ACT NOW! Tell Companies to Pressure Twitter to Stop Running Their Ads on Pages that Promote Terror

Companies’ ads are appearing on ISIS terrorist Twitter accounts, but do the advertiser’s know this? Social media sites allow terrorist groups to publish videos that incite to violence and murder. Tell companies to demand that social sites stop promoting terror or they will stop buying ads.


It’s bad enough that sites like Facebook and YouTube allow terrorist elements to incite to violence online. But what about the companies whose ads appear alongside these dangerous posts? Are the companies okay with their logo and ad showing up next to a call to murder Jews?

Assuming this is not the case, it is up to us to inform some of these companies that their ads are appearing in the wrong places. These companies will, hopefully, turn to the social media sites and insist on preventing their ads from being displayed alongside terror-inciting videos and posts.

This is where you come in. We need your help in contacting these companies to inform them how their ads are damaging and unacceptable. Tell them to wake up and ensure that their ads do not contribute to terror incitement, nor allow for profiteering from online terror.

Not only does Twitter allow ads to appear on these offending pages, but Twitter allows these terrorists to use the social media site freely! For instance, the following ISIS terrorist using Twitter delights in the fact that Twitter only shut him down temporarily:

Accept Islamic Terror as the New Normal? by Nonie Darwish

  • “The use of terror under this doctrine [Targhib wal tarhib, “luring and terrorizing”] is a legitimate sharia obligation.” — Salman Al Awda, mainstream Muslim sheikh, on the Al Jazeera television show “Sharia and Life”.

  • Part of the tarhib or “terrorizing” side of this doctrine is to make a cruel example of those who do not comply with the requirements of Islam. That is the reason Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and entities such as ISIS, intentionally hold ceremonial public beheadings, floggings, and amputation of limbs.
  • Islamic jihad has always counted on people in conquered lands eventually to yield, give up and accept terrorism as part of life, similar to natural disasters, earthquakes and floods.

After terror attacks, we often hear from Western media and politicians that we must accept terrorist attacks as the “new normal.”

For Western citizens, this phrase is dangerous.

Islam’s doctrine of jihad, expansion and dawah (Islamic outreach, proselytizing) rely heavily on the use of both terror and luring. Targhib wal tarhib is an Islamic doctrine that means “seducing (luring) and terrorizing” as a tool for dawah, to conquer nations and force citizens to submit to Islamic law, sharia. It amounts to manipulating the instinctive parts of the human brain with extreme opposing pressures of pleasure and pain — rewarding, then severely punishing — to brainwash people into complying with Islam.

Most ordinary Muslims are not even aware of this doctrine, but Islamic books have been written about it. Mainstream Muslim sheikhs such as Salman Al Awda have discussed it on Al Jazeera TV. On a show called “Sharia and Life,” Al Awda recommended using extremes “to exaggerate… reward and punishment, morally and materially… in both directions”. “The use of terror under this doctrine,”‘ he said, “is a legitimate sharia obligation.”

People in the West think of terror as something that Islamic jihadists inflict on non-Muslims, and it is. But terror is also the mechanism for ensuring compliance within Islam. Under Islamic law, jihadists who evade performing jihad are to be killed. Terror is thus the threat that keeps jihadists on their missions, and that make ordinary Muslims obey sharia.

An online course for recruiting jihadists contains this description:

“Individual Dawa depends on eliciting emotional responses from recruits (and building a personal relationship). Abu ‘Amr’s approach illustrates a recruitment concept called al-targhib wa’l-tarhib, which is a carrot-and-stick technique of extolling the benefits of action while explaining the frightening costs of inaction. The concept was introduced in the Qur’an and is discussed by many Islamic thinkers exploring the best way to call people to Islam (several scholars, for example, have written books titled al-targhib wa’l-tarhib). According to Abu ‘Amr, recruiters should apply the concept throughout the recruitment process, but emphasize the benefits of action early in the process and the costs of inaction later.”

In other words, recruiters of jihadists should start by emphasizing the “good stuff” first, the “lure” — the future glory, supremacy and fulfillment of every lustful wish, such as virgins in heaven. Later, they should threaten the recruits with “terror” and shame — the consequence if they fail to participate in jihad.

Part of the tarhib or “terrorizing” side of this doctrine is to make a cruel example of those who do not comply with the requirements of Islam. That is the reason Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and entities such as ISIS, intentionally hold ceremonial public beheadings, floggings, and amputation of limbs. Countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey are more discrete, but they tolerate and support honor killings; killing apostates; beating women and children, and torture and murder in their jails. The doctrine of targhib and tarhib is alive and well, not just in Islamic theocracies but also in the so-called “moderate” Muslim countries.

Islam has been using these “pleasure and pain” brainwashing techniques, and cruel and unusual punishment, from its inception and until today. While the Bible — the Western Judeo-Christian tradition — is in harmony with, and nurtures, kindness in human nature, Islam does the opposite: it uses the human instincts for self-preservation and survival to break the people’s will and brainwash them into slavish obedience.

Like the majority of Muslims, I never heard of this foundational Islamic doctrine when I was growing up in Egypt, but have felt the impact of this doctrine on my life — in every aspect of Islamic culture; in Islamic preaching, in my Islamic family relations; in how Islamic governments operate and how people of authority, in general, treat the people under them.

The Islamic doctrine of “lure and terror” has produced a culture of toxic extremes: distrust and fear, pride and shame, permission to lie (“taqiyya“), and rejecting taking responsibility for one’s actions.

Having lived most of my life under Islam, I am sad to say that people the West calls “moderate Muslims” are frequently, in fact, citizens who have learned to live with and accept terror as normal. For centuries, many have made excuses for terror, condemned victims of terror, remained silent or equivocal, and have even compromised with the terrorists to survive. The Islamic culture in which I lived looked the other way when women were beaten. When girls were honor-murdered, the question was “what did she do?” instead of “how could that be?” When Christians were killed and persecuted, many blamed the Christians for their own persecution at the hands of Muslims. The normal Islamic response to terror became: “None of my business.”

And now the Islamic doctrine of Targhib wal Tarhib, has moved to the West and aims at changing Western humanistic culture. It would replace respect for human rights, caring for one’s neighbor and the values of freedom and peace, with the values of bondage, terror, tyranny and fear.

Islamic jihad has always counted on people in conquered lands eventually to yield, give up and accept terrorism as part of life, similar to natural disasters, earthquakes and floods.

It did not take long for the Islamic doctrine of Targhib wal Tarhib to work on the psyche of Western leaders and media, who are now telling us to live with it as the “new normal.” Islam counts on turning everyone into “moderate” Muslims who will eventually look the other way when terror happens to the person next to you.

The new normal? Police help survivors of the terrorist attack on London Bridge, June 4, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values.”

Academic Freedom Opposed by “Who”? by Douglas Murray

Do students in any British or American university have to be held responsible for the actions of the British or American armed forces in Northern Ireland or Iraq? Would we not think it the grossest ignorance, not to mention bad manners, to think they should be?


It is that time of year again. News arrives of 343 “university teachers” who signed a letter pledging that henceforth they will not cooperate with Israeli academic institutions. Their joint letter took up a full page today in Britain’s left-wing Guardian newspaper (where else?) and has caused almost no stir in Britain. It comes days after a letter signed by 150 leading British writers, musicians and others — including JK Rowling, Simon Schama and Hilary Mantel — opposed any and all such boycotts against Israel, and pointed out that in the eyes of most people, intellectual and cultural exchange is a good thing.

The anti-boycott letter was signed by some of Britain’s leading intellectuals. The main response to the pro-boycott letter, however, may well be, “Who?” Who knew, for instance, that Israel — or any state — would be diminished if it could not gain from the wisdom of Professor Alex Callinicos, one of Britain’s most obscure Marxist academics? He is the author of numerous interminable tracts; his efforts to bring his thoughts into mainstream politics reached their summit during his involvement with the Socialist Worker’s Party, an entity too extreme even for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party. As almost nobody in Britain wants Prof. Callinicos’s thoughts, why would anybody in Israel be begging for them?

Or consider another figure on the letter, one Professor Jane Hardy who teaches at the University of Hertfordshire. It would come as a great surprise to most people in Britain — and possibly to many people in Hertfordshire — that such an institution exists. But a quick internet search reveals that it does, and that until 1992 it was known as “Hatfield Polytechnic.” So what are the students in Israel unilaterally going to lose the right to know, thanks to the stance taken by Professor Hardy? Well, her own profile page says, “My research and publications on regional development, and the gender and class impacts of change have been underpinned by a concern with the lives of ordinary people and how they have contested neoliberalism.” One tries to be polite, of course, but it is worth pointing out that this kind of “study” has never been helpful in finding a place in the job-market for British students (apart, possibly, in furthering their studies in low-grade academia). Why the withdrawal of Prof. Hardy’s research on regional development, gender and class in a Hertfordshire context should be such a loss to students in Israel, one is at a loss to guess.

