By Joel Hilliker | September 3, 2008

The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Dust Jacket Hardcover, direct from the publishers (US) >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Paperback, direct from the publishers (US) >>>