http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/01/a-man-of-the-zyklon-cloth.html
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=6645285
Britain's Bishop Richard Williamson, who is reportedly being investigated for Holocaust denial in Germany, denied the murder of 6 million Jews by stating in an interview on Swedish state television last week, "I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews died in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them in gas chambers."
The Pope must make clear to the world that at a time when antisemitism and Holocaust denial have reached the highest levels in two decades and protesters at anti-Israel rallies are chanting, "Jews back to the ovens", his decision to welcome a Holocaust denier back into the Church will only validate Holocaust denial and contradicts the teachings of Vatican II. Bishops who preach antisemitism or Holocaust denial should not be embraced by the Vatican.
Bishop Williamson is one of four Catholic Bishops belonging to the notoriously antisemitic 'Society of Saint Pius', a breakaway group which opposes changes in Catholic doctrine. According to news reports, Williamson has endorsed "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a notorious anti-Semitic forgery, and claimed that Jews are bent on world domination.
Just last week, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of Williamson and three other Bishops belonging to this group.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
The Charities are Guilty, not the BBC (The Times Jan 26th)
The Corporation is right not to run the Gaza appeal. Oxfam and others are clearly anti-Israel
Andrew Roberts
Mark Thompson, the Director-General of the BBC, is quite right to refuse to broadcast the appeal of the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) for humanitarian relief for Gaza, but not for the reason he thinks. He is under the impression that it will damage the BBC's reputation for impartiality in reporting the Israel-Palestine question, but the fact is that the BBC does not have any such reputation, having for years been institutionally pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. The reason that his decision is brave and right, however, is that many of the 13 charities that make up the DEC are even more mired in anti-Israeli assumptions than the BBC itself.
Mr Thompson rightly appreciates that the issue of humanitarian relief in this conflict is quite unlike humanitarian relief for victims of a tsunami or a famine.
Who adjudicates on which victims to support via such charitable aid - and according to whose political morality? Why did the BBC not launch an appeal for the victims of collateral damage during Nato's bombing of Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign? And had it done so, would it have given money to ethnic Serbs as well as to Kosovars and Bosnian Muslims, all of whom were “cleansed” during the Balkan wars of that decade? What about the victims of insurgencies and counter- insurgencies in Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya or Georgia? Or Israeli victims of the next Hamas suicide attack? Indeed, what about the Palestinian victims of Hamas's hideous human rights abuses, still so shamefully under-reported by the British media as a whole?
And who are these supposedly impartial charities who are attacking Mr Thompson's (albeit belated) attempt to uphold the Corporation's traditional standards? While groups such as the British Red Cross and Christian Aid are generally impartial in other areas of the world, that cannot be said to apply to their role in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, where they regularly view the conflict through a deeply partisan lens.
In the months prior to the decision by Hamas to end the six-month ceasefire and resume rocket attacks, these charities issued a flood of one- sided denunciations aimed at Israel. Their campaign repeated tendentious and often highly inaccurate terms such as “collective punishment” and “violation of international law”. On March 6, 2008, CARE International, Cafod, Christian Aid and Oxfam (among others) published a widely quoted report under the headline “The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion”. The authors did not bother to hide their political bias against Israel, repeating standard Palestinian political rhetoric and including claims that Israeli policy “constitutes a collective punishment against ordinary men, women and children” and is “illegal under international humanitarian law”.
The report was wrong on many counts, including allegations over the availability of food and basic necessities, which were later contradicted by both the World Bank and World Health Organisation, neither of which are exactly Israeli stooges. The fact that Hamas chose to pursue war with Israel rather than the welfare of its people, was not covered in these reports. There was no sense that any of these claims might be disputed by the other side or by genuinely neutral observers.
During the three-week war, Oxfam and other charities were extremely active in the ideological campaign that highlighted Palestinians as the sole victims and Israelis as the sole aggressors. Numerous Oxfam press statements included language such as: “The international community must not stand aside and allow Israeli leaders to commit massive and disproportionate violence against Gazan civilians in violation of international law.”
Violence against Israelis, including deaths, are virtually ignored by Oxfam officials, who have referred to “collective punishment illegal under international humanitarian law yet tolerated by the international community”. For those of us who reject such gross ideological bias, which absolves the Hamas leadership for a confrontation which they openly sought, such statements by charities are unacceptable and should not be rewarded by the BBC.
The final issue is the fraught one of the practicability of actually distributing the aid on the ground. After Hamas seized total control of Gaza in June 2007 there have been many well-documented reports of Hamas officials diverting assistance for themselves. On February 7 last year, for example, the Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported that “at least ten trucks with humanitarian aid sent to the Gaza Strip by the Jordanian Red Crescent Society were confiscated by Hamas police shortly after the lorries entered the territory”. Journalists also reported that the aid was “unloaded in Hamas ministry warehouses” and that a similar seizure took place in January 2008.
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, used to say that Hamas was like a bird that needed two wings to fly - the armed branch, but also the charitable-welfare side of the organisation. Do the 13 charities and their political allies that are so vocally attacking the “cowardly” BBC really have the guts and wherewithal to do a proper audit on how those monies might be spent in today's Gaza Strip? I, for one, do not believe it.
Andrew Roberts is the author of Masters and Commanders: How Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshall and Alanbrooke Won the War in the West (Allen Lane)
Andrew Roberts
Mark Thompson, the Director-General of the BBC, is quite right to refuse to broadcast the appeal of the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) for humanitarian relief for Gaza, but not for the reason he thinks. He is under the impression that it will damage the BBC's reputation for impartiality in reporting the Israel-Palestine question, but the fact is that the BBC does not have any such reputation, having for years been institutionally pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. The reason that his decision is brave and right, however, is that many of the 13 charities that make up the DEC are even more mired in anti-Israeli assumptions than the BBC itself.
Mr Thompson rightly appreciates that the issue of humanitarian relief in this conflict is quite unlike humanitarian relief for victims of a tsunami or a famine.
Who adjudicates on which victims to support via such charitable aid - and according to whose political morality? Why did the BBC not launch an appeal for the victims of collateral damage during Nato's bombing of Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign? And had it done so, would it have given money to ethnic Serbs as well as to Kosovars and Bosnian Muslims, all of whom were “cleansed” during the Balkan wars of that decade? What about the victims of insurgencies and counter- insurgencies in Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya or Georgia? Or Israeli victims of the next Hamas suicide attack? Indeed, what about the Palestinian victims of Hamas's hideous human rights abuses, still so shamefully under-reported by the British media as a whole?
And who are these supposedly impartial charities who are attacking Mr Thompson's (albeit belated) attempt to uphold the Corporation's traditional standards? While groups such as the British Red Cross and Christian Aid are generally impartial in other areas of the world, that cannot be said to apply to their role in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, where they regularly view the conflict through a deeply partisan lens.
In the months prior to the decision by Hamas to end the six-month ceasefire and resume rocket attacks, these charities issued a flood of one- sided denunciations aimed at Israel. Their campaign repeated tendentious and often highly inaccurate terms such as “collective punishment” and “violation of international law”. On March 6, 2008, CARE International, Cafod, Christian Aid and Oxfam (among others) published a widely quoted report under the headline “The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion”. The authors did not bother to hide their political bias against Israel, repeating standard Palestinian political rhetoric and including claims that Israeli policy “constitutes a collective punishment against ordinary men, women and children” and is “illegal under international humanitarian law”.
The report was wrong on many counts, including allegations over the availability of food and basic necessities, which were later contradicted by both the World Bank and World Health Organisation, neither of which are exactly Israeli stooges. The fact that Hamas chose to pursue war with Israel rather than the welfare of its people, was not covered in these reports. There was no sense that any of these claims might be disputed by the other side or by genuinely neutral observers.
During the three-week war, Oxfam and other charities were extremely active in the ideological campaign that highlighted Palestinians as the sole victims and Israelis as the sole aggressors. Numerous Oxfam press statements included language such as: “The international community must not stand aside and allow Israeli leaders to commit massive and disproportionate violence against Gazan civilians in violation of international law.”
Violence against Israelis, including deaths, are virtually ignored by Oxfam officials, who have referred to “collective punishment illegal under international humanitarian law yet tolerated by the international community”. For those of us who reject such gross ideological bias, which absolves the Hamas leadership for a confrontation which they openly sought, such statements by charities are unacceptable and should not be rewarded by the BBC.
The final issue is the fraught one of the practicability of actually distributing the aid on the ground. After Hamas seized total control of Gaza in June 2007 there have been many well-documented reports of Hamas officials diverting assistance for themselves. On February 7 last year, for example, the Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported that “at least ten trucks with humanitarian aid sent to the Gaza Strip by the Jordanian Red Crescent Society were confiscated by Hamas police shortly after the lorries entered the territory”. Journalists also reported that the aid was “unloaded in Hamas ministry warehouses” and that a similar seizure took place in January 2008.
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, used to say that Hamas was like a bird that needed two wings to fly - the armed branch, but also the charitable-welfare side of the organisation. Do the 13 charities and their political allies that are so vocally attacking the “cowardly” BBC really have the guts and wherewithal to do a proper audit on how those monies might be spent in today's Gaza Strip? I, for one, do not believe it.
Andrew Roberts is the author of Masters and Commanders: How Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshall and Alanbrooke Won the War in the West (Allen Lane)
Monday, 26 January 2009
Comparison of IRA and Hamas by BICOM
View text version View HTML version
Printable version
26/01/2009
BICOM ANALYSIS: THE NEW US ADMINISTRATION AND HAMAS - LESSONS FROM NORTHERN IRELAND
Key Points
Over the last four years, Hamas has participated in national elections and entered into a unity government, but in terms of the calculated use of violence, it has shown no sign of following in the footsteps of the IRA.
Rather than approaching ceasefires as a way to create the basis for longer-term political agreements, Hamas see them as essentially for the purposes of rearming, regrouping militarily and consolidating power.
The political goals of Republicanism contrast starkly with the radical Islamist beliefs which underpin Hamas's stated goal of establishing an Islamic Waqf (trust entity) throughout the whole area of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel.
Moderate Sunni Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, view the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as a deeply problematic tool in Iran's arsenal for disrupting regional stability and encroaching Iranian power.
Introduction
In his first week in the Oval Office, President Obama demonstrated his resolve to "hit the ground running" on regional peace-making by appointing Senator George Mitchell to serve as his Middle East special envoy. Mitchell will make his first visit in his new role to Israel and the Palestinian Authority this week. He has experience in the region, having devised the 2001 Mitchell Commission plan in US efforts to stem the violence following the outbreak of the Second Intifada. His appointment naturally draws parallels with the Northern Ireland conflict, as he also chaired talks that culminated in the April 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
Over the years, many respected politicians and commentators have drawn comparisons, recognising that whilst no two conflicts are ever the same, lessons can be learned.[i] The main hope today, especially since Hamas's electoral victory in January 2006, is that where Sinn Féin and the IRA moved away from terrorism for political dialogue with Britain, Hamas could be similarly engaged. This briefing draws upon the Northern Ireland experience to shed light on the most difficult challenges vis-à-vis Hamas which would need to be addressed in order to do so. It also dispels some of the myths about Hamas in current public discourse, either due to wishful thinking, smug imperialist attitudes or plain naivety; in any case, such myths are a dangerous phenomenon. The guiding political questions are first, whether enough of the Hamas leadership are interested in a compromise, and second, whether they are capable of creating an internal consensus. These are critical issues for how the new US administration carves out its role this year.
Commitment to armed struggle
The success of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement perhaps overshadows the chequered history of dialogue which preceded it. Although contact stems back to the 1970s, such as when Northern Ireland Secretary William Whitelaw held secret talks with the provisional IRA in London, a recent Guardian article notes that, "Republicans did not get their seat at the table until they had forsworn violence and agreed to pursue their goals by exclusively peaceful means."[ii]
Similarly, it would seem that not until Hamas leaders internalise the need to renounce violence is it advisable to conceive of them as prospective interlocutors in peace negotiations. As Peter Neumann, a terrorism expert at King's College London, explains, "No one in the IRA ever abandoned the organisation's absolutist ambitions for a united Ireland, but at some point in the late 1980s, the group's leaders realised that their military campaign no longer furthered that aim, and so they began exploring alternatives."[iii]
Over the last four years, Hamas has participated in national elections and entered into a unity government, but in terms of the calculated use of violence, it has shown no sign of following in the footsteps of the IRA. Playing by democratic rules entails more than winning power at the ballot box; Hamas's use of Palestinian ministries to create a new loyal militia - the Executive Force - and turning it on their own people, rather than attempting to build unified Palestinian institutions, is a case in point. Just last Thursday, in a West Bank news conference, senior PA official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that Hamas had "turned its rifles in the direction of Fatah members" after last week's ceasefire with Israel. Militants reportedly shot victims in the kneecaps, the notorious punishment tactic of the IRA in its terror heyday.[iv]
Whereas armed struggle damaged the Republican cause in Northern Ireland, ‘muqawama' (resistance) for Hamas, against Israel, is a defining feature of its authenticity among its supporters in Palestinian society. Last June, Hamas agreed to the six month ‘tahdiyeh' (temporary lull), which it chose not to extend. The idea of a ten year ‘hudna' (truce) has been occasionally mooted by Hamas leaders in the past. Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha has now said the organisation would not agree to more than an 18 month ceasefire.[v] But Hamas leaders are explicit that all these are ‘tactical' manoeuvres. Rather than seeing ceasefires as a way to create a basis for longer-term political agreements, they see them as essentially for the purposes of rearming, regrouping militarily and consolidating power. This is exactly what Hamas did throughout the ceasefire in the second half of 2008, which it used to greatly increase the range of its rockets.[vi] Hamas today remains strategically committed to violent resistance, as Damascus-based political chief Khaled Meshaal explained on 11 January: "We will not accept a permanent truce, because it will take [away] the right of resistance from the Palestinian people."[vii]
Religion and politics
The second dimension of the Northern Ireland conflict, which is instructive in assessing the propensity of Hamas to compromise, concerns the role of religion in respective political visions. Whilst Republicanism is tied to a religious identity - Catholicism - its goals are essentially political - an independent and united Ireland. Moreover, Britain supports the Northern Irish community's will to determine the province's future so long as it is by democratic consent; this is fundamental to the Belfast agreement. A deal was possible because, whilst religion is certainly a factor in Northern Ireland, the IRA never sought to convert Britain into a Catholic country.
This contrasts starkly with the radical Islamist beliefs which underpin Hamas's stated goal of establishing an Islamic Waqf (trust entity) throughout the whole area of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel.[viii] The Hamas Charter is an integrated political-Islamist ideological vision, in which no one - including Arab-Muslim leaders - is entitled to concede any part of this land.[ix] In a recent BBC Today programme interview, former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock rejected the idea that Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction, stating that the 1988 Charter was "a rhetorical statement of resistance" which is not part of Hamas's political agenda.[x] It is worth noting that senior Hamas leaders have repeatedly reaffirmed the organisation's full commitment to its founding document, including on 25 January 2006 when Palestinian Legislative Council elections were held.[xi] This sets it at fundamental odds with both Israel and its secular nationalist rivals in the Palestinian Authority. There may be those in the movement who are more open to dialogue than others, but there is little indication that moderate voices are at the forefront of the organisation or sufficient in number to steer its direction. The religious precepts shut out the notion of a permanent political arrangement based on two states which would end Palestinian claims against Israel. They also severely hamper prospects for more progressive thinking to garner momentum within the movement.