Others on the list comprise a list of the even more obscure and unknown. Perhaps their families know who some of them are? The majority are from Britain’s second or third tier universities, former polytechnics misguidedly rebranded as universities, which have lowered the coinage of universities as a whole. Of course, there is, as usual, the requisite smattering of Jewish names, brought to the fore by the petition’s organizers in an attempt to cover over the latent bigotry and racism of their letter. But what a chorus of presumption and self-importance is there.

Just consider the reasoning behind the letter and you will see that it shows the tragically low bar now needed in Britain to qualify as an academic.

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, for instance, speaking for the organizers of the boycott letter, says, “Israel universities are at the heart of Israel’s violations of international law and oppression of the Palestinian people.” Is that really true? Take one of the hardest measures that the Israeli state has ever had to carry out against those who carry out suicide terrorism against its people: home demolition (in which the home of a terrorist is destroyed after the case has gone through the courts, because it is hard to find many ways to dissuade someone from doing something if they are willing to die in the process: but what happens to their family home afterwards can provide a disincentive). Does anybody know how Prof. Rosenhead has come to the belief that home demolition of suicide bombers is work carried out by the universities of Israel? Ordinarily it would be the IDF or other security forces that would carry out such regrettable work. Does Prof. Rosenhead really have evidence that it is in fact Israeli academics who are sent to carry out such an order? It seems vanishingly unlikely. And even if one academic somewhere in Israel had been involved, why should that affect somebody studying literature at a university in Tel Aviv? Do students in any British or American university have to be held responsible for the actions of the British or American armed forces in Northern Ireland or Iraq? Would we not think it the grossest ignorance, not to mention bad manners, to think they should be?

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, of the London School of Economics, is one of the organisers of an academic boycott of Israel.

Prof. Rosenhead’s view of what ordinary academics are up against appears to be skewed at home as well as abroad. At the launch of his racist petition he announced, “These signatures were all collected despite the pressures that can be put on people not to criticise the state of Israel.” I do not know where he thinks such pressure comes from. To my eye the only people who exert any pressure not to sign boycott letters are a couple of small Zionist organisations in the UK. It is hard to believe that this comprises a force that is feared by these brave signatories unless the idea that the organizers are in fact playing into is that there is always some price to pay for standing up to “Jewish interests” and “Jewish power.” Racism like that has not been heard in Britain for many decades. How unpleasant to hear it bubbling up again from the obscurest backwaters of academia.

ABIYITA INTWARI ZA DEMOKARASI N’IBISAMBO BYAGAMBANIYE UBWAMI BW’URWNDA.

Ikinyamakuru inyangenews kiranenga abiyita intwari za demokarasi zagambaniye Ubwami bw’uRwanda n’abami b’Urwanda.Ikinyamakuru inyangenews kimaze gusoma ikinyamakuru ISHEMA cyandikirwa mu Rwanda kirasanga ibivugwa ko kuwa 25/09/2011 hazibukwa intwari za demokarasi za gambaniye ubwami bw’Urwanda bitari bikwiye.

Kugeza ubu bakaba baradushyize mukaga gakomeye gashingiye kubusambo bwabiyita intwari za demokarasi ziganjemo Abahutu n’Abatutsi bibisambo bashyize mukaga rubanda rw’Umwami rwari rusanzwe rubana neza rwaje kubibwamo amacakubiri y’amoko kugeza aho ubu babana bishishanya bitarigeze bibaho mu gihe Abami b’Urwanda bayoboraga uRwanda.

Mubyukuri abateguye kwibuka izi gahunda zo kwibuka abazanye amacakubiri mubanyarwanda ntasoni bafite,kubona batekereza ko aba banyamacakubiri bakwiye gushyirwa imbere y’abami b’Urwanda nikigaragaza ko umuzi woguhembera amacakubiri y’amoko bakiwufite mu mitwe yabo no mu mitima yabo.

Uhereye kuri KAYIBANDA Gerigoire wabaye perezida w’ubwoko bumwe bw’abanyarwanda ntabwo yarakwiriye guhabwa icyubahiro cyo kwitwa intwari ya demokarasi n’ubwo byatuma atazuka ariko kandi ntibikwiye.

