Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, December 06, 2010

Wikileaks: Hezbollah's fiber optics network, courtesy of Iran

In yet another WikiLeaks release of leaked US State Department cables on Sunday, it was revealed that Hizbullah established a complete fiber optic communications network throughout Lebanon, independent of the country's communications system, which he said Iran fully financed.

Lebanese Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh decried the establishment of the separate communications network, calling it "a strategic victory for Iran." Hamdeh said that setting up the fiber optics network was "the final step in creating a nation-state, and that "Hizbullah now has an army and weapons; a television station; an education system; hospitals; a financial system; and a telecommunications system."

Discussing the options of the Lebanese government in countering the independent communications network, Hamadeh said that the Hariri government had two choices: to seek a UN Security Council resolution, or to cut the fiber optic lines. However, the telecommunications minister said he was told by a Hizbullah official that "any move against the FiOS [fiber optics system] would be taken as 'an Israeli attack' and dealt with accordingly."

In statements to US Charge d'Affaires Michele Sison in Beirut, Hamadeh expressed fear for his and other government officials' physical safety for exposing and challenging the Hizbullah communications network. He said that the anti-Syrian, anti-Hizbullah March 14 movement, led by now-Lebanese President Sa'ad Hariri was relaying details of the network to a handful of friendly countries, both in the West and throughout the Arab world.

Hamadeh accused the "Iranian Fund for the Reconstruction of Lebanon" of funding the fiber optics project. He said the same group has been building roads and bridges since the 2006 Second Lebanon War and was using the roads projects as a cover to install the communications lines. Describing the wide reach of the newly installed network, he said the lines run "from Beirut, around both sides of the airport, into the south below the Litani [River] and back up through the Bekaa Valley to the far north." He said it goes through Palestinian refugee camps, Hizbullah training camps, and through Christian areas.

This is not exactly news, but the Western media has been all but ignoring the ugly fact that Iran, through Hezbollah, has already destroyed Lebanon from within. All that is left is a shell of a country that cannot act independently - and that gets threatened if it acts as if it is sovereign.

November: PalArabs kill more PalArab than Israel does, 12-3

I hadn't looked at the statistics in a while, but I just saw that the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights came out with a report listing 12 people killed in November by other PalArabs - 7 in the West Bank and 5 in Gaza.

In that same time period, the IDF killed three Palestinian Arabs - all of whom happened to be terrorists.

I guess that the Palestinian Arabs must be engaging in a genocide against each other, killing each other at a 300% higher rate than Israel is.

Video of Mike Huckabee, 12/5/2010, part 1

The dinner I mentioned earlier had as a guest speaker Mike Huckabee, who is a tremendous friend of Israel. Here's part 1 of his talk (after five minutes of jokes...)

"Secret Zionist chemical weapon responsible for Carmel fire"

Palestine Today continues to uphold its already stellar journalistic standards:

Researcher and Palestinian historian Dr. Nasser Al-Jarbou Aliafawi refuted Israel's claims that the Haifa fire was due to negligence, saying Israel was falsifying the facts. The researcher Jarbou said that the fire resulted from a test chemical in the mountainous areas, adjacent to Carmel,because the fire was close to chemical refineries.

Jarbou in a press statement that if it was a normal fire due to negligence it would not be on this catastrophic scale, but Israel could have contained it quickly.

Well, there you have it.

Extremist right wing dinner open thread

Mrs. Elder and I are on our way to a fundraising dinner for Jewish extremists where they will raise hundreds of thousands of Zionist dollars for their evil plot to live where they want to live.

So while we enjoy the copious amounts of food, here's yet another open thread.

Former Turkish PM: Erdoğan is a stooge of the Jews

From Today's Zaman (Turkey):

The soured relationship with Israel and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's tough line with the Jewish state are all part of a façade to deceive the Turkish public, former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan has claimed.

In an exclusive interview with Today's Zaman at his house in Balgat, Ankara, the 84-year-old leader of the Felicity Party (SP) criticized the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), saying it is in the hands of the worldwide Zionist movement. He implied that the rise of the AK Party was helped by the international Jewish conspiracy and vowed that he will fight back to stem the Zionist grip on the neck of Turkey.

