Palestinians: Embattled, Weak Abbas Comes to White House

By Khaled Abu Toameh, GATESTONE ENTERPRISES


Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas (left) recently decided to slash by 30% the salaries of PA employees in Gaza. Abbas suspects that these employees, who are affiliated with his Fatah faction, have switched their loyalty to his arch-rival, Mohamed Dahlan (right). (Image sources: U.S. State Dept., M. Dahlan Office)

  • The joke among Palestinians is that were it not for Israel is sitting smack in the middle, the two warring Palestinian states [the West Bank and the Gaza Strip] would be dispatching rockets and suicide bombers at each other.
  • Abbas is well aware that the Palestinian house is on fire. Instead of working to extinguish the blaze, however, Abbas spends his time spreading the lie that peace in our time is possible, if only Israel would succumb to his demands.
  • The story of Gaza — which went straight to Hamas after Israel handed it to Abbas — is not a tale Abbas likes to tell. The same scenario is likely to be repeated in the West Bank if Israel makes a similar move.

This week, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and US President Donald Trump will sit down together to talk. This is the first such meeting since the US presidential election, and it comes at a time when the Palestinian scene is characterized by mounting internal tensions, fighting and divisiveness. The disarray among the Palestinians, where everyone seems to be fighting everyone else, casts serious doubt on Abbas’s ability to lead the Palestinians towards a better future. The chaos also raises the question whether Abbas has the authority to speak on behalf of a majority of Palestinians, let alone sign a peace agreement with Israel that would be acceptable to enough of his people.

Abbas, however, seems rather oblivious to the state of bedlam among the Palestinians, and appears determined to forge ahead despite the radical instability he is facing.

He is travelling to Washington to tell Trump that he and his PA leadership seek a “just and comprehensive” peace with Israel through the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

In the meeting, Abbas is likely to repeat his long-standing charges that Israel continues to “sabotage” any prospect for peace with the Palestinians.

Abbas is not likely to mention the mayhem that the PA leadership is facing at home. Nor is the fact that the Palestinians are as far as ever from achieving their goal of statehood likely to be a preeminent subject. Why bother discussing inconvenient truths, such as the deep divisions among the Palestinians and failure to hold presidential and parliamentary elections, when you can point the finger of blame at Israel?

Abbas’s trip to Washington coincides with a peak of tension between his PA and Hamas, the Islamic movement that rules the Gaza Strip. The rivalry between Hamas and Abbas’s PA, which climaxed in 2007 when the Islamic movement violently took over the Gaza Strip from Abbas loyalists, has created a reality where the Palestinians are divided, physically, into two separate entities.

Since 2007, the reality on the ground is that the Palestinians already have two small states: one in the Gaza Strip and another in the West Bank. These two states have since been at war with each other. The joke among Palestinians is that were it not for Israel is sitting smack in the middle, the two warring Palestinian states would be dispatching rockets and suicide bombers at each other.

This war, which is currently a war of venomous words between the PA and Hamas, has left many Palestinians wondering whether their leaders will ever be able to move beyond their personal animosities and bring the people closer to achieving statehood. Many attempts by Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and Yemen, to resolve the dispute between Hamas and the PA have failed. Neither side appears to be willing to make any concessions that would pave the way for national reconciliation in the Palestinian arena.

For the past several weeks, thousands of Palestinians have taken to Gaza’s streets to denounce Abbas as a traitor and Zionist agent. It is worth noting that the protesters are not only supporters of Hamas, but also include many disgruntled PA employees who are protesting Abbas’s decision to slash their salaries by 30%.

Abbas suspects that these employees, who are affiliated with his Fatah faction, have switched their loyalty to his arch-rival, Mohamed Dahlan, the ousted Fatah leader who has been publicly calling for the removal of Abbas from power.

Hardly a day passes in the Gaza Strip that demonstrators do not burn photos of Abbas and his prime minister, Rami Hamdallah (who is also based in the West Bank).

Yet, it is not only money that is bringing the Palestinian population to the streets. Hamas and many Palestinians hold Abbas responsible for the ongoing electricity crisis in the Gaza Strip, which has left tens of thousands of families without power for up to 20 hours a day.

Last week Abbas’s government told Israel that it will stop paying for electricity that Israel supplies to Gaza. Palestinians say Abbas is planning more punitive measures against the Strip in the near future. His goal is to drive desperate Palestinians there to revolt against Hamas. In the meantime, however, it seems that Abbas’s measures are boomeranging, and Gazans are, for now, hurling their fury at him and the PA government.

Abbas’s plate is quite full in the Gaza Strip. Alongside Hamas, he has thousands of Dahlan loyalists to deal with. Then there are several other Palestinian groups, such as Islamic Jihad, that have long been challenging Abbas and his autocratic rule. Recently, the leaders of these groups stepped up their harsh criticism of Abbas, with some calling for his “execution” in a public square.

“Why does Abbas take the donors’ money that is intended for the Gaza Strip? asked Marwan Abu Ras, a senior Hamas official. In the view of Abu Ras, Abbas has reached the “highest degrees of treason” and must face a popular and legal trial. “He must be hanged in the public square in front of his people because he is the biggest traitor the Palestinian cause has ever had,” the Hamas official declared.

Another top Hamas official, Mahmoud Zahar, said that Abbas has long lost his legitimacy and was no longer the president of the Palestinians. He accused Abbas and his senior aides of laying their hands on Arab and Western funds and using them for their personal interests. “Abbas is committing crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip,” Zahar charged. “Abbas cut off the electricity to the Gaza Strip and salaries to the (PA) employees. He is involved in a conspiracy to liquidate the Palestinian cause.”

How Abbas would fare if he ever returned to Gaza is anyone’s guess. Since 2007, Abbas has not been able to even go back to his private house in Gaza. In light of Hamas’s daily threats to kill him, it is unlikely that the 82-year-old Abbas will ever see the Gaza Strip from the inside again.

Abbas’s senior aides, meanwhile, are not sitting silent in the face of the Hamas threats. One of his top advisors, Mahmoud Habbash, last week called on Palestinians to revolt against Hamas. Habbash also stated that it would be fine to destroy and burn the Gaza Strip in order to get rid of Hamas.

The threats against Abbas are coming not only from Hamas, but also from Dahlan and other senior Fatah officials in the Gaza Strip, who think of themselves as sacrificial victims in the war between Abbas and Hamas. The Gaza Strip, then, hosts not only a Fatah-Hamas war, but also a war within Fatah. And tensions between all these parties are only headed toward escalation.

Adding to his problems stemming from the Gaza Strip, Abbas has his hands full inside PA-controlled territories in the West Bank. A hunger strike organized by jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti is seen as directed not only against Israel, but above all against Abbas and the PA leadership. Barghouti, who is serving five life terms in prison for his role in terrorist attacks, has been imprisoned for 15 years. He and his fellow inmates are convinced that Abbas is not interested in their release, which accounts for why he is not doing much to help their cause. Abbas, it is said, fears Barghouti’s popularity, and prefers him in Israeli prison over having him at large.

The hunger strike has triggered a wave of protests in the West Bank not only against Israel, but also against Abbas and his PA government. Abbas is also facing enmity for cracking down on public freedoms, lack of economic reforms and his continued security coordination with Israel.

Is it any surprise, then, that Abbas prefers to spend his time outside Ramallah and the PA-controlled territories? He rarely visits Jenin, Hebron or Nablus, but Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf states are a second home to him.

Abbas is well aware that the Palestinian house is on fire. Instead of working to extinguish the blaze, however, Abbas spends his time spreading the lie that peace in our time is possible, if only Israel would succumb to his demands.

The story of Gaza — which went straight to Hamas after Israel handed it to Abbas — is not a tale Abbas likes to tell. The same scenario is likely to be repeated in the West Bank if Israel makes a similar move. It remains to be seen whether Trump and the new administration are aware of the extreme anarchy reining among the Palestinians, and act accordingly. Will the world see past Abbas’s lies this time?