The former ambassador also stated that Hamas "is not beholden to Iran," because Hamas is Sunni and Iran is Shia.[xii] Hamas identifies itself as a "wing" of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is indeed a fundamentalist movement from within Sunni Islam. But whilst theologically distinct from the Tehran regime, Hamas is politically aligned with Iran, its key source of military and financial sponsorship, according to British, American, Canadian, Israeli and Palestinian intelligence.[xiii] Hostility to secular Arab nationalism and Western influence are ideological trends common to radical streams within both Sunni and Shia Islam. Moderate Sunni Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, view the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as a deeply problematic tool in Iran's arsenal for disrupting regional stability and encroaching Iranian power.
Intra-party friction and constraints
The very different perceptions of Hamas stem from various factors, including its careful use of the international media and well-intentioned peace advocates to promote a peaceful demeanour to the West. The picture is also obscured by the multifaceted nature of the organisation itself. The radical ideology and use of organised terror which characterise Hamas are two significant dimensions of a broad-based political and social movement, which includes the formal political party - headquartered in both Gaza and Damascus - and da'wa, which comprises an extensive social welfare system, charitable services and religious teaching.
In assessing which Palestinian interlocutors to address, the new US administration cannot escape consideration of Hamas's internal dynamics. Here again, the Northern Ireland example is insightful. It took time to build a consensus amidst deep divisions within the Republican movement. As one commentator put it, "[Gerry] Adams and Martin McGuiness resisted any move that would cause a republican split so that when they were finally ready to do a deal, the deal held."[xiv] Rising Catholic prosperity in the province during the 1970s made the IRA's strategy of the ‘long war' far less appealing over time.
This raises questions as to whether anyone in Hamas has the necessary clout to control its rank and file or the internal legitimacy to engage in political dialogue. An inner power struggle continues between Gaza and Damascus, which seems to have been accentuated by the three week conflict with Israel at the turn of the year. Following disagreements about when and under what terms to reach a ceasefire, it was reported that Hamas's armed wing - the Izz a din al-Qassam Brigades - chose to ignore calls by the Damascus leadership to carry out attacks against IDF troops when they were withdrawing from the Strip.[xv] Aware of the gap between prosperity in the West Bank and Gaza widening, local residents are frustrated with Hamas's ‘resistance'. One was quoted as saying, "We do not care how, we want a ceasefire. We want to go back to our homes. Our children need to go back to sleep in their beds."[xvi] It is unclear how far disenchantment with Hamas will develop, but the political constituency to whom the Gaza leadership is actively responsive to - and constrained by - is the local population.
Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, meanwhile, is more concerned with maintaining his broader legitimacy and relevance, hence his calls for the diplomatic isolation of Hamas to end coupled with tough rhetoric: "We need a third ‘Intifada' (uprising) in the West Bank and a revolution in the Arab, Islamic world," he proclaimed during the conflict, "[T]he blood of our women and children and people will increase our cohesion and determination to achieve our aims."[xvii] If a contender for power from within Hamas were to follow Sinn Féin's lead and agree to "democratic and exclusively peaceful means," the Damascus leadership would want to be able to declare the ‘Real Hamas' as the ‘authentic Islamic Resistance Movement'.
Conclusion
When contemplating political negotiations, pragmatists ask whether the other side is amenable to compromise and able to digest all that it would entail internally. The Northern Ireland experience shows that it was not until the Republican movement was ready to declare its war over did the possibility of a historic compromise begin to become realistic.
Hamas's ongoing control of the Gaza Strip continues to present a major obstacle to all key stakeholders in the peace process, including the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Western powers and the moderate Arab states. Its ongoing commitment to violent ‘resistance' as a radical religious and political ideology - and the absence of cohesion in Palestinian politics - deeply exacerbates the challenge they face and ought not to be underestimated. The stakes are even higher when considering the broader picture in which Hamas is politically aligned to Iran, which has regional hegemonic ambitions. As such, the issues of how to face the Hamas challenge in Gaza require ongoing assessment and may benefit from creative ideas by the new US administration. But policymakers will be conscious that engaging Hamas before they are ripe for negotiations could be profoundly counterproductive.
[i] For a guide to the roots of comparative study, see ‘Why Hamas is not Sinn Fein', BICOM Analysis, 24 October 2007.
[ii] Jonathan Freedland, ‘Amid the horror and doom of Gaza, the IRA precedent offers hope', The Guardian, 14 January 2009.
[iii] Peter R. Neumann, ‘Negotiating with Terrorists', Foreign Affairs (86:1), Jan/Feb 2007.
[iv] Griff Witte and Jonathan Finer, ‘Battered Gaza Still In the Grip Of Hamas', Washington Post, 24 January 2009.
[v] Avi Issacharoff, ‘Hamas offers 18-month cease-fire', urges PA to sever talks with Israel', Haaretz, 26 January 2009.
[vi] Avi Issacharoff, Amos Harel and Yuval Azoulay, ‘Meshal: Hamas ready for truce, but only as ‘tactic'', Haaretz, 27 April 2008.
[vii] ‘Meshaal: Resistance is all we have in Gaza', Press TV, 11 January 2009.
[viii] See Article 11 of the Hamas Charter (which can be read online). A full English translation can be read here.
[ix] Further analysis can be read here: The Hamas Charter (1988), Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 21 March 2006.
[x] ‘Hamas diplomacy is ‘hard to see'', BBC Today, 12 January 2009.
[xi] See The Hamas Charter (1988), Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 21 March 2006.
[xii] ‘Hamas diplomacy is ‘hard to see'', BBC Today, 12 January 2009; see also Melanie Philips, ‘Sir Jeremy Greenstock says Hamas is only about ‘resistance', Spectator, 13 January 2009.
[xiii] For further details, see Matthew Levitt (2006), Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Services of Jihad (Yale: London).
[xiv] Jonathan Freedland, ‘Amid the horror and doom of Gaza, the IRA precedent offers hope', The Guardian, 14 January 2009.
[xv] Abraham Rabinovich, ‘Hamas leadership at odds over Gaza truce', The Australian, 13 January 2009; Amos Harel, ‘IDF to conclude withdrawal today', Haaretz, 21 January 2009.
[xvi] Reuters, ‘Enough is enough, say tired Gazans', Gulf News, 17 January 2009.
[xvii] Meshaal: Time has come to talk to Hamas, AFP, 22 January 2009; ‘Meshaal: Resistance is all we have in Gaza', Press TV, 11 January 2009.
Printable version
26/01/2009
BICOM ANALYSIS: THE NEW US ADMINISTRATION AND HAMAS - LESSONS FROM NORTHERN IRELAND
Key Points
Over the last four years, Hamas has participated in national elections and entered into a unity government, but in terms of the calculated use of violence, it has shown no sign of following in the footsteps of the IRA.
Rather than approaching ceasefires as a way to create the basis for longer-term political agreements, Hamas see them as essentially for the purposes of rearming, regrouping militarily and consolidating power.
The political goals of Republicanism contrast starkly with the radical Islamist beliefs which underpin Hamas's stated goal of establishing an Islamic Waqf (trust entity) throughout the whole area of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel.
Moderate Sunni Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, view the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as a deeply problematic tool in Iran's arsenal for disrupting regional stability and encroaching Iranian power.
Introduction
In his first week in the Oval Office, President Obama demonstrated his resolve to "hit the ground running" on regional peace-making by appointing Senator George Mitchell to serve as his Middle East special envoy. Mitchell will make his first visit in his new role to Israel and the Palestinian Authority this week. He has experience in the region, having devised the 2001 Mitchell Commission plan in US efforts to stem the violence following the outbreak of the Second Intifada. His appointment naturally draws parallels with the Northern Ireland conflict, as he also chaired talks that culminated in the April 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
Over the years, many respected politicians and commentators have drawn comparisons, recognising that whilst no two conflicts are ever the same, lessons can be learned.[i] The main hope today, especially since Hamas's electoral victory in January 2006, is that where Sinn Féin and the IRA moved away from terrorism for political dialogue with Britain, Hamas could be similarly engaged. This briefing draws upon the Northern Ireland experience to shed light on the most difficult challenges vis-à-vis Hamas which would need to be addressed in order to do so. It also dispels some of the myths about Hamas in current public discourse, either due to wishful thinking, smug imperialist attitudes or plain naivety; in any case, such myths are a dangerous phenomenon. The guiding political questions are first, whether enough of the Hamas leadership are interested in a compromise, and second, whether they are capable of creating an internal consensus. These are critical issues for how the new US administration carves out its role this year.