“Why on earth did the AK Party give a ‘go ahead' to the membership of Israel in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] and not block membership? Why did the government consent to multi-billion dollars worth of defense contracts with Israeli firms? He [Erdoğan] says ‘one-minute' to [Israeli president Shimon] Peres during Davos but conducts business as usual with the Jewish state. This is hypocrisy,” Erbakan said.

Erbakan, who was ousted from the government on Feb. 28, 1997, under military pressure, was later banned from politics, and his Welfare Party (RP) was shut down by the Constitutional Court. He was later pardoned and took the helm of the new SP during an extraordinary party congress on Oct. 18. The SP was shaken by an intra-party conflict when the party's former leader, Numan Kurtulmuş, emerged victorious in a dispute with Erbakan over the party administration list during the party's fourth grand party congress in July. Kurtulmuş, who was placed under pressure to resign after July's congress, parted ways with the SP to establish his own party.

Both Prime Minister Erdoğan and President Abdullah Gül served in Erbakan's old RP before they, too, parted ways in 2000 and established the AK Party. During the interview Erbakan described both leaders as proxies in the hands of the Jewish conspiracy, though he said, “They [Erdoğan and Gül] do not know they have been serving Israeli interests.” Erbakan offered no proof of his allegations but touted Jewish conspiracy books written by Harun Yahya and Garry Allen located at the table on his left. Books were marked on many pages, and some sections were underlined and highlighted.

...Erbakan also reiterated his fierce opposition to the European Union membership process, saying the EU has been trying to enslave the Turkish people. “We will break the chains of the EU when we come to power and reverse the process,” he vowed. The former prime minister refused to label his party policies as part of politics, but instead offered an explanation of religious tenets that drive his ambitions. “This is like a jihad for us, and it is incumbent upon every Muslim to order ‘the good' and avoid ‘the evil',” he said.

See? Erdoğan is a moderate!

Benny Morris on the insurmountable obstacles to peace

A very worthwhile read at Tablet Magazine by Benny Morris.

I am speaking of a basic, strategic impasse which, unfortunately, is far more cogent and telling than the ongoing “negotiations,” which are unlikely to lead to a peace treaty or even a “framework” agreement for a future peace accord. This unlikelihood stems from a set of obstacles that I see as insurmountable, given current political-ideological mindsets.

The first, the one that American and European officials never express and—if impolitely mentioned in their presence—turn away from in distaste, is that Palestinian political elites, of both the so-called “secular” and Islamist varieties, are dead set against partitioning the Land of Israel/Palestine with the Jews. They regard all of Palestine as their patrimony and believe that it will eventually be theirs. History, because of demography and the steady empowerment of the Arab and Islamic worlds and the West’s growing alienation from Israel, and because of Allah’s wishes, is, they believe, on their side. They do not want a permanent two-state solution, with a Palestinian Arab state co-existing alongside a (larger) Jewish state; they will not compromise on this core belief and do not believe, on moral or practical grounds, that they should.

This basic Palestinian rejectionism, amounting to a Weltanschauung, is routinely ignored or denied by most Western commentators and officials. To grant it means to admit that the Israeli-Arab conflict has no resolution apart from the complete victory of one side or the other (with the corollary of expulsion, or annihilation, by one side of the other)—which leaves leaders like President Barack Obama with nowhere realistic to go with regard to the conflict. Philosophically, acceptance of the rock-like unpliability of this reality is extremely problematic, given the ongoing military and philosophical clash between the West and various forces in the Islamic world. Perhaps the fight between America and its allies and its enemies in the Middle East and South Asia and North Africa and the banlieues of Western Europe will go on and on, until one side is vanquished?

In this connection, our age, it may turn out, resembles the classic age of appeasement, the 1930s, when the Western democracies (and the Soviet Union) were ranged against, but preferred not to confront, Nazi Germany and its allies, Fascist Italy, and expansionist Japan. During that decade, Hitler’s inexorable martial, racist, and uncompromising mindset was misread by Western leaders, officials, and intellectuals—and for much the same reasons. Living in unideological societies, they could not fathom the minds and politics of their ideologically driven antagonists. The leaders and intellectuals of the Western democracies, educated and suffused with liberal and relativist values, by and large were unable to comprehend the essential “otherness” of Hitler and ended up fighting him, to the finish, after negotiation and compromise had proved useless.

Another problem for Westerners is that the Palestinians, by design or no, speak to them in several voices. Hamas, which may represent the majority of the Palestinian people and certainly has the unflinching support of some 40 percent of them, speaks clearly. It openly repudiates a two-state solution. Hamas leaders, to bamboozle naïve (or wicked) Westerners like Henry Siegman [4], occasionally express a tactical readiness for a long-term truce under terms that they know are unacceptable to any Jewish Israelis (complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders and acceptance of the refugees’ “Right of Return”), but their strategic message is clear, echoing the Roman statesman Cato the Elder: “Israel must be destroyed.”

The secular Palestinian leadership looks to a similar historical denouement but is more flexible on the tactics and pacing. They express a readiness for a two-state solution but envision such an outcome as intermediate and temporary. They speak of two states, a Palestinian Arab West Bank-Gaza-East Jerusalem state and another state whose population is Jewish and Arab and which they believe will eventually become majority-Arab within a generation or two through Arab procreation (Palestinian Arab birth-rates are roughly twice those of Israeli Jews) and the “return” of Palestinians with refugee status. This is why Fatah’s leaders, led by Palestine National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, flatly reject the Clintonian formula of “two states for two peoples” and refuse [5] to recognize the “other” state, Israel, as a “Jewish state.” They hope that this “other” state will also, in time, be “Arabized,” thus setting the stage for the eventual merger of the two temporary states into one Palestinian Arab-majority state between the River and the Sea.

...The key to understanding Fatah objectives today lies in its leaders’ stance on resolving the refugee problem. Contrary to what many Western commentators and analysts have chosen to believe, the Palestinian stress on the importance of the refugees is not a tactical matter—a way to gain further leverage in negotiations. The Palestinian leadership is unanimous and resolute in insisting that the problem’s solution lies in the “Right of Return”: Israel, and the world, must accept the principle of repatriation and eventually facilitate repatriation. The idea that the refugees must return to their homes has been the ethos, the be-all and end-all of Palestinian politics and policy, since 1948. No Palestinian leader can or will ever abandon this principle, on pain of assassination, and none has. (For Western journalistic consumption, Yasser Arafat once vaguely wrote that the Palestinians would take account of Israeli demographic sensibilities when it came to implementing refugee repatriation; and more recently, Abbas was reportedly willing, in his secret 2008 negotiations with then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, to countenance less than full refugee repatriation in the initial phases of a deal. But in their public utterances during the past two years, Abbas and his colleagues have been rock-solid in their advocacy of an unrestricted “Right of Return”—and why not take them at their word?)

And this represents the second insurmountable obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace. The United Nations has on its rolls 4.7 million Palestinian refugees [10]; the PLO claims that there are 7.5 million [11], only a small number of whom belong to the 700,000-odd Palestinians originally displaced from their homes in what became the state of Israel. Some two-thirds of the 700,000 moved or were removed to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip; one-third ended up in Transjordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Abbas himself is a refugee from Safad, the Arab-majority eastern Galilean town that the U.N. General Assembly partition plan of November 1947 (Resolution 181 [12]) earmarked for Jewish sovereignty.

The vast majority of the current 4.7 to 7.5 million “refugees”—say nine-tenths of them—are the children, grand-children, and great-grandchildren of the originally displaced 700,000. And more than half of them live in Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinian demand that Israel accept a mass refugee return means that, if implemented, Israel, with its 6 million Jewish and 1.5 million Arab citizens, would instantly or over a short time, become an Arab-majority state.

...To these formidable obstacles to peace-making—the unchanging Arab desire for what amounts to Israel’s disappearance and consistent advocacy of the demographic means by which this can be achieved—one may add the hardly routine challenges of differences over future Israeli-Palestinian borders, with sovereignty over Jerusalem’s Old City and, in particular, its Temple Mount complex, and the fate of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The demilitarization of a future Palestinian West Bank-Gaza state is a further bone of contention.

It is hard to envision any circumstances under which the current Obama-initiated direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks can succeed. Politically, the two contending leaders have little room for maneuver and, at least on the Arab side, little will to concede anything. And even if, by some miracle, Abbas and Netanyahu were to reach a framework agreement or even a detailed peace treaty (a departure into the realm of total fantasy) with Abbas accepting the Jewishness of the “other” state and waiving the “Right of Return,” and Netanyahu conceding Arab sovereignty over the bulk of Jerusalem’s Old City, including the Temple Mount, such an agreement would fail to stick and would never be implemented. Abbas might sign off on “an end to the conflict” and “no more demands”—and most likely be assassinated by Arab extremists in consequence—but a majority of Palestinians, and certainly a large minority of them, would continue the struggle, rendering the agreement no more than a wind-blown piece of paper. Hamas, which won the 2006 Palestinian general elections, would denounce the signers as traitors and continue the fight for all of Palestine, as would many in Abbas’ own Fatah party. The agreement would not end the conflict. Nor would it deter or obstruct future, continuing Palestinian claims.