Gerigoire Kayibanda n’abambari be barimo:

  1. Dominiko Mbonyumutwa
  2. Yosefu Habyarimana Gitera
  3. Anastazi Makuza
  4. Baritazali Bicamumpaka
  5. Lazaro mpaniye
  6. Aloyizi munyagaju
  7. Thadeo Bagaraza
  8. Gaspari Cyimana
  9. Magisimiliyani Niyonzima
  10. Karcveri Ndahayo
  11. Izidori Nziyimana
  12. Kaliyopi Mulindahabi
  13. Amandini Rugira
  14. Tewodori sindikubwabo
  15. Otto Rusingizandekwe
  16. Yohani Batista Rwasibo
  17. Prosperi Bwanakweri
  18. Alegisi Karekezi
  19. Germani Gasigwa

Mu byukuri nkuko umunyamakuru yarangije iyi nkuru asaba abanyarwanda kugira icyo bavuga kuri iyi nkuru yasohotse mu kinyamakuru ISHEMA gifite No.24, 22 Nyakanga – 05 kanama 2011.Iyi nkuru ifite umutwe wa magambo uvuga ngo ITIKU RIKOMEYE MU KWIZIHIZA ISABUKURU YA DEMOKARASI N’UBWIGENGE MU RWANDA mubyukuri s’ukurwanya aba banyacyubahiro ahubwo ni ukugaragaza ukuri nyako gushingiye ku mateka nyayo.Ndagirango nibutse abanyarwanda ko Umwami mutara lll Rudahigwa yatanze yatangiye inzira yogushaka ubwigenge,ababirigi bafatanyije nabo twavuze hejuru baramugambanira atararangiza guhabwa ubwigenge yaramaze gusaba.Amakuru avuga ko Umwami KIGELI V Ndahindurwa ariwe waje gukomeza inzira Mutara lll yari yaratangiye babonye ko abami b’uRwanda babateze imitego yose badafite aho bamenera bahitamo gukubita kudeta ubwami bw’uRwanda.

Twakibutsa Umwami Mutara lll Rudahigwa ariwe waciye uburetwa abatutsi bakoreshaga abahutu,agaca ubuhake abatutsi babibonye gutyo batangira gushaka uburyo bamugambanira bakoresheje abahutu n’ababirigi bari babarinyuma.None se iyo niyo demokarasi?mu byukuri abantu bakwiye kuvuga ukuri kugirango tuve mukangaratete,aho kugirango abana babanyarwanda bahore bakurira mu mhanga kubera ubusambo bw’agatsiko kabantu batanarenze n’amakumyabiri.Abanyarwanda nibadahaguruka ngo barwanye ibyo bitekerezo bishaje ingaruka nitwebwe zizageraho.

Tuvugishije ukuri icyubahiro cy’Ubwami mu byukuri ntaho gihuriye nibindi kuko hejuru y’Umwami haba Imana yonyine dore ntanuwashaka kuba Umwami ngo abigereho kuko abanyarwanda bakifitiye Umwami wabo ndetse hakiyongeraho n’Umwami wabami ariwe Yesu kirisitu,ugiye kudutabara mu minsi yavuba.

Twabamenyeshaga ko e-mail ya byaruhanga I itagikora bitewe n’uko yakoranaga na RPRK ibeshya ko izacyura Umwmi w’uRwanda uri mubuhungiro,bakaba baranyuze umwe mubanyamakuru yakoranaga nabo bakamuha amafaranga akabaha pass word bakoreshaga murwego rwoguhana amakuru no kuyatunganya bakinjira muri e-mail ya byaruhangaissac@gmail.com kugirango babone inkuru na raporo batanga ibukuru.

inyangenewsinfo@gmail.com

Iddirisa Maniraguha

BUJUMBURA

Abbas to Arab Leaders: Go to Hell! by Khaled Abu Toameh

  • Abbas and Fatah leaders in Ramallah claim that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates (the “Arab Quartet”) are using and promoting Abbas’s rival, Mohamed Dahlan, in order to facilitate their mission of rapprochement with Israel.

  • Many Palestinians were surprised to see veteran Palestinian official Ahmed Qurei, a former Palestinian Authority (PA) prime minister and one of the architects of the Oslo Accord, come out in favor of the Arab plan, which basically envisions ousting Abbas from power.
  • This, and not Israeli policy, is Abbas’s true nightmare. After all, he knows that without Israel’s presence in the West Bank, his regime would have long fallen into the hands of Hamas or even his political rivals in Fatah.
  • The “Arab Quartet” plan shows that some Arab countries are indeed fed up with Abbas’s failure to lead his people towards a better life. These states, which have long been politically and financially supportive of the Palestinians, have had enough of Abbas’s efforts to secure unending power — at the direct cost of the well-being of his people.