Commitment to armed struggle
The success of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement perhaps overshadows the chequered history of dialogue which preceded it. Although contact stems back to the 1970s, such as when Northern Ireland Secretary William Whitelaw held secret talks with the provisional IRA in London, a recent Guardian article notes that, "Republicans did not get their seat at the table until they had forsworn violence and agreed to pursue their goals by exclusively peaceful means."[ii]
Similarly, it would seem that not until Hamas leaders internalise the need to renounce violence is it advisable to conceive of them as prospective interlocutors in peace negotiations. As Peter Neumann, a terrorism expert at King's College London, explains, "No one in the IRA ever abandoned the organisation's absolutist ambitions for a united Ireland, but at some point in the late 1980s, the group's leaders realised that their military campaign no longer furthered that aim, and so they began exploring alternatives."[iii]
Over the last four years, Hamas has participated in national elections and entered into a unity government, but in terms of the calculated use of violence, it has shown no sign of following in the footsteps of the IRA. Playing by democratic rules entails more than winning power at the ballot box; Hamas's use of Palestinian ministries to create a new loyal militia - the Executive Force - and turning it on their own people, rather than attempting to build unified Palestinian institutions, is a case in point. Just last Thursday, in a West Bank news conference, senior PA official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that Hamas had "turned its rifles in the direction of Fatah members" after last week's ceasefire with Israel. Militants reportedly shot victims in the kneecaps, the notorious punishment tactic of the IRA in its terror heyday.[iv]
Whereas armed struggle damaged the Republican cause in Northern Ireland, ‘muqawama' (resistance) for Hamas, against Israel, is a defining feature of its authenticity among its supporters in Palestinian society. Last June, Hamas agreed to the six month ‘tahdiyeh' (temporary lull), which it chose not to extend. The idea of a ten year ‘hudna' (truce) has been occasionally mooted by Hamas leaders in the past. Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha has now said the organisation would not agree to more than an 18 month ceasefire.[v] But Hamas leaders are explicit that all these are ‘tactical' manoeuvres. Rather than seeing ceasefires as a way to create a basis for longer-term political agreements, they see them as essentially for the purposes of rearming, regrouping militarily and consolidating power. This is exactly what Hamas did throughout the ceasefire in the second half of 2008, which it used to greatly increase the range of its rockets.[vi] Hamas today remains strategically committed to violent resistance, as Damascus-based political chief Khaled Meshaal explained on 11 January: "We will not accept a permanent truce, because it will take [away] the right of resistance from the Palestinian people."[vii]
Religion and politics
The second dimension of the Northern Ireland conflict, which is instructive in assessing the propensity of Hamas to compromise, concerns the role of religion in respective political visions. Whilst Republicanism is tied to a religious identity - Catholicism - its goals are essentially political - an independent and united Ireland. Moreover, Britain supports the Northern Irish community's will to determine the province's future so long as it is by democratic consent; this is fundamental to the Belfast agreement. A deal was possible because, whilst religion is certainly a factor in Northern Ireland, the IRA never sought to convert Britain into a Catholic country.
This contrasts starkly with the radical Islamist beliefs which underpin Hamas's stated goal of establishing an Islamic Waqf (trust entity) throughout the whole area of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel.[viii] The Hamas Charter is an integrated political-Islamist ideological vision, in which no one - including Arab-Muslim leaders - is entitled to concede any part of this land.[ix] In a recent BBC Today programme interview, former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock rejected the idea that Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction, stating that the 1988 Charter was "a rhetorical statement of resistance" which is not part of Hamas's political agenda.[x] It is worth noting that senior Hamas leaders have repeatedly reaffirmed the organisation's full commitment to its founding document, including on 25 January 2006 when Palestinian Legislative Council elections were held.[xi] This sets it at fundamental odds with both Israel and its secular nationalist rivals in the Palestinian Authority. There may be those in the movement who are more open to dialogue than others, but there is little indication that moderate voices are at the forefront of the organisation or sufficient in number to steer its direction. The religious precepts shut out the notion of a permanent political arrangement based on two states which would end Palestinian claims against Israel. They also severely hamper prospects for more progressive thinking to garner momentum within the movement.
The former ambassador also stated that Hamas "is not beholden to Iran," because Hamas is Sunni and Iran is Shia.[xii] Hamas identifies itself as a "wing" of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is indeed a fundamentalist movement from within Sunni Islam. But whilst theologically distinct from the Tehran regime, Hamas is politically aligned with Iran, its key source of military and financial sponsorship, according to British, American, Canadian, Israeli and Palestinian intelligence.[xiii] Hostility to secular Arab nationalism and Western influence are ideological trends common to radical streams within both Sunni and Shia Islam. Moderate Sunni Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, view the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as a deeply problematic tool in Iran's arsenal for disrupting regional stability and encroaching Iranian power.
Intra-party friction and constraints
The very different perceptions of Hamas stem from various factors, including its careful use of the international media and well-intentioned peace advocates to promote a peaceful demeanour to the West. The picture is also obscured by the multifaceted nature of the organisation itself. The radical ideology and use of organised terror which characterise Hamas are two significant dimensions of a broad-based political and social movement, which includes the formal political party - headquartered in both Gaza and Damascus - and da'wa, which comprises an extensive social welfare system, charitable services and religious teaching.
In assessing which Palestinian interlocutors to address, the new US administration cannot escape consideration of Hamas's internal dynamics. Here again, the Northern Ireland example is insightful. It took time to build a consensus amidst deep divisions within the Republican movement. As one commentator put it, "[Gerry] Adams and Martin McGuiness resisted any move that would cause a republican split so that when they were finally ready to do a deal, the deal held."[xiv] Rising Catholic prosperity in the province during the 1970s made the IRA's strategy of the ‘long war' far less appealing over time.
This raises questions as to whether anyone in Hamas has the necessary clout to control its rank and file or the internal legitimacy to engage in political dialogue. An inner power struggle continues between Gaza and Damascus, which seems to have been accentuated by the three week conflict with Israel at the turn of the year. Following disagreements about when and under what terms to reach a ceasefire, it was reported that Hamas's armed wing - the Izz a din al-Qassam Brigades - chose to ignore calls by the Damascus leadership to carry out attacks against IDF troops when they were withdrawing from the Strip.[xv] Aware of the gap between prosperity in the West Bank and Gaza widening, local residents are frustrated with Hamas's ‘resistance'. One was quoted as saying, "We do not care how, we want a ceasefire. We want to go back to our homes. Our children need to go back to sleep in their beds."[xvi] It is unclear how far disenchantment with Hamas will develop, but the political constituency to whom the Gaza leadership is actively responsive to - and constrained by - is the local population.
Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, meanwhile, is more concerned with maintaining his broader legitimacy and relevance, hence his calls for the diplomatic isolation of Hamas to end coupled with tough rhetoric: "We need a third ‘Intifada' (uprising) in the West Bank and a revolution in the Arab, Islamic world," he proclaimed during the conflict, "[T]he blood of our women and children and people will increase our cohesion and determination to achieve our aims."[xvii] If a contender for power from within Hamas were to follow Sinn Féin's lead and agree to "democratic and exclusively peaceful means," the Damascus leadership would want to be able to declare the ‘Real Hamas' as the ‘authentic Islamic Resistance Movement'.
Conclusion
When contemplating political negotiations, pragmatists ask whether the other side is amenable to compromise and able to digest all that it would entail internally. The Northern Ireland experience shows that it was not until the Republican movement was ready to declare its war over did the possibility of a historic compromise begin to become realistic.