I don't agree with everything he says, but he at least is publicly airing the issues that people who have been following the situation have known about for years, and usually willfully ignore. Peace will not come about through willful ignorance.

(h/t EBoZ and Joel)

The myth of "Jewish-only" roads (Michael Totten)

From Michael Totten at Commentary:

“I can call a president of the United States anything in the book,” she said at an anti-Arab-bias workshop in Detroit, “but I can’t touch Israel, which has Jewish-only roads in the West Bank. No American would tolerate that — white-only roads.”

She’s right that no American would tolerate white-only roads. Israelis, likewise, would never tolerate roads for Jews only. That’s why such roads don’t exist.

The roads she’s referring to in the West Bank are Israeli, and they’re not just for Jews. Israeli Arabs can drive on them, and so can non-Jewish foreigners, including Arab and Muslim foreigners. Palestinians were once able to drive on them but have not been allowed to do so since the second intifada, when suicide bombers used them to penetrate Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in order to massacre people.

There are also, by the way, Palestinian roads in the West Bank that Israelis can’t use.

I don’t know if Helen Thomas knows this and is lying or if she’s just an ignoramus. What I’ll bet she doesn't know is that Arab residents of Jerusalem can use both the Israeli roads and the Palestinian roads. They’re the only people who live in the area who can do this. (Foreigners also are allowed to use both.)

This doesn’t remotely line up with her narrative of perfidious Zion. But it’s true.

By the way, Yid with Lid has the actual video of Thomas' speech.

Al Qaeda poison perfume plot?

From Al Arabiya:

Saudi security sources uncovered Saturday that in a constant attempt to come up with lethal tactics, al-Qaeda was planning to resort to an untraditional weapon that delivers the desired result without explosions or gunfire: perfume.

Al-Qaeda operatives in Saudi Arabia plotted to put poison in perfumes, especially Arabian fragrances like agarwood, also called “oud,” to then send the bottles to homes and offices of government officials and religious scholars as gifts, local newspaper Okaz reported Saturday.

There are no real details on who was caught and what kinds of poison, so this story almost sounds like something that the Saudi authorities made up to give the impression that they are in the forefront of fighting terrorism.

After all, only last week US state department memos leaked by Wikileaks implicated Saudi Arabia as not doing enough to stop the cash flow from Saudis to terrorist groups.

Brazil's recognition of "Palestine" is self-contradictory

The announcement on the Brazilian foreign ministry website recognizing "Palestine" is self-contradictory:

In a letter sent by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, on 1 December 2010, the Brazilian Government has recognized the Palestinian State based on the existing borders in 1967.

The recognition has taken place following negotiations by the Palestinian side and a letter sent by President Abbas to President Lula, last 24 November, in which he requested the recognition.

The initiative is in accordance with Brazil’s historical willingness to contribute to the peace process between Israel and Palestine, whose direct negotiations are currently on hold, and it is in line with UN resolutions, which have demanded an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories and the construction of an independent State within the borders of 4 June 1967.

The conviction that negotiations between Israel and Palestine are vital for the achievement of mutual concessions on the main issues of the conflict has not been abandoned with this decision.

Brazil reaffirms its traditional position toward a democratic Palestinian State, geographically contiguous and economically viable, co-existing in peace with the State of Israel. Only a democratic, free and sovereign Palestine will meet the legitimate Israeli aspirations for peace with its neighbors, border security and political stability in the region.

How can they recognize the borders while at the same time admit that the two sides still need to negotiate "mutual concessions on the main issues of the conflict"? Isn't the border the main issue?

Not to mention that there was no state of "Palestine" within any borders in 1967, or 1947 for that matter. Moreover - the "borders" they speak of were never recognized as borders, they were armistice lines that were not recognized by any Arab nation nor, as far as I know, by any nation on Earth.