In his speech last week before the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas trotted out his usual charges against Israel, citing “collective punishment,” “house demolitions,” “extrajudicial executions” and “ethnic cleansing.” However, Abbas’s thoughts seem to be elsewhere these days. He is facing a new challenge from unexpected parties, namely several Arab countries that have come together to demand that he reform his ruling Fatah faction and pave the way for the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership.

Yet this was not included in the UN speech. Indeed, why would Abbas share with world leaders that his Arab brothers are pressuring him to introduce major reforms in Fatah and end a decade-long power struggle with Hamas that has resulted in the creation of two separate Palestinian entities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Abbas, his aides admit, is today more worried about the “Arab meddling” in the internal affairs of the Palestinians than he is about “collective punishment” or “settlement activities.” In fact, he is so worried that he recently lashed out at those Arab countries that have launched an initiative to “re-arrange the Palestinian home from within” and bring about changes in the Palestinian political scene.

The Arab countries behind the initiative — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates — are being referred to by many Palestinians as the “Arab Quartet.”

In an unprecedented critique of these countries, Abbas recently declared:

“The decision is ours and we are the only ones who make decisions. No one has authority over us. No one can dictate to us what to do. I don’t care about the discomfort of Washington or Moscow or other capitals. I don’t want to hear about these capitals. I don’t want the money of these capitals. Let’s free ourselves from the ‘influence’ of these capitals.”

Although he did not mention the four Arab countries by name, it was clear that Abbas was referring to the “Arab Quartet” when he was talking about “capitals” and their influence and money. Abbas’s message: “How dare any Arab country tell me what to do, no matter how wealthy and influential it may be.” Abbas sees the demand by these Arab countries for new Palestinian leadership, unity and reforms in Fatah as “unacceptable meddling in the internal affairs of the Palestinians.”

So what exactly is it in the new Arab initiative that has so enraged Abbas, to the point that he is prepared to place at risk his relations with four of the Arab world’s preeminent states?

According to reports in Arab media outlets, the “Arab Quartet” has drafted a plan to “activate the Palestinian portfolio” by ending the dispute between Abbas’s Fatah and Hamas. The plan also calls for ending the schism within Fatah by allowing some of its expelled leaders, including Mohamed Dahlan, to return to the faction. The overall aim of the plan is to unite the West Bank and Gaza Strip under one authority and end the state of political anarchy in the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. The “Arab Quartet” has even formed a committee to oversee the implementation of any “reconciliation” agreements reached between Fatah and Hamas and Abbas and his adversaries in Fatah. According to the plan, if such an agreement is not reached, the Arab League will intervene to “enforce reconciliation” between the rival Palestinian parties.

When Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN General Assembly on Sept. 22, 2016, he did not share with world leaders that his Arab brothers are pressuring him to introduce major reforms in his Fatah faction, and allow some of its expelled leaders, including Abbas’s rival Mohamed Dahlan (inset), to return.

Abbas’s main concern is not a “reconciliation” with Hamas. In fact, he has repeatedly expressed his readiness to form a unity government with Hamas and end the dispute with the Islamist movement. In recent weeks, there has even been renewed talk of Fatah-Hamas talks in Qatar to achieve “unity” and “reconciliation” between the two rival parties. Rather, it is the attempt to coerce Abbas into reconciling with Dahlan that is really getting to the PA president. In the view of a source close to Abbas, he (Abbas) would rather make peace with Hamas than “swallow the cup of poison” of patching things up with Dahlan.

Abbas harbors a very particular dislike for Dahlan. Until five years ago, Dahlan was a senior Fatah official who had long been closely associated with Abbas. Once, Abbas and Dahlan, a former security commander in the Gaza Strip, formed an alliance against Yasser Arafat, the former president of the PA. But the honeymoon between Abbas and Dahlan came to an end a few tears ago after the Abbas and his lieutenants in Ramallah began suspecting that Dahlan has ambitions to replace or succeed Abbas. At the request of Abbas, Dahlan was expelled from Fatah and accused of murder, financial corruption and conspiring to overthrow Abbas’s regime. From his exile in the United Arab Emirates, Dahlan has since been waging a campaign against the 81-year-old Abbas, accusing him and his two wealthy sons of running the PA as if it were their private fiefdom.