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

May 1, 2017 | 8 Comments » | 56 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. For sure, POTUS can not be conned by palestinians. Is Abbas meeting Schumer for ‘how to resist’ talking points?Perhaps Abbas can find out if climate change is good cover for his ‘resistance’ in Gaza?

  2. Whatever happens, Trump will be one of the better Presidents from the point of view of anyone who prioritizes Jewish survival. He is playing chess to negotiate a deal and he doesn’t want anyone to know his thinking, to paraphrase his own words.

    Obama is so ego-driven, I have no doubt he would like to be thought of as the best or the worst. He was bad but he was neither.

    Aside from FDR, who we all know now was a horror, many people will be surprised to know that the worst two were Truman And Eisenhower and the best was Nixon followed by Hoover.

    Johnson was a miserable President. But, in Congress, he saved Israel from Eisenhower, so my hat’s off to his memory for that.
    First to establish our dates:

    “On 15 May 1948 the ongoing civil war transformed into an inter-state conflict between Israel and the Arab states, following the Israeli Declaration of Independence the previous day. A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine – Jordan having declared privately to Yishuv emissaries on 2 May it would abide by a decision not to attack the Jewish state.[12] The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.[13][14][15] The 10 months of fighting, interrupted by several truce periods, took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.[16]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War

    and Now:

    “Truman recognizes Israel, studies plan to lift Palestine arms embargo

    May 14, 1948”

    “…The official silence increased fairly well-founded suspicion that the U.S. speedy recognition of Israel was prompted primarily by fears that the Soviet Union might do it first…”

    http://www.upi.com/Archives/1948/05/14/Truman-recognizes-Israel-studies-plan-to-lift-Palestine-arms-embargo/9113478158505/

    “TAG ARCHIVES: 1948
    DEC 23: PARDONING THE MAKHALNIK
    By Lawrence Bush on December 22, 2016.

    President George W. Bush granted a posthumous presidential pardon to Charlie Winters, who had been jailed for illegally assisting Israel in its 1948 war of independence, on this date in 2008. “An Irish Protestant from Boston, [Winters] took up the clandestine cause from his perch in Miami and helped ferry military planes to Israeli fighters, even flying a B-17 bomber across the Atlantic Ocean himself in 1948,” writes Eric Lichtblau in the New York Times. “The Israelis have long considered him a hero; Prime Minister Golda Meir hailed his efforts. Yet in the United States, he was a criminal, imprisoned for 18 months for violating the 1939 Neutrality Act and breaking an embargo on weapons to Israel.” Winters was one of several hundred Americans and Canadians called makhalniks, or “volunteers from outside the Land,” who were especially active in the struggling state’s nascent air force. He had been rejected for military service in the U.S. because of a limp caused by polio, but had worked during World War II as a government purchasing agent — which ultimately positioned him to sell three B-17 “Flying Fortress” bombers to Israel, one of which he personally flew to Czechoslovakia, which was Israel’s principal supplier of armaments.

    “Jim Winters [Charlie Winters’ son] said his father never said anything about his time in prison or his work for the Israelis, and he would never explain to his son why he was not allowed to own a gun. Only after his father died — and Jim Winters noticed the blue-and-white flowers sent to the funeral by the Israeli government – did the younger Mr. Winters begin to learn of his past. ‘I think the whole prison sentence turned him off from talking about it,’ Jim Winters said. ‘But he did what he did because he thought it was right.’” —New York Times

    http://jewishcurrents.org/tag/1948/

    “Eisenhower Reveals His 1957 Aims to Penalize Israel on Sinai Issue”
    September 22, 1965

    “Former President Eisenhower has revealed in his new book, “The White House Years: Waging Peace 1956-1961,” that, in order to pressure Israel into withdrawal from the Sinai in 1957, he preferred “a resolution which would call on all United Nations members to suspend not just governmental but private assistance to Israel.”