And there is also a major contradiction between the concept of a "geographically contiguous" Palestinian Arab state and Israel's sovereignty over even the 1949 armistice lines, as there is no way for both to be contiguous without Israel giving up some land - even if that land is used to hold up a bridge between the West Bank and Gaza.

Many people are seeing through the sham. From AFP:

US lawmakers condemned Brazil's "severely misguided" and "regrettable" decision Friday to recognize a Palestinian state on borders pre-dating Israel's seizure of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.

Brazil's decision "is regrettable and will only serve to undermine peace and security in the Middle East," charged Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Ros-Lehtinen, set to chair the panel come January, said "responsible nations" would wait to take such a step until Palestinians return to direct talks with Israel and recognize its "right to exist as a Jewish state."

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced the decision Friday in a public letter addressed to Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and published on the website of Brazil's foreign ministry.

Brazil's decision also drew fire from Democratic Representative Eliot Engel, who said it "is severely misguided and represents a last gasp by a Lula-led foreign policy which was already substantially off track."

Engel tied the move to Lula's "coddling" of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and warned that Brazil "wants to establish itself as a voice in the world, but is making the wrong choices as it tries to do so."

"One can only hope that the new leadership coming into Brazil will change course and understand that this is not the way to gain favor as an emerging power or to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council."

Lula will be stepping down in four weeks' time and handing power over to Dilma Roussef, his protegee and former cabinet chief.

"Brazil is sending a message to the Palestinians that they need not make peace to gain recognition as a sovereign state," said Engel, a co-chair of the US Congress's Brazil Caucus.

University drops "Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity Award"

From NPR:

Wayne State University won't be bestowing any more diversity awards named for Helen Thomas following more controversial remarks by the former dean of the White House press corps.

The university pulled the honor, the Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity Award, after the 90-year-old said this week that "Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by Zionists. No question, in my opinion."

Thomas made those incendiary comments, according to a Detroit News report, before a diversity conference Thursday.

In an earlier report, the newspaper quotes a Wayne State official explaining the obvious, that the university had to put distance between itself and its famous alumna.

"The controversy has brought a negative light to the award, which was never the intent of the award," said Matthew Seeger, interim dean of the College of Fine, Performing and Communication Arts.

Even the very liberal NPR recognizes that Helen Thomas is a nasty old bigot with its (unprofessional but accurate) side comment of "explaining the obvious."

Wonder if Ray Hanania will figure that out for himself?

"Forest Jihad"

A very interesting article by Jonathan Fighel written two years ago for the International Institute of Counter-Terrorism:

From the beginning of September 2008, a renewed concern emanated from Western intelligence agencies to the effect that Al Qaeda terrorists were planning a “global fireball”, in a departure from its war on the West.[1] Deliberately lighting forest fires in Europe, the US and Australia, would not only stretch emergency services, but would also leave insurance companies facing multi-billion dollar claims, as the credit crunch bites.[2] The fires would also create a pollution disaster, with billions of tons of climate-change gases escaping into the atmosphere. The so-called “forest jihad” is being championed by Islamic scholars and Osama Bin Laden’s terror strategists who believe setting fire to dry woodlands will produce maximum damage at minimum risk.

Already back in November 2007, radical Islamic forums spelled out the terrorists’ mindset in graphic terms. One of the Arabic web sites affiliated with Al Qaeda’s ideas, called “Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network”, posted a long and detailed message, in which it was argued that lighting fires is an effective form of action, justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine. The posting instructs remembering the "Forest Jihad" during the summer months, noting that "fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish.” Imagine, if after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organization were to claim responsibility for the forest fires," the website says, "you can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, Europe, Russia and Australia."… [3]

Another Al Qaeda affiliated website,”Al-Jazeeratalk.net” posted a similar message on 27 December 2007, where supporters were reminded, “not to forget the summer forest jihad”. It added: “This is an invitation to the Muslims of Europe and America, Australia and Russia to burn forests.” [5] The message claims that the burning of trees, as a warfare method, is permitted in Islam and it quotes from the Qur’an to back it up. The “benefits” of the fires, are to cause casualties, hit tourist income, create timber shortages for domestic, industrial use and pharmaceuticals, and stretch emergency services.[6]

