Home News Sport Business Innovation Culture Arts Travel Earth Audio Video Live US to deny visas to Palestinian officials 3 hours ago Share Save Tom Bateman State Department correspondent AFP US Secretary of State Marco RubioAFP The statement came from the office of Marco Rubio's State Department The US says it is going to impose sanctions on the Palestinians' self-governance organisation as well as the body that represents it on the international stage. The sanctions affect both the Palestinian Authority (PA) which was established by the Oslo peace accords, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) which was recognised after the same process as the official representative of the Palestinian people in return for it recognising Israel and renouncing violence. The State Department said it would deny visas to PLO members and PA officials. The timing and language of the statement suggest it is the Trump administration's response to this week's French-Saudi led conference at the United Nations held to rally support for a future two state solution. The meeting came as France, the UK and Canada committed to recognising an independent, demilitarised Palestinian state later this year, in some cases subject to certain conditions. The US castigated these moves, having privately warned of diplomatic consequences if those attending the UN conference made "anti-Israel" declarations. In its sanctions announcement, the State Department accused the PA and PLO of taking actions to "internationalise its conflict with Israel such as through the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ)". It also referred to a series of long-standing complaints by the US and Israel that the PLO and PA had continued "to support terrorism including incitement and glorification of violence (especially in textbooks), and providing payments and benefits in support of terrorism to Palestinian terrorists and their families". The Trump administration earlier this year lifted sanctions on violent Israeli settlers who have killed Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. One leading Palestinian politician described the sanctions move as "revenge" by the US for the commitments to recognise Palestinian statehood by a growing number of countries. The PA appeared to echo that sentiment in a statement released on Thursday. "These campaigns have been escalating in response to the significant and successive achievements of Palestinian diplomacy," it said. "Particularly the recent recognitions of the State of Palestine by key countries, the successful United Nations conference in New York, and the historic declaration issued therein." Reuters Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer answers questions from the press after delivering a statement inside No. 10 Downing StreetReuters Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced this week that the UK will recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel meets set conditions Mustafa Barghouti, founder of the Palestinian National Initiative (PNI) which is part of the PLO, said the US was targeting the wrong side. He told the BBC: "Trump's administration, instead of punishing the criminals who are committing war crimes in Gaza and in the West Bank, which is Israel, is instead… punishing the victim, which is the Palestinian people." Israel welcomed the sanctions and thanked US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for imposing them. "This important action by [President Trump] and his administration also exposes the moral distortion of certain countries that ran to recognise a virtual Palestinian state while turning a blind eye to its support for terror and incitement," said foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar. The PA has always rejected complaints around "salaries" saying the payments are stipends to the families of all Palestinian prisoners held under Israel's military occupation, many of whom are not given any due process and are held in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Palestinians see all those detained by Israel and jailed by its military courts, which have a 99 per cent conviction rate, as political prisoners. French officials said last week the PA had expressed its willingness to end these payments in response to France's commitment to recognise a Palestinian state. This week's UN conference further isolated the US in its support for the way Israel has continued the war in Gaza, which many countries criticised at the meeting. The conference exposed a strategic vacuum being left by Washington that had traditionally led diplomatic efforts towards a viable longer-term peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The travel ban on Palestinian officials may be meant as a more limited broadside than a full range of financial sanctions. It is already a complex and lengthy process for PA and PLO officials to obtain visas to travel to the US, requiring special exemptions which are rarely given. It is not yet clear whether the move would affect any officials working for the Palestinian mission to the United Nations in New York. The current Palestinian ambassador to the UN and his deputy are both US citizens.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment