From FRUS:
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XVII, Near East, 1961–1962
34. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to Certain Near Eastern and North African Posts
Washington, April 15, 1961
...At Arab League meeting at Shtaura* last August, decision was made to establish Palestine “personality” or “entity” with implication of Algerian-type movement designed ultimately to eliminate Israel. While longer range plans include military organization and Palestine government, Arabs apparently plan take steps gradually. At last fall’s UNGA meeting, Arab UN delegates promoted concept of UN custodian for Arab properties left in Israel apparently as suitable first post-Shtaura gambit. They obviously encouraged by new composition of UN, believing that through mutual back-scratching tactics they can parlay Afro-Asian and Soviet bloc votes into series of votes progressively hostile to Israel. Upset by Nkrumah’s opening speech which urged Near East states to be “realistic” and implied Arabs should agree to Arab-Israel settlement, all Arab delegates engaged in lengthy harangues rehashing whole Palestine problem to “educate” new delegations.
* Chtaura, in Lebanon in last week of August when Arab foreign ministers conferred from 22 to 29 August.
_________________
UPDATE
From this article:
On January 19, 1960, King Hussein publicly expressed this urgency. In an interview with the Associated Press, he explained, “Since 1948, Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. They have not looked into the future. They have no plan or approach. They have used the Palestinian people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, criminal.” Hussein suggested that the Arab League reactivate the Palestine Conciliation Commission and base negotiations with Israel upon U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, which suggested that refugees “wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours” should be permitted to do so. The king charged Foreign Minister Nasser Musa with formulating a plan to present to a February 1960 Arab League session. King Hussein hoped that the Arab League would endorse principles of a settlement that could then serve as a basis for negotiations with Israel.
In a speech before parliament, Prime Minister Haza’ al-Majali[9] outlined general principles for a more productive Arab approach to the Palestinian problem. He called for an end to exploitation of the “emotions of the Arabs in general and the Palestinian refugees in particular"; a “realistic assessment of the situation and plans"; collective Arab responsibility; recognition of the existing legal status of Jordan; and the unity of the East and West Bank.
^
Posts
6 comments:
Re:
'From Slogan to Industry: The invention of “Anti-Palestinian Racism".
APR is a dangerous term that suggests that trying to combat antisemitism is itself racist against Palestinian Arabs. A full report is linked below. Op-ed.
David Collier. INN, Jan 18, 2026'
---
Since when did grandchildren of immigrants become a separate "race?"
Arabs are Arabs are Arabs, whether with an Israeli ID or "palestine" paper.
The bioted invented "APR," no wonder the same infamous racist 'iskandar323' pushes this on Wikipedia and had just removed data from the 30,000 massacred in 1988 Iran. A typical suporter of genocidal Islamists, Hamas or Iran. Just like the ORGANIZED gang of 32 wikipedians backing this. All "decide" what is a RS.
Math re Iran/Gaza
This context is important given the fact, that the same Islamic Republic backed Gaza regime’s recent war against Israel beginning on Oct 7 2023, the Hamas/PIJ who use Gazan civilians to maximize their casualties
____
FROM GROK ():
To calculate the potential number of unarmed people killed over 2 years based on the given range of 20,000 to 50,000 in just 2 weeks, we can extrapolate linearly by determining the rate over the shorter period and scaling it up.
### Step-by-Step Reasoning:
1. **Determine the time periods in consistent units**: Use weeks for simplicity. There are approximately 52 weeks in a year, so 2 years contain about 104 weeks (52 × 2 = 104). The initial period is 2 weeks, so the number of such 2-week intervals in 2 years is 104 ÷ 2 = 52.
2. **Calculate the low end of the range**: Multiply the lower bound (20,000 killed in 2 weeks) by the number of intervals: 20,000 × 52 = 1,040,000.
3. **Calculate the high end of the range**: Multiply the upper bound (50,000 killed in 2 weeks) by the number of intervals: 50,000 × 52 = 2,600,000.
This assumes a constant rate and ignores factors like leap years (which would add only a negligible amount here) or any real-world variations in pace. Using days instead (2 weeks = 14 days; 2 years ≈ 730 days; 730 ÷ 14 ≈ 52.14) yields nearly identical results: about 1,042,857 to 2,607,143.
### Final:
Between 1,040,000 and 2,600,000 people.
Pallyweid [fake israelophobic buzzwords: apartheidgenocide] exposed.