    Mr. Eisenhower said “such a move would be no hollow gesture. As we discussed it, George Humphrey, then Secretary of the Treasury, put in a call to W. Randolph Burgess, Under Secretary of the Treasury for monetary affairs, who gave a rough estimate that American private gifts to Israel were about $40, 000, 000 a year and sales of Israel bonds in our country between $50, 000, 000 and $60, 000, 000 a year. His information was in part based on Treasury figures on income tax deductions.”

    Mr. Eisenhower revealed that Secretary of State John Foster Dulles “strongly expressed the view that we had gone as far as possible to try to make it easy for the Israelis to withdraw. To go further, he said, would surely Jeopardize the entire Western influence in the Middle East, and the nations of that region would conclude that United States policy toward the area was, in the last analysis, controlled by Jewish influence in the United States. In such event, the only hope of the Arab countries would be found in a firm association with the Soviet Union.”

    A charge was made by the former President that Congressional leaders who met with him on the Israeli withdrawal issue were motivated by “politics.” He recalled that both Lyndon B. Johnson, then Senate Majority Leader, and William F. Knowland, then Minority leader, argued that, in “cracking down” on Israel we are using a double standard–following one policy for the strong and one for the weak.” They contrasted the Administration’s pressure on Israel with its failure to act strongly on Hungary.

    (When President Eisenhower communicated his plan for sanctions against Israel to Senate leaders, the then Sen. Johnson called on Mr. Eisehower and bluntly informed him that the Senate would not approve economic sanctions against Israel. The outspoken Texan told the Eisenhower Administration that threats to impose sanctions on Israel were unwise and unfair, and that he was against “pressure on one side in a two-sided dispute.” Deploring the attempted “coercion” of Israel as a “method of settlement,” Mr. Johnson told the Eisenhower Administration it had lost sight of the basic facts in the Israel-Arab dispute.)

    A White House staff member termed the meeting with the Congressional leaders “a can of worms,” Mr. Eisenhower said. He “reflected on the pettiness” of those reluctant to sanction Israel. He found it “somewhat disheartening that partisan considerations could enter.” The “question of principle,” in Mr. Eisenhower’s thinking was: “Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal?”

    http://www.jta.org/1965/09/22/archive/eisenhower-reveals-his-1957-aims-to-penalize-israel-on-sinai-issue
    —-

    “Thirty-Six Years Ago Today, Richard Nixon Saved Israel—but Got No Credit
    JASON MAOZ / OCT. 6, 2009”

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/thirty-six-years-ago-today-richard-nixon-saved-israel-but-got-no-credit/

    “Precise details of what transpired in Washington during the first week of the Yom Kippur War, launched by Egypt and Syria on October 6, 1973, are hard to come by, in no small measure owing to conflicting accounts given by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger regarding their respective roles.

    What is clear, from the preponderance of information provided by those directly involved in the unfolding events, is that President Richard Nixon — overriding inter-administration objections and bureaucratic inertia — implemented a breathtaking transfer of arms, code-named Operation Nickel Grass, that over a four-week period involved hundreds of jumbo U.S. military aircraft delivering more than 22,000 tons of armaments.

    This was accomplished, noted Walter J. Boyne in an article in the December 1998 issue of Air Force Magazine, while “Washington was in the throes of not only post-Vietnam moralizing on Capitol Hill but also the agony of Watergate. . . . Four days into the war, Washington was blindsided again by another political disaster — the forced resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew.”

    “Both Kissinger and Nixon wanted to do [the airlift],” said former CIA deputy director Vernon Walters, “but Nixon gave it the greater sense of urgency. He said, ‘You get the stuff to Israel. Now. Now.’”

    Boyne, in his book The Two O’Clock War, described a high-level White House meeting on October 9:

    As preoccupied as he was with Watergate, Nixon came straight to the point, announcing that Israel must not lose the war. He ordered that the deliveries of supplies, including aircraft, be sped up and that Israel be told that it could freely expend all of its consumables — ammunition, spare parts, fuel, and so forth — in the certain knowledge that these would be completely replenished by the United States without any delay.

    White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig concurred:

    As soon as the scope and pattern of Israeli battle losses emerged, Nixon ordered that all destroyed equipment be made up out of U.S. stockpiles, using the very best weapons America possessed. . . . Whatever it takes, he told Kissinger . . . save Israel.

    “It was Nixon who did it,” recalled Nixon’s acting special counsel, Leonard Garment. “I was there. As [bureaucratic bickering between the State and Defense departments] was going back and forth, Nixon said, this is insane. . . . He just ordered Kissinger, “Get your ass out of here and tell those people to move.”

    When Schlesinger initially wanted to send just three transports to Israel because he feared anything more would alarm the Arabs and the Soviets, Nixon snapped: “We are going to get blamed just as much for three as for 300. . . . Get them in the air, now.”…”
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/thirty-six-years-ago-today-richard-nixon-saved-israel-but-got-no-credit/


    Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, And The Jews
    By Dr. Rafael Medoff – 21 Tishri 5775 – October 14, 2014 28

    “Ex-presidents seldom take an interest in Jewish affairs, with two notable exceptions.

    One is Jimmy Carter, who has repeatedly clashed with the Jewish community. Another is Herbert Hoover, an unlikely ally of the Jews who passed away 50 years ago next week (Oct. 20, 1964).

    Most ex-presidents have gone quietly into the sunset, and some have taken issue with the few who have chosen to speak out on current affairs.

    George W. Bush, for example, last week had some strong words in reaction to fellow ex-president Carter’s public criticism of President Obama’s Mideast policies.

    “To have a former president bloviating and second-guessing is, I don’t think, good for the presidency or the country,” Bush said.

    Much of Carter’s post-presidential activity has revolved around Israel. He has repeatedly taken controversial stands, such as comparing Israeli policies to apartheid, urging the U.S. to withhold aid from Israel to force it to change its positions, and praising Hamas as “a legitimate political actor.”

    Douglas Brinkley’s 1998 book, The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter’s Journey Beyond the White House, furnished some embarrassing details about Carter’s relationship with the late Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat.

    According to Brinkley, Carter “developed a fondness for Arafat” based on his belief “that they were both ordained to be peacemakers by God.” The former president went so far as to personally draft a speech for Arafat that he hoped would “help him to overcome the deficit understanding” for him in the West.

    By contrast, Herbert Hoover, as ex-president, repeatedly took positions favorable to the Jewish community, even when it was not in his political interest to do so.”

    http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/herbert-hoover-jimmy-carter-and-the-jews/2014/10/14/

    Correction, Hoover was a good outgoing and ex-President. Not so hot as President.

    http://www.shapell.org/manuscript/president-herbert-hoover-silent-on-1929-hebron-riots-massacre

    No, that was that site mis-interpreted a note thanking somebody for the information without comment.

    He did condemn it:

    “American Statesmen, Regardless of Party Affiliation, Give Unequivocal Support to President Hoover’s

    DOWNLOAD PDF FOR THIS DATE
    September 5, 1929
    Unequivocal support for the stand taken by President Hoover in his statement on the Palestine anti-Jewish massacres perpetrated by the Moslem Arabs, in which the hope was expressed that the Jewish National Home will emerge with greater strength from the present tragedy, was given by many leading American statesmen, regardless of party affiliation, religious leaders and educators in statements made by them to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency as the result of an inquiry directed by this Jewish news gathering and distributing agency.

    Governors of 15 states in the Union, 23 members of the United States Senate, and 72 members of the House of Representatives, expressed approval of President Hoover’s message to the Zionist Organization of America and uttered strong words of condemnation for the attacks on the Jewish population of Palestine.

    The duty of Great Britain to accord adequate protection for the population of Palestine was pointed out, and the hope expressed that the British government will take proper measures to secure such protection, and to carry out, in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Pales- (Continued on Page 2)

    Indignation was the prevalent note in the responses of the American statesmen at the barbarities and horrible massacres committed on the Jewish population and in particular against those American Jewish students who fell as victims of the Hebron massacre. The protection of American citizens in Palestine under all circumstances was insisted upon as an undoubted duty of the government of the United States.

    Sympathy with the aims of the Jewish movement which seeks to rebuild Palestine as a Jewish National Home and praise for the Jewish pioneers, coupled with appreciation of the Jewish contribution to the development of America’s industry and commerce and along other fields of endeavor, was likewise manifested in the statements. Sympathy for the families of the victims, and words of encouragement for the future progress of the Palestine work were expressed.

    Many members of the United States Congress expressed the view that the American nation is greatly interested in the present Palestine situation, and should developments call for it, a strong stand should be taken by the United States government, in cooperation with the government of Great Britain.

    Adequate reparation for the losses of life and property sustained, sufficient precautionary measures to prevent the recurrence of similar events, were insisted upon as an indubitable condition for the settlement of the present situation in Palestine.

    Among the governors who responded are Governor Dan Moody of Texas, Governor R. C. Dillan of New Mexico. Governor Bibb Graves of Alabama, Governor Greant G. Allen of Massachusetts. Governor Doyle E. Carlton of Florida, Governor Arthur J. Weaver of Nebraska. Governor F. Larson of New Jersey, Governor Myers Y. Cooper of Ohio, Governor John S. Fisher of Pennsylvania, Governor H. C. Baldredge of Idaho, Governor John G. Richards of South Carolina. Governor I. L. Patterson of Oregon, Governor Flem D. Sampson of Kentucky, Governor William T. Gardiner of Maine. Governor Norman F. Case of Rhode Island.

    Among the Senators who responded are Senator C. C. Dill. Washington: Senator R. B. Howell, Nebraska: Senator William H. King. Utah: Senator Tom Connally. Texas: Senator Jos. E. Randell. Louisiana: Senator Hamilton F. Kean, New Jersey; Senator T. H. Caraway. Arkansas; Senator Arthur R. Robinson. Indiana; Senator Daniel F. Steck. Iowa; Senator David I. Walsh, Massachusetts: Senator Henry D. Hatheld. West Virginia. Senator James E. Watson. Indiana: Senator E. S. Broussard. Louisiana: Senator F. C. Walcott. Connecticut; Senator Guy D. Goff. West Virginia: Senator Cole L. Blease. South Carolina: Senator Smith W. Brookhart, Iowa: Senator Walter F. George. Georgia; Senator John J. Blaine, Wisconsin; Senator Felix Herbert, Rhode Island: Senator Lee S. Overman, North Carolina: Senator Duncan U. Fletcher, Florida; Senator B. K. Wheeler, Montana.

    The following replies were also received from Cardinal O’Connell, of Boston; Bishop Ernest M. Stires, Garden City, L. I. and former New York Governor Alfred E. Smith.

    BISHOP ERNEST M. STIRES, BOLTON NEW YORK
    -“I feel a profound sympothy for our Jewish brethren. I am convinced England will quickly protect them and redress their wrongs.”

    CARDINAL O’CONNELL (MASSACHUSETTS), BOSTON, MASS
    -“My deepest sympathy goes to those who have suffered by the unfortunate conflict now going on in Palestine. I regret profoundly that peace and order have been so ruthlessly disturbed, with the loss of many innocent lives, especially of the young men studying in the Holy Land. I pray to God that peace and order may be soon restored and that the rights of all be conscientiously respected.”

    ALFRED E. SMITH (BY JOSEF ISRAELS), NEW YORK
    -“In the absence of former Governor Smith from the city, I repeat to you the following statement on the Palestine situation issued by him last week: ‘I have read with the greatest regret of the massacre of the Jews in Palestine, and it is hard to believe that such uncivilized methods still exist in this modern world. I extend to the Jews of the entire world my deepest sympathy in this hour of sorrow’,”

    JAMES J. DAVIS, SECRETARY OF LABOR
    -“While sharing with all America the regret and horror it feels at the killings of Jews in Palestine, I am confident my friend, the Right Honorable Ramsay MacDonald, Prime Minister of England, meant what he said when he told the League of Nations at Geneva that England will do her duty in protecting the population of Palestine under her mandate. Undoubtedly the promise will be kept and order restored.