Hamas's ongoing control of the Gaza Strip continues to present a major obstacle to all key stakeholders in the peace process, including the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Western powers and the moderate Arab states. Its ongoing commitment to violent ‘resistance' as a radical religious and political ideology - and the absence of cohesion in Palestinian politics - deeply exacerbates the challenge they face and ought not to be underestimated. The stakes are even higher when considering the broader picture in which Hamas is politically aligned to Iran, which has regional hegemonic ambitions. As such, the issues of how to face the Hamas challenge in Gaza require ongoing assessment and may benefit from creative ideas by the new US administration. But policymakers will be conscious that engaging Hamas before they are ripe for negotiations could be profoundly counterproductive.
[i] For a guide to the roots of comparative study, see ‘Why Hamas is not Sinn Fein', BICOM Analysis, 24 October 2007.
[ii] Jonathan Freedland, ‘Amid the horror and doom of Gaza, the IRA precedent offers hope', The Guardian, 14 January 2009.
[iii] Peter R. Neumann, ‘Negotiating with Terrorists', Foreign Affairs (86:1), Jan/Feb 2007.
[iv] Griff Witte and Jonathan Finer, ‘Battered Gaza Still In the Grip Of Hamas', Washington Post, 24 January 2009.
[v] Avi Issacharoff, ‘Hamas offers 18-month cease-fire', urges PA to sever talks with Israel', Haaretz, 26 January 2009.
[vi] Avi Issacharoff, Amos Harel and Yuval Azoulay, ‘Meshal: Hamas ready for truce, but only as ‘tactic'', Haaretz, 27 April 2008.
[vii] ‘Meshaal: Resistance is all we have in Gaza', Press TV, 11 January 2009.
[viii] See Article 11 of the Hamas Charter (which can be read online). A full English translation can be read here.
[ix] Further analysis can be read here: The Hamas Charter (1988), Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 21 March 2006.
[x] ‘Hamas diplomacy is ‘hard to see'', BBC Today, 12 January 2009.
[xi] See The Hamas Charter (1988), Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 21 March 2006.
[xii] ‘Hamas diplomacy is ‘hard to see'', BBC Today, 12 January 2009; see also Melanie Philips, ‘Sir Jeremy Greenstock says Hamas is only about ‘resistance', Spectator, 13 January 2009.
[xiii] For further details, see Matthew Levitt (2006), Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Services of Jihad (Yale: London).
[xiv] Jonathan Freedland, ‘Amid the horror and doom of Gaza, the IRA precedent offers hope', The Guardian, 14 January 2009.
[xv] Abraham Rabinovich, ‘Hamas leadership at odds over Gaza truce', The Australian, 13 January 2009; Amos Harel, ‘IDF to conclude withdrawal today', Haaretz, 21 January 2009.
[xvi] Reuters, ‘Enough is enough, say tired Gazans', Gulf News, 17 January 2009.
[xvii] Meshaal: Time has come to talk to Hamas, AFP, 22 January 2009; ‘Meshaal: Resistance is all we have in Gaza', Press TV, 11 January 2009.
Saturday, 24 January 2009
These are the type of innocent civilians we are up against and don't forget it!
http://images.google.co.uk/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_en-GBGB307GB308&q=ramallah+arab+lynch+soldier+2000&start=20&sa=N&ndsp=20
I know this is from a while back (2000 to be precise) but I don't remember the world trembling with rage over the savage and animalistic lynching of 2 lost Israelis in Ramallah. Where are the war crimes levelled at these barbarians? If they came to Britain, would someone be waiting to arrest them at the airport?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys Pallywood
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY&feature=related Mohammed Al-dura
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sOVhTFOPKxc&NR=1 Suicide bomber caught at checkpoint on her way to blow up Israeli hospital where she was receiving treatment
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E&feature=related 14yr old suicide bomber!!
These above links are why I can't trust the outpourings from Gaza. This is why women and children unfortuately are not as innocent as they seem. It is so hard for us in the West to understand the mentality of these people because it is so opposite from our own. However, we must wait for the truth to out in Gaza. When Jon Snow shows us images of flechette darts in a wall, we see one "bullet" and to be honest, it looks like a nail that has been hammered into a wall. If a flechette bomb contains 5,000 darts, why aren't there more darts in the wall? Why aren't people covered with them as you would expect. All I am saying is that the world mustn't rush to conclusions! Mud sticks. If I accuse you of murdering someone and you are subsequently cleared, people remain suspicious of you. Soooo, wait until the investigations are completed before you declare yourself an expert on the situation.
I know this is from a while back (2000 to be precise) but I don't remember the world trembling with rage over the savage and animalistic lynching of 2 lost Israelis in Ramallah. Where are the war crimes levelled at these barbarians? If they came to Britain, would someone be waiting to arrest them at the airport?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys Pallywood
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY&feature=related Mohammed Al-dura
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sOVhTFOPKxc&NR=1 Suicide bomber caught at checkpoint on her way to blow up Israeli hospital where she was receiving treatment
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E&feature=related 14yr old suicide bomber!!
These above links are why I can't trust the outpourings from Gaza. This is why women and children unfortuately are not as innocent as they seem. It is so hard for us in the West to understand the mentality of these people because it is so opposite from our own. However, we must wait for the truth to out in Gaza. When Jon Snow shows us images of flechette darts in a wall, we see one "bullet" and to be honest, it looks like a nail that has been hammered into a wall. If a flechette bomb contains 5,000 darts, why aren't there more darts in the wall? Why aren't people covered with them as you would expect. All I am saying is that the world mustn't rush to conclusions! Mud sticks. If I accuse you of murdering someone and you are subsequently cleared, people remain suspicious of you. Soooo, wait until the investigations are completed before you declare yourself an expert on the situation.
Support the BBC's decision NOT to publicise Gaza Aid Appeal.
Please write to the BBC and support their decision on Gaza Aid Appeal
The BBC are standing firm - despite protests outside Broadcasting House - in their decision not to televise a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza (unlike the other broadcasters in the UK).
We, myself included, are quick to criticize the BBC when they broadcast something that is clearly biased against Israel. So we now an opportunity to thank them.
Please see the Editor's justification for this decision below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
The following link will help you e mail the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/feedback/default.stm
The BBC are standing firm - despite protests outside Broadcasting House - in their decision not to televise a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza (unlike the other broadcasters in the UK).
We, myself included, are quick to criticize the BBC when they broadcast something that is clearly biased against Israel. So we now an opportunity to thank them.
Please see the Editor's justification for this decision below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
The following link will help you e mail the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/feedback/default.stm
Friday, 23 January 2009
Another Melainie Phillips brilliant piece that says it all about our sense of denial.
Around the world, people have reacted with horror to the vile atrocities in Mumbai.
For three days, our TV screens transmitted images of carnage and chaos as the toll of murder victims climbed to upwards of 190 people, with many hundreds more injured.
Despite the fact that British citizens were caught up in the attacks, there is nevertheless a sense in Britain that this was nothing to do with us — a horrible event happening in a faraway place.
Among commentators, moreover, there has been no small amount of confusion. Were these terrorists motivated by the grievance between Muslims and Hindus over Kashmir, or was this a broader attack by al Qaeda?
If British and American tourists were singled out over Iraq — which many assume is the motive for such attacks — why were Indians targeted in the Victoria railway station? And why was an obscure Jewish outreach centre marked for slaughter?
Such perceptions and questions suggest that, even now, Western commentators still don’t grasp what the free world is facing. This was not merely a distant horror.
We should pay the closest possible attention to what happened in Mumbai because something on this scale could well happen here.
But because we don’t understand what we are actually up against, we are not doing nearly enough to prevent this — or something even worse — occurring on British soil; and if it were to happen here, we would be unable to cope.
The Mumbai atrocities show very clearly what too many in Britain obdurately deny — that a war is being waged against civilisation.
It is both global and local. It is not ‘our’ fault; it has nothing to do with Muslim poverty, oppression or discrimination.
The Islamic fundamentalist fanatics use specific grievances — Kashmir, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya — merely as recruiting sergeants for their worldwide holy war against all ‘unbelievers’.
The Mumbai attackers targeted British, American and Indian citizens simply because they wanted to kill as many British, American and Indian ‘unbelievers’ as possible. Where they found Muslims, they spared them.
They also singled out for slaughter the occupants of the Chabad House, a pious Jewish outreach organisation with no Israeli or political agenda — underscoring the point that at the core of the Islamists’ hatred of Israel festers their hatred of the Jews.
This was not, as is so often described, ‘mindless violence’. On the contrary, the terrorists precisely calibrated both their choice of targets and the way in which they attacked them. This tells us many things.
India was chosen in order to further two aims. First was to foment greater tension between India and Pakistan.
No less important was the wish to destroy the ever more vital strategic alliance between India and the West in common defence against the Islamist onslaught.
That was why British and American visitors in those two grand hotels were singled out. And that was why Mumbai itself was chosen — as the symbol of India’s burgeoning commerce and prosperity and its links with the West.
The manner of these attacks also carried a message. Many hostages were taken, but no attempt was made to use them to demand redress of any grievances. They were simply killed. That made a statement that the terrorists’ agenda is non-negotiable.
The attacks demonstrated, above all, the reach of the perpetrators and the impotence of their designated victims. Those who believe that Islamist terror can be halted by addressing grievances around the world are profoundly mistaken.
With these atrocities, moreover, Islamist attacks have moved much closer to war than conventional terrorism.
The Iranian-born foreign affairs specialist Amir Taheri has pointed out that the Mumbai attacks embody the plan outlined by a senior Al Qaeda strategist after the U.S. decided to fight back following 9/11 — a decision that the Islamists had not expected.
This new strategy entails targeting countries with a substantial Muslim presence for ‘low-intensity warfare’ comprising bombings, kidnappings, the taking of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, beheadings and other attacks that make normal life impossible.
Such a simultaneous, multi-faceted onslaught quickly reduces a city and a country to chaos. It can be repeated anywhere — and British cities must be among the most vulnerable.
This is because — astoundingly — Britain now harbours the most developed infrastructure of Islamist terrorism and extremism in the Western world.
The security service has warned that it is monitoring at least 2,000 known terrorists, and has said repeatedly that although many outrages have been averted a major attack may not be preventable.
Indeed, British security officials have sleepless nights about the various ways in which the Islamists are trying to cause mass casualties in Britain — and the fact that even now this threat is not taken seriously.
This point was made yesterday by the former head of Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command, Peter Clarke.
As an example, he noted that Kazi Nurur Rahman, a convicted terrorist who was arrested shortly after 7/7 with a machine-gun and 3,000 rounds of ammunition, had been trying to buy machine-guns, rocket-propelled grenades and missiles — undoubtedly for use against British targets.
Far from the popular caricatures of bumbling, impressionable and socially alienated misfits, he said, there was a capable and motivated enemy spanning the globe which would try to replicate the Mumbai atrocities in Britain.
Even more chilling was the warning by a former head of the SAS that Britain has made no adequate preparations to deal with such an onslaught upon a British city — even though that is precisely the ‘doomsday scenario’ that the security world fears.
Such synchronised attacks, he said, required a ‘military-type response’, either by squads of soldiers or armed police. But we have neither in place.
This country is simply not trained, equipped or prepared in any way to deal with something on this scale.
Yesterday, Gordon Brown said that the Mumbai attacks had raised ‘huge questions’ about how the world should address violent extremism. But the first question he must answer is how the British approach will now change.
For the fact is that not only is Britain hopelessly unprepared for attacks of this kind, but the Government’s approach to the problem of home-grown radicalisation is misguided.
Wrongly believing that it can use religious fundamentalists to counter terrorist recruitment and that it must at all costs avoid causing offence, it is failing to stop extremists spreading their propaganda, handling their demands with kid gloves and undermining genuine moderates among Britain’s Muslims who have been left exposed, vulnerable and abandoned.
The reason for such flawed policies is the false analysis on which they are based. The Government and security establishment refuse to acknowledge that what we are facing is a religious war. Instead, they think that Islamist terrorism is driven by grievances which are basically the fault of the West.
But you have only to look around the world or at the history of the past four decades and more to see the absurdity and ignorance of this view.
Look at Thailand, for example, currently convulsed by Islamist terrorism in the south with bombings, beheadings and the murder of Buddhists.
Look at the persecution of Christians in Nigeria. Look at the Islamist terrorism in the Philippines. Look, as Peter Clarke noted, at the attacks variously upon New York, Bali, Istanbul, Jakarta, Sharm el Sheikh, Casablanca, Madrid, London and India.
If we don’t understand what we are fighting, we cannot defeat it. Mumbai is yet another wake-up call — to a Britain that is still in a trance of denial.
For three days, our TV screens transmitted images of carnage and chaos as the toll of murder victims climbed to upwards of 190 people, with many hundreds more injured.
Despite the fact that British citizens were caught up in the attacks, there is nevertheless a sense in Britain that this was nothing to do with us — a horrible event happening in a faraway place.
Among commentators, moreover, there has been no small amount of confusion. Were these terrorists motivated by the grievance between Muslims and Hindus over Kashmir, or was this a broader attack by al Qaeda?
If British and American tourists were singled out over Iraq — which many assume is the motive for such attacks — why were Indians targeted in the Victoria railway station? And why was an obscure Jewish outreach centre marked for slaughter?
Such perceptions and questions suggest that, even now, Western commentators still don’t grasp what the free world is facing. This was not merely a distant horror.
We should pay the closest possible attention to what happened in Mumbai because something on this scale could well happen here.
But because we don’t understand what we are actually up against, we are not doing nearly enough to prevent this — or something even worse — occurring on British soil; and if it were to happen here, we would be unable to cope.
The Mumbai atrocities show very clearly what too many in Britain obdurately deny — that a war is being waged against civilisation.
It is both global and local. It is not ‘our’ fault; it has nothing to do with Muslim poverty, oppression or discrimination.
The Islamic fundamentalist fanatics use specific grievances — Kashmir, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya — merely as recruiting sergeants for their worldwide holy war against all ‘unbelievers’.
The Mumbai attackers targeted British, American and Indian citizens simply because they wanted to kill as many British, American and Indian ‘unbelievers’ as possible. Where they found Muslims, they spared them.
They also singled out for slaughter the occupants of the Chabad House, a pious Jewish outreach organisation with no Israeli or political agenda — underscoring the point that at the core of the Islamists’ hatred of Israel festers their hatred of the Jews.
This was not, as is so often described, ‘mindless violence’. On the contrary, the terrorists precisely calibrated both their choice of targets and the way in which they attacked them. This tells us many things.
India was chosen in order to further two aims. First was to foment greater tension between India and Pakistan.
No less important was the wish to destroy the ever more vital strategic alliance between India and the West in common defence against the Islamist onslaught.
That was why British and American visitors in those two grand hotels were singled out. And that was why Mumbai itself was chosen — as the symbol of India’s burgeoning commerce and prosperity and its links with the West.
The manner of these attacks also carried a message. Many hostages were taken, but no attempt was made to use them to demand redress of any grievances. They were simply killed. That made a statement that the terrorists’ agenda is non-negotiable.
The attacks demonstrated, above all, the reach of the perpetrators and the impotence of their designated victims. Those who believe that Islamist terror can be halted by addressing grievances around the world are profoundly mistaken.
With these atrocities, moreover, Islamist attacks have moved much closer to war than conventional terrorism.
The Iranian-born foreign affairs specialist Amir Taheri has pointed out that the Mumbai attacks embody the plan outlined by a senior Al Qaeda strategist after the U.S. decided to fight back following 9/11 — a decision that the Islamists had not expected.