Such is Abbas’s contempt for Dahlan that last week he reportedly instructed the PA authorities to ban Dahlan’s wife, Jalilah, from entering the Gaza Strip. Jalilah runs and funds a number of charities in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Her activities are seen by Abbas as an attempt to build power bases for her husband and pave the way for his return to the political scene. Abbas’s decision to ban her from entering the Gaza Strip came following reports that she and her husband were planning to organize and fund a collective wedding for dozens of impoverished Palestinian couples. The funding, of course, comes from the United Arab Emirates, whose rulers have been providing the Dahlan couple with shelter and money for several years.

When Abbas says that he “does not want the money” of certain Arab capitals, then, he is referring to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. He strongly suspects that these two wealthy countries are investing funds in Dahlan as part of a scheme to replace him and pave the way for the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership. For Abbas, who has refused to name a deputy or promote a potential successor, this is a very serious threat to his autocratic rule and a “conspiracy” by outside parties against him and his Palestinian Authority leadership.

Abbas and Fatah leaders in Ramallah are convinced that the “Arab Quartet” members are actually planning to pave the way for promoting “normalization” between the Arab world and Israel — all at the expense of the Palestinians. They claim that the four Arab countries are using and promoting Dahlan in order to facilitate their mission of rapprochement with Israel. These countries have reached the conclusion that as long as Abbas and the current PA leadership are around, it would be very difficult to initiate any form of “normalization” or peace treaties between Arab countries and Israel. The PA leadership’s position has always been that peace between the Arab countries and Israel should come only after, and not before, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved.

According to Palestinian political analyst Mustafa Ibrahim:

“The plan of the Arab Quartet prepares for the transitional post-Abbas era and negotiations for peace between Arab countries and Israel. The plan is designed to serve the interests of Arab regimes more than ending divisions among the Palestinians. The goal is to eliminate the Palestinian cause and find an alternative to President Abbas.”

This analysis reflects the views of Abbas and his veteran Palestinian Authority leaders in Ramallah, who continue to be extremely wary of any talk about succession in the PA leadership.

Interestingly, the “Arab Quartet” initiative for now seems to have divided Palestinian officials, with some welcoming it, and others rejecting it.

Criticizing Abbas and the Fatah leadership for coming out against the plan, Hassan Asfour, a senior Fatah official and former PA minister of state, urged Abbas to reconsider his “impractical, irrational and hasty” decision to dismiss the initiative of the four Arab countries. Asfour pointed out that Abbas’s recent criticism of these countries was “harmful” and “unjustified.” Abbas’s close aides have retorted by claiming that Asfour was a political ally of Dahlan and therefore has a clear agenda.

Many Palestinians were surprised to see veteran Palestinian official Ahmed Qurei, a former PA prime minister and one of the architects of the Oslo Accord, come out in favor of the “Arab Quartet” plan, which basically envisions ousting Abbas from power. Abbas’s close advisors claim that Qurei has joined Dahlan in his effort to bring about regime change in Ramallah.

Dahlan, for his part, has launched his own initiative by calling for an “expanded” gathering of Palestinian factions in Cairo, to discuss ways of bringing about real change in the Palestinian political arena. Thus, Dahlan has moved from behind-the-scenes activities to topple Abbas to public moves. And in this he enjoys the political and financial backing of at least four important Arab countries that would also like to see an end to the Abbas era. This is the first time that a senior Palestinian official has openly challenged the PA leadership with the support of Arab countries. It is predicted that at least 600 people will attend the Dahlan-sponsored conference in the Egyptian capital. The PA leadership is now threatening to retaliate against anyone who attends the conference by cutting off their salaries. This will only deepen the crisis in Abbas’s Fatah and yield yet more infighting.

Abbas undoubtedly had these thoughts in mind when he addressed the UN General Assembly — the new Arab “conspiracy” to replace him with Dahlan, or someone else. This, and not Israeli policy, is Abbas’s true nightmare. After all, he knows that without Israel’s presence in the West Bank, his regime would have long fallen into the hands of Hamas or even his political rivals in Fatah.

The “Arab Quartet” plan shows that some Arab countries are indeed fed up with Abbas’s failure to lead his people towards a better life. These states, which have long been politically and financially supportive of the Palestinians, have had enough of Abbas’s efforts to secure unending power — at the direct cost of the well-being of his people. It will not take long before we see whether these Arab countries, now mocked by Abbas, will succeed in ridding the Palestinians of leaders who lead them toward nothing but ruin.

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

Page 523 of 542
1 521 522 523 524 525 542
Skip to toolbar