Gaza war with genocidal [Hamas Charter, declaration and methods] "Palestine" Gaza regime. We all know Hamas/PIJ death cult methods (search 'dead baby strategy'. In fact, it was already by Egyptian born Arafat - Hitler's al-Husseini-mufti's family who began the 'human shields' tactics of ITS OWN PEOPLE already in early '80s in Lebanon) - to maximize casualties of both sides. Almost all who propagated "genocide" already paddled the "apartheid" slur years earlier. (BTW, the A slurs began by Ahmad Shukeiri in UN on 10.17.61, who rationalized the Holocaust months after WW2 [B'nai B'rith 7.12.46] and on 11.30.62 had promoted in UN Neonazi gang Tacuara, who guarded Eichmann and Mengele).
Then you have UNCHR by Pillay / Kothari "Jewish control" 2022 trope, or UN's "rappartour" Francesca Albanese infamous - dubbed modern 'Goebbeles', her antisemitic tweets from 2014 remembered; or the mocked $30 membership IAGS "experts" countered [T.o.I, 9.9.25] by 537 real experts denying the "genocide" lie. So are objecting major countries who are neither socialist or Muslim.
All the propaganda Goliath machine nor hecklers who pressure pols. to utter the G word, don't change facts. Nor the 32 Wikipedia editors organized gang [see ADL, 3.18.25].
Numbers: 'Swords of Iron' - even if one accepts the 60,000+ figure, but since over 25,000 Terrorists have been eliminated in Gaza, the combatants-to-none ratio is rather impressive. And yes, Hamas women are usually assistants... all that is in the course of 2 years.
VS Islamic Republic of Iran massacring some 60,000 in a few days.
Ref. for 60k Iranians:
* [Journalist] Shirin Sadeghi @ShirinSadeghi Jan 22, 2026: "Dr.conservatively estimates 60,000 killed, 360,000 injured and at least 1 million directly affected."
----
Iran may have killed over 30,000 protesters in two days: Report.
By Brady Knox. Washington Examiner.
January 25, 2026. — Over two weeks, the Rapid Support Forces murdered thousands of civilians, with one estimate putting the kill count at over 60,000.
* Turlockers continue to show support for Iranian protesters.
Joe Cortez, Turlock Journal, Jan 28, 2026..."it’s over 60,000 that have been killed.”
[Definisci proPal e poi definisci fascista. L’incitamento di Francesca Albanese].
Rights Reporter.
Define proPal and then define fascist. Francesca Albanese's incitement.
Written by Franco Londei. November 30, 2025
Francesca Albanese comments on the ProPal attack in La Stampa.
The proPal assault on the editorial office of La Stampa cannot and must not be underestimated, even less so if the phantom UN special envoy, Francesca Albanese, starts inciting and justifying the attack on journalists who are "not aligned" with Hamas's press releases.
Which, put like that, is strange. The daily newspaper La Stampa , along with Repubblica and all the left-wing newspapers, have never skimped on the distribution of Hamas press releases, so the pro-Pal attack on the editorial staff of the Turin daily is even unjustifiable.
The only justification is therefore found in the very definition of “proPal,” which rarely indicates “support for the Palestinian cause” or “support for Palestinian self-determination,” much less “support for the two-state solution.”
More frequently it indicates "justification of Islamic terrorism" or "being against Israel and the Israeli people", therefore it indicates "anti-Semitism".
But the most fitting definition of proPal is undoubtedly the one that emerged first from the attack on the editorial offices of La Stampa and then from the incitement of Francesca Albanese: the proPal ideology is " intolerant, authoritarian, repressive, and a supporter of practices or attitudes that limit the freedom of others ," which is what Hamas does in Gaza or Fatah in the West Bank.
Well, if you look for the definition of “fascism” among the many that are proposed, there is also that fascist ideology is “ intolerant, authoritarian, repressive, supporting practices or attitudes that limit the freedom of others ”.
There's no longer a distinction between left and right; a fascist is a fascist. Anyone who supports terrorism, practices that limit freedom, the authoritarianism of those who shoot in the head those who disagree with the [Hamas] regime is a fascist. And it's no coincidence that a pro-Pal supports the same things and ideologies as a fascist. Hamas is fascist. Fatah is fascist. They haven't held elections since time immemorial and control the population with weapons, violence, and blackmail. And if you support these people, you're a fascist.
