1) The ITIC has documented ‘Palestinian reactions to Israel’s decision to outlaw organizations affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)’.
“The order issued by the Israeli defense minister led a series of reactions from the PA, Hamas and other organizations, as well as the many Palestinian NGOs, including those to which the order related. Many claimed the order was illegal and part of a continuing Israeli campaign to attack Palestinian social-civilian organizations, and especially their sources of funding. Many also declared they intended to keep fighting Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other venues, and called on countries and NGOs around the globe to enlist in fighting the order.”
2) Writing at the Jewish Journal, Professor Gerald Steinberg discusses ‘Willful Blindness on the Palestinian NGO Terror Connection’.
“When governments, such as the European UN Security Council members, and their NGO clients repeat the mantra that no evidence has been presented, they are being willfully misleading and worse. There is an abundance of readily verifiable information, even without the classified intelligence material, available to government officials and journalists who are interested in going beyond the simplistic slogans about NGOs.”
3) At the Times of Israel Haviv Rettig Gur analyses the passing of Israel’s state budget.
“In the terms by which the new government measures itself, it is a vindication of the many difficult compromises that were required to reach this point: Of deep-right Yamina voting for massive budgets to be handed to Islamist Ra’am, of Ra’am facing strident accusations of betrayal from other Arab political parties, of progressive Meretz finding itself handing the keys to the kingdom to Bennett, an avowed opponent of Palestinian statehood, and so on.
The compromises stung and are expected to hurt many of them at the polls among former party faithful. But these disparate factions now say that their sacrifices got the country back on track.”
4) James Vaughan ‘traces the long and fascinating history of conflicting attitudes towards Zionism and Israel in the British Conservative party’ at the Fathom Journal.
“Yet the story of Conservative Party attitudes towards Zionism and Israel is by no means as straightforward or untroubled as the pathway from Balfour to Churchill, and Churchill to Johnson would suggest. At numerous points in the twentieth century, Zionist sympathisers were very far from representing mainstream opinion in the Party. As one scholar of the mid-twentieth century Conservative Party put it, ‘Despite Churchill’s known sympathy, and Balfour’s much earlier, the Conservative Party generally stood aloof, at the very least, from Zionism. Moreover the Conservative party contained some members with records of hostility to Zionist aspirations, and a few previously regarded as hostile to Jews in general.’”
Of course, the PA and Hamas are upset at Israel disturbing their worldwide begging rights. It would never occur to them that Gaza could become economically viable if Hamas changed its policies to accept its situation and moved on to produce goods and ideas that the world wants and could be exported.
“It would never occur to them,” exactly — anyone within a cult of inflexibly dogmatic beliefs who begins to implicitly criticize the very foundations of the cult, well, read Sir Karl Popper on that, in The Open
Society and Its Enemies, among other relevant sources.
Hamas and similar cults view “accepting the situation” as impossible.