This new strategy entails targeting countries with a substantial Muslim presence for ‘low-intensity warfare’ comprising bombings, kidnappings, the taking of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, beheadings and other attacks that make normal life impossible.
Such a simultaneous, multi-faceted onslaught quickly reduces a city and a country to chaos. It can be repeated anywhere — and British cities must be among the most vulnerable.
This is because — astoundingly — Britain now harbours the most developed infrastructure of Islamist terrorism and extremism in the Western world.
The security service has warned that it is monitoring at least 2,000 known terrorists, and has said repeatedly that although many outrages have been averted a major attack may not be preventable.
Indeed, British security officials have sleepless nights about the various ways in which the Islamists are trying to cause mass casualties in Britain — and the fact that even now this threat is not taken seriously.
This point was made yesterday by the former head of Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command, Peter Clarke.
As an example, he noted that Kazi Nurur Rahman, a convicted terrorist who was arrested shortly after 7/7 with a machine-gun and 3,000 rounds of ammunition, had been trying to buy machine-guns, rocket-propelled grenades and missiles — undoubtedly for use against British targets.
Far from the popular caricatures of bumbling, impressionable and socially alienated misfits, he said, there was a capable and motivated enemy spanning the globe which would try to replicate the Mumbai atrocities in Britain.
Even more chilling was the warning by a former head of the SAS that Britain has made no adequate preparations to deal with such an onslaught upon a British city — even though that is precisely the ‘doomsday scenario’ that the security world fears.
Such synchronised attacks, he said, required a ‘military-type response’, either by squads of soldiers or armed police. But we have neither in place.
This country is simply not trained, equipped or prepared in any way to deal with something on this scale.
Yesterday, Gordon Brown said that the Mumbai attacks had raised ‘huge questions’ about how the world should address violent extremism. But the first question he must answer is how the British approach will now change.
For the fact is that not only is Britain hopelessly unprepared for attacks of this kind, but the Government’s approach to the problem of home-grown radicalisation is misguided.
Wrongly believing that it can use religious fundamentalists to counter terrorist recruitment and that it must at all costs avoid causing offence, it is failing to stop extremists spreading their propaganda, handling their demands with kid gloves and undermining genuine moderates among Britain’s Muslims who have been left exposed, vulnerable and abandoned.
The reason for such flawed policies is the false analysis on which they are based. The Government and security establishment refuse to acknowledge that what we are facing is a religious war. Instead, they think that Islamist terrorism is driven by grievances which are basically the fault of the West.
But you have only to look around the world or at the history of the past four decades and more to see the absurdity and ignorance of this view.
Look at Thailand, for example, currently convulsed by Islamist terrorism in the south with bombings, beheadings and the murder of Buddhists.
Look at the persecution of Christians in Nigeria. Look at the Islamist terrorism in the Philippines. Look, as Peter Clarke noted, at the attacks variously upon New York, Bali, Istanbul, Jakarta, Sharm el Sheikh, Casablanca, Madrid, London and India.
If we don’t understand what we are fighting, we cannot defeat it. Mumbai is yet another wake-up call — to a Britain that is still in a trance of denial.
Melanie Phillips articulates everything that I want to say!!
In Britain, the war in Gaza has revealed the extent to which the media, intelligentsia and political class have simply crumbled in the face of the global jihad.
The U.K. is a major player in European and world politics and is America’s most significant strategic ally. Until now, it has been considered one of Israel’s firm supporters and a linchpin of the Western defense against the world-wide Islamist onslaught. With the reaction to Gaza, however, that reputation is no longer sustainable.
Years of demonizing Israel and appeasing Islamist extremism within Britain have now coalesced, as a result of the media misrepresentation of the Gaza war as an atrocity against civilians, in an unprecedented wave of hatred against Israel and a sharp rise in attacks on British Jews.
Throughout the war, London’s streets have witnessed a hallucinatory level of violent and explicit support for Hamas from Muslims, members of the far left and supposedly progressive individuals.
Night after night, Israel’s embassy in well-to-do Kensington found itself under violent siege. Demonstrators attempted to storm the building, howling their support for the terrorist body whose genocidal intentions toward Israel and the Jews necessarily includes killing every one of the occupants inside.
Certainly, there have been anti-Israel protests around the world. But in Britain, not only have these been particularly violent but the authorities have done nothing to stop such incitement of hatred.
The police told pro-Israel demonstrators on at least one occasion to put away their Israel flags because they were ‘inflammatory.’ Yet officers allowed some anti-Israel demonstrators to scream support for Hamas — and even to dress up as hook-nosed Jews pretending to drink the blood of Palestinian babies.
In general, the police have reacted passively to the violence. One recent video clip captured the astonishing spectacle of Muslims stampeding through London’s West End hurling traffic cones and other missiles at the police, all the time shrieking ‘Allahu akbar’ and ‘cowards.’ The police ran and stumbled backward rather than standing their ground and stopping the rampage.
Not only has such violence barely been reported. There has also been no acknowledgment of the explicitly Islamist nature of these demonstrations. Keffiyeh-clad demonstrators prostrated themselves in prayer or shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ as they attacked Jewish-owned or -founded stores, such as Starbucks and Tesco, on numerous occasions.
Instead, the political class has simply regurgitated Hamas propaganda. In a debate in the House of Commons last week, one MP after another expressed horror at Israel’s supposed crimes against humanity in Gaza.
More serious still, Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell cited as fact the Hamas claim that 300 children had been killed in Gaza, even though Israel has given a much lower figure, and said the Israeli action was ‘disproportionate’ and the bombing was ‘indefensible and unacceptable.’
Similarly, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, commenting after this weekend’s cease-fire that ‘too many innocent people’ had been killed, made no mention of Israel’s strenuous attempts to minimize civilian casualties, nor Hamas’s responsibility for holding Gaza’s civilians hostage.
In fact, the British government has effectively taken the view that Israel should not be allowed to defend itself by military means against the Hamas rockets that ministers have taken care to condemn.
From the second day of the war, Foreign Secretary David Miliband was calling for an immediate cease-fire by both sides. Since Hamas would take no notice, this in practice amounted to pressure upon Israel to stop defending itself.
It was Britain which took the lead in framing the United Nations resolution calling upon Israel to withdraw all its forces from Gaza while making no mention whatever of Hamas. And it was Britain which also drew a disquieting moral equivalence between Hamas terrorism and Israeli self-defense.
Certainly, neither Mr. Miliband nor Mr. Brown — a reputed supporter of Israel — can be unaware that it was Tony Blair’s refusal to call for an immediate cease-fire by Israel in the 2006 Lebanon war that finally led his MPs, already enraged by his support for the war in Iraq, to force him prematurely out of office.
But Britain’s new coolness toward Israel is due to much more than this. The government’s failure to support Israel’s war against Hamas as the front line of the West’s defense against the global Islamic jihad reflects its failure in turn to acknowledge the nature of that world-wide phenomenon.
Last Thursday, Mr. Miliband wrote in the Guardian that there was no single, unified Islamist threat but merely a set of various local grievances, such as Kashmir or the Golan Heights.
Such startling ignorance of the goals and ideological antecedents of the Islamic jihad, from Hamas to Hezbollah to Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba, is of a piece with the British government’s stubborn refusal to accept that the West is under assault from a war of religion.
The government denies this fact because it does not want to face up to the unpalatable realities of fighting such a war. So although ‘middle Britain’ is beginning to grasp that the Islamists in Gaza are the same as those rampaging through the streets of London, ministers are intent on appeasing Muslim extremism and intimidation both at home and abroad.
Accordingly, while Britain’s security services have had significant success in smashing Islamic terrorism plots, government strategy for combating Islamist extremism rests upon seeking to mollify Britain’s two million or so Muslims by avoiding confrontation — which means turning a blind eye to threatening statements.
Recently, prominent British Muslims who advise ministers against Islamist extremism wrote an open letter making the veiled threat that unless the government condemned Israel there would be a rise in violence in Britain.