There's a lot to write about Francesca Albanese, not because of her "missions" to Gaza, where she's never been, or the genocide[sic] without bodies and numbers she blathers on about, but rather because this figure wanders the world cloaked in a title given to her by the United Nations that, unfortunately, gives a good idea of how low the most expensive and most useless global body in human history has fallen.
A United Nations representative who, after the fascist attack on the editorial offices of La Stampa , a newspaper friendly to the proPal movement, claims that "this should be a warning to the press..." A warning? And where does this charlatan think she is? In Gaza? In the Palestinian West Bank, where the little press that exists is subservient to their respective regimes? Where, if you write "Fuck Hamas," you find a noose around your neck, like a very well-known proPal movement (one of the real ones)? Does she perhaps think she's in Qatar, at Al Jazeera, where the only line is that dictated by the regime, the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood, an expression of Islamic fascism?
How can the United Nations provide legal cover for this person? How can the United Nations provide legal cover for someone who issues warnings against the free press in a free country?
And now define “proPal” again.
Franco Londei.
Expert in human rights, international law, and development cooperation. For many years, he has followed Italians imprisoned or kidnapped abroad. Founder of Rights Reporter.
https://www.rightsreporter.org/definisci-propal-definisci-fascista-incitamento-di-francesca-albanese/
On a scale of 1-10, who employed apartheid/genocide buzzwords propaganda [AKA: Pallyweid], Qatar's Hamas linked/aligned al-Jazzera, Haaretz or neo-Nazis? [Don't elaborate, just give scores]
_
* Al Jazeera: 8/10
* Haaretz: 6/10
* Neo-Nazis: 10/10
(ChatGPT, 2.12.26.
[https://ddrd7m7n1wy4rc.archive.ph/cNIk8/9228b3648fb6beb9c890658451174c9b0747f84e.png])
Amnesty International’s Moral Collapse: From “Apartheid” Smears and the “Genocide” Blood Libel to Backing Fascista Francesca Albanese: Pallyweid + bigotry
For years, Amnesty International has wrapped itself in the language of universal justice. But when it comes to the Jewish state—often in ways that spill over into fueling anti-Jewish bigotry—its record reads less like principled advocacy and more like ideological fixation.
In 2022, Amnesty detonated its credibility with a report branding Israel an “apartheid” state. The charge was not a cautious legal finding—it was a political slogan lifted from activist echo chambers and repackaged with a human-rights logo. “Apartheid” is a term born of a specific, race-based system in South Africa. To graft it wholesale onto Israel—a diverse, multiethnic democracy whose Arab citizens vote, serve in parliament, and sit on its Supreme Court—was, critics argue, a deliberate distortion designed to stigmatize, not illuminate.
By 2025, Amnesty escalated from inflammatory to outrageous, pushing the “genocide” accusation during Israel’s war against Hamas. Genocide is the crime of intent to annihilate a people—the word the world uses for the Holocaust. To hurl it at the one state created in the ashes of Europe’s extermination camps is not merely provocative; it is morally grotesque. Israel was fighting a terrorist organization openly committed to its destruction. Amnesty chose instead to frame the Jewish state as the ultimate criminal. For many Jews worldwide, that was not human-rights advocacy—it was moral inversion.
Then, ) Amnesty aligned itself with rhetoric from Francesca Albanese, a UN official long criticized by Israeli leaders and Jewish organizations for statements they regard as biased and dismissive of Jewish historical trauma and Israeli security realities. Rather than distance itself from controversy, Amnesty doubled down—reinforcing the perception that its Israel posture is driven less by dispassionate legal analysis than by political animus. Worse still, in February 2026, after Francesca Albanese’s infamous “common enemy” remark—delivered alongside representatives of the genocidal Islamist group Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran on Qatar’s Hamas-aligned Al Jazeera forum—Amnesty International shamelessly attacked European governments that called for her resignation, as basic morality would demand.
No country is above scrutiny, including Israel. But scrutiny is not the same as systematic delegitimization. When Amnesty deploys its harshest possible legal labels—“apartheid,” “genocide”—against the world’s only Jewish state while reserving comparatively muted language for serial abusers elsewhere, it invites the charge of double standards. And when those labels echo narratives historically used to isolate and demonize Jews, the moral cost is profound.
Human-rights organizations wield immense influence. With that influence comes responsibility: precision, balance, and an awareness of history. By repeatedly choosing maximalist accusations against Israel, Amnesty International has, in the eyes of its critics, not stood on the side of universal morality—but wandered dangerously away from it.
Post a Comment