    “Deplorable as these outbreaks have been they may yet serve a purpose in drawing new sympathy and support to the struggle of the Jews to bring progress to the Holy Land and make it a home and cultural center for their people.”

    JAMES W. GOOD, SECRETARY OF WAR
    -“I am deeply concerned for the safety of American citizens residing in the Holy Land but there is an international phase of this question which properly comes with in the jurisdiction of the State Department and I believe, therefore, I should not express an official opinion regarding it.”

    Statements by the Governors appear on Page – by the Senators on Page 5, by the members of the House on Page 7.”
    http://www.jta.org/1929/09/05/archive/american-statesmen-regardless-of-party-affiliation-give-unequivocal-support-to-president-hoovers

  3. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    “…In early 1933, Jewish leaders asked president-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt to join Hoover, the outgoing president, in a joint statement deploring the mistreatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. Hoover agreed to do so; Roosevelt declined.

    Before leaving office, Hoover instructed the U.S. ambassador in Germany, Frederic Sackett, “to exert every influence of our government” on the Hitler regime to halt the persecutions. But FDR soon replaced Sackett with William Dodd, and instructed Dodd that while he could “unofficially” take issue with Nazi Germany’s anti-Semitism, he was not to issue any formal protests on the subject, since it was “not a [U.S.] governmental affair.”

    Hoover publicly endorsed the 1939 Wagner-Rogers bill to permit 20,000 German Jewish children to enter the U.S. outside the quota system. He also assisted the sponsors of the bill behind the scenes, by pressuring wavering members of the House Immigration Committee to support the measure.

    The endorsement of the only living former president gave the bill a significant boost. He likely would have been able to accomplish more for Wagner-Rogers if not for some unfortunate partisan sniping. James G. McDonald, chairman of the President’s Advisory Committee on Political Refugees, believed the ex-president could rally important support for the effort. He suggested “that Mr. Herbert Hoover might assume leadership in raising funds and in administering the work of placing the children in suitable homes.” But Roosevelt administration officials blocked the proposal.

    It is worth noting that Hoover’s stance on the bill ran counter to his own political interests, since he hoped to win the GOP presidential nomination in 1940, and most Republicans (like most Democrats) opposed increased immigration. Moreover, since Roosevelt was enormously popular in the Jewish community (he had won about 90 percent of the Jewish vote in the previous election), Hoover had little reason to think that supporting Wagner-Rogers was going to win Jewish votes.

    During the Holocaust years, Hoover associated himself with the activist Bergson Group, which lobbied for U.S. action to rescue Jewish refugees. He served on the Sponsoring Committee of Bergson’s protest pageant, “We Will Never Die.” The former president was also honorary chairman of Bergson’s July 1943 Emergency Conference to Save the Jewish People of Europe, and addressed the event via live radio hook-up.”
    http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/herbert-hoover-jimmy-carter-and-the-jews/2014/10/14/

  4. trump will crump as the dept of state still rules the w.h. until trump gets control, no embassy in JERUSALEM, the new ambassador will work out of t.a as he is not a choice of state dept. abbarse will leave riding a white horse triumphantly. he’s outplayed everyone since arafart died.

  5. many disgruntled PA employees who are protesting Abbas’s decision to slash their salaries by 30%.

    :
    There’s never a PLO guy around when you need him.

  6. :
    Trump should announce that:

    since he can’t get the sort of (Big Government) federal budget that he desires, and

    since the Congress seems pretty eager to prevent a (much needed) government shutdown, and

    since the existing budget is on a non-sustainable, deficit auto-pilot,

    that he is issuing an executive order to cut government salaries by at least 50%.

  7. What will matter is what Abbas tells the Muslims and not what he will tell Trump.
    Trump will not be duped too long!
    But most on the “West side” care less about what is said in Arabic. Alas.
    Let the Su & the Shi kill each other for that is apparently what they were made for!

Comments are closed.