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, arson comprised about one-third of all forest fires in Israel, which is a very large proportion. Some of the sources of this arson were identified as the work of criminals, whose sole aim was to collect the insurance money. However, many instances of arson in the late 1980s were directly related to the Palestinian uprising (the first Intifada). Palestinians have used arson in the past as an insurgency method, as early as the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, but in the 1980s it was adopted as a highly visible action against Israel. Arson was found to be easy to execute: all one had to do was cross the old border between the West Bank and Israel, which was unguarded and open to all, start a fire in one of the many forests in the hilly areas near the border, and then disappear. According to the International Forest Fire News (IFFN), between 1988 and 1991 the number of fires attributed to arson rose to over 30%, which was explained by an increase in politically motivated arson associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[7]

There were frequent occurrences of forest fires in areas adjacent to the old "Green Line" border between Israel and the West Bank, during the years 1988-1990. Between 288 and 388 forest fires were caused by arson, which occurred in areas near the old pre-1967 border.[8] In some of the fires, which occurred in northern Israel, Israeli Arab Palestinians were found to be responsible. These fires were extraordinary, given the fact that in 1988, there was a great deal of rain and, as a result, the vegetation was highly combustible.

Read the whole thing.

While it looks like the Carmel fires started more from negligence than arson, Al Qaeda is taking credit for them, which is consistent with the information above.

Forest fires are potentially potent weapons that need to be defended against.

(h/t Serious Black and O)

PalArab "euphoria" over fires

From Palestine Today:

Untold euphoria prevailed among Palestinians after the fires that broke out in several places in northern Israel, which led to the deaths of more than 40 Zionists, although grief was felt by some [because of] the large amounts of Arab and European aid to assist in fire suppression at the time when the Palestinian people are groaning from violations of the occupation.

Palestine Today met many people whose faces reflected a great joy about what happened in Israel, where they stressed that this was the least that can happen to the entity...

Citizen Bassam Hamdan expressed her delight at the fall of more than 40 people in the ranks of the Zionists, calling it revenge of God Almighty for the children of the martyrs who fell from the Zionist occupation fire, forcing the enemy to know that there are forces greater than all.

The citizen Sami Al Masri described how the Palestinian people always rejoice when there are casualties among the Israelis and this stems from the nature of the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, but feels unfortunate for the participation of Arabs in fire suppression.

Now, when have Israelis ever rejoiced over the deaths of civilians living in enemy states? Let alone unapologetic and public euphoria over the deaths of innocents.

Abbas Resignation Theatre, 2010 edition

From JPost:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas threatened to resign as PA president if Israel continued construction of settlements in the West Bank, in a TV interview on Friday, Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported Saturday.

In an interview with Palestine TV on Friday, Abbas said he would not "afford to remain the president of a nonexistent Palestinian Authority" if construction continued, according to the report.

Time to brush off the ever growing list, compiled by Daled Amos, of times that Abbas has threatened to resign:

November 11, 2009:
President Mahmoud Abbas is considering resigning from his roles on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee and the Fatah Central Committee, Palestinian officials said on Tuesday.

March 18, 2008
Exclusive: Abbas threatens to quit peace talks, revive Fatah terror
(OK, Abbas is not threatening to resign--but we're just getting warmed up...)

Jan 17, 2008
Abbas threatens to quit if 'escalation' continues

June 12, 2007
Fatah movement threatens to quit Hamas-led unity gov't

February 26, 2006
Abbas threatens to quit over Hamas
(Feb 28, 2006 Abbas: I did not threaten to quit)

30 January 2006
Abbas to resign if Hamas fails to work with foreign powers

January 25, 2006
Palestinians Vote in First Legislative Elections in a Decade
Abbas is "a touchy man of dark moods, who often threatens to quit, as he quit as prime minister after four months in 2003 when Mr. Arafat did not allow him enough power."

Jan 17, 2006
PA head Abbas threatens to quit

December 16, 2005
Palestinian Chief Threatens to Quit Over Rival Fatah Slate

March 30, 2005
Palestinian Abbas threatens to quit unless Fatah groups cooperate.

Wed 09 Sep 2003
Abbas threatens to quit unless he gets more authority

Thursday, September 4, 2003
Abbas threatens to quit over leadership

Aug. 21, 2003
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas threatens to resign unless Yasser Arafat approves a crackdown on Hamas

July 9, 2003
U.S. Supports Abbas After Palestinian Leader Threatens to Quit

April 08, 2003
Moderate Palestinian PM threatens to quit as Arafat hinders change.