Ministers’ openly stated fear that this will indeed happen as a result of the war in Gaza makes them anxious to show Britain’s Muslims that they oppose Israel’s actions. They don’t understand that, by showing such weakness in the face of intimidation, they are not just betraying their Israeli ally but also undermining the Western defense against the jihad.
Across the spectrum, Britain’s elites are terrified of dealing with militant Islamism. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, in a pattern which goes back to the foundational Christian blood libel against the Jews, they are concealing their fearful inability to deal with Islamist aggression by displacing the blame onto its Israeli victims instead.
(ME-I LOVE Melanie Phillips! She is a beacon of clarity in these dark and confused times!)
The U.K. is a major player in European and world politics and is America’s most significant strategic ally. Until now, it has been considered one of Israel’s firm supporters and a linchpin of the Western defense against the world-wide Islamist onslaught. With the reaction to Gaza, however, that reputation is no longer sustainable.
Years of demonizing Israel and appeasing Islamist extremism within Britain have now coalesced, as a result of the media misrepresentation of the Gaza war as an atrocity against civilians, in an unprecedented wave of hatred against Israel and a sharp rise in attacks on British Jews.
Throughout the war, London’s streets have witnessed a hallucinatory level of violent and explicit support for Hamas from Muslims, members of the far left and supposedly progressive individuals.
Night after night, Israel’s embassy in well-to-do Kensington found itself under violent siege. Demonstrators attempted to storm the building, howling their support for the terrorist body whose genocidal intentions toward Israel and the Jews necessarily includes killing every one of the occupants inside.
Certainly, there have been anti-Israel protests around the world. But in Britain, not only have these been particularly violent but the authorities have done nothing to stop such incitement of hatred.
The police told pro-Israel demonstrators on at least one occasion to put away their Israel flags because they were ‘inflammatory.’ Yet officers allowed some anti-Israel demonstrators to scream support for Hamas — and even to dress up as hook-nosed Jews pretending to drink the blood of Palestinian babies.
In general, the police have reacted passively to the violence. One recent video clip captured the astonishing spectacle of Muslims stampeding through London’s West End hurling traffic cones and other missiles at the police, all the time shrieking ‘Allahu akbar’ and ‘cowards.’ The police ran and stumbled backward rather than standing their ground and stopping the rampage.
Not only has such violence barely been reported. There has also been no acknowledgment of the explicitly Islamist nature of these demonstrations. Keffiyeh-clad demonstrators prostrated themselves in prayer or shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ as they attacked Jewish-owned or -founded stores, such as Starbucks and Tesco, on numerous occasions.
Instead, the political class has simply regurgitated Hamas propaganda. In a debate in the House of Commons last week, one MP after another expressed horror at Israel’s supposed crimes against humanity in Gaza.
More serious still, Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell cited as fact the Hamas claim that 300 children had been killed in Gaza, even though Israel has given a much lower figure, and said the Israeli action was ‘disproportionate’ and the bombing was ‘indefensible and unacceptable.’
Similarly, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, commenting after this weekend’s cease-fire that ‘too many innocent people’ had been killed, made no mention of Israel’s strenuous attempts to minimize civilian casualties, nor Hamas’s responsibility for holding Gaza’s civilians hostage.
In fact, the British government has effectively taken the view that Israel should not be allowed to defend itself by military means against the Hamas rockets that ministers have taken care to condemn.
From the second day of the war, Foreign Secretary David Miliband was calling for an immediate cease-fire by both sides. Since Hamas would take no notice, this in practice amounted to pressure upon Israel to stop defending itself.
It was Britain which took the lead in framing the United Nations resolution calling upon Israel to withdraw all its forces from Gaza while making no mention whatever of Hamas. And it was Britain which also drew a disquieting moral equivalence between Hamas terrorism and Israeli self-defense.
Certainly, neither Mr. Miliband nor Mr. Brown — a reputed supporter of Israel — can be unaware that it was Tony Blair’s refusal to call for an immediate cease-fire by Israel in the 2006 Lebanon war that finally led his MPs, already enraged by his support for the war in Iraq, to force him prematurely out of office.
But Britain’s new coolness toward Israel is due to much more than this. The government’s failure to support Israel’s war against Hamas as the front line of the West’s defense against the global Islamic jihad reflects its failure in turn to acknowledge the nature of that world-wide phenomenon.
Last Thursday, Mr. Miliband wrote in the Guardian that there was no single, unified Islamist threat but merely a set of various local grievances, such as Kashmir or the Golan Heights.
Such startling ignorance of the goals and ideological antecedents of the Islamic jihad, from Hamas to Hezbollah to Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba, is of a piece with the British government’s stubborn refusal to accept that the West is under assault from a war of religion.
The government denies this fact because it does not want to face up to the unpalatable realities of fighting such a war. So although ‘middle Britain’ is beginning to grasp that the Islamists in Gaza are the same as those rampaging through the streets of London, ministers are intent on appeasing Muslim extremism and intimidation both at home and abroad.
Accordingly, while Britain’s security services have had significant success in smashing Islamic terrorism plots, government strategy for combating Islamist extremism rests upon seeking to mollify Britain’s two million or so Muslims by avoiding confrontation — which means turning a blind eye to threatening statements.
Recently, prominent British Muslims who advise ministers against Islamist extremism wrote an open letter making the veiled threat that unless the government condemned Israel there would be a rise in violence in Britain.
Ministers’ openly stated fear that this will indeed happen as a result of the war in Gaza makes them anxious to show Britain’s Muslims that they oppose Israel’s actions. They don’t understand that, by showing such weakness in the face of intimidation, they are not just betraying their Israeli ally but also undermining the Western defense against the jihad.
Across the spectrum, Britain’s elites are terrified of dealing with militant Islamism. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, in a pattern which goes back to the foundational Christian blood libel against the Jews, they are concealing their fearful inability to deal with Islamist aggression by displacing the blame onto its Israeli victims instead.
(ME-I LOVE Melanie Phillips! She is a beacon of clarity in these dark and confused times!)
Thursday, 22 January 2009
watch this video
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1232292917710
Demonstration calling for the destruction of Israel by Hamas
Demonstration calling for the destruction of Israel by Hamas
Gaza Unseen on you guessed it, Channel 4, Jan 22nd
Now I am hyperventilating!!
It is not enough for Jon Snow to be shown mutilated bodies. What he wants is more dead babies being shaken around, more breast beatings, more limbs, more blood and gore. Even when all the other news stations felt you could get an adequate picture from the more limited shots, this was not enough for our Jon. He is on a crusade against Israel. No other war has been covered in such a grotesque way. We weren't shown dead babies in Iraq or Afghanistan or Chechnya. We weren't shown dead babies in Darfur or women being raped. We aren't even being shown dead Jewish bodies because the Israelis have too much dignity and respect for the dead to go hurling them around. There was no balance in this programme with no represntations from Israel. Jeremy Bowen doesn not count as an Israeli!! Mr Snow, you are a very sick man who lusts after hurting Israel's high moral standarding in the world. Israel-the only country that warns people to get out before it attacks. Israel-that targetted terrorists, as opposed to Hamas who indescriminantly fire at civilians. Israel-whose citizens do not hide bombs in their kitchens, their places of worship, their schools. Look at the IDF youtube site for real evidence-not the kind of hearsay that you get from "citizens" living in fear of Hamas. Mr Snow, you are inconsistent in your views (why do you not ask for pictures of dead Israelis to be shown if you are "unbiased"?) and your passion for targetting Israel again and again only confirms the nation's poor view of you. Isn't it time you retired?
It is not enough for Jon Snow to be shown mutilated bodies. What he wants is more dead babies being shaken around, more breast beatings, more limbs, more blood and gore. Even when all the other news stations felt you could get an adequate picture from the more limited shots, this was not enough for our Jon. He is on a crusade against Israel. No other war has been covered in such a grotesque way. We weren't shown dead babies in Iraq or Afghanistan or Chechnya. We weren't shown dead babies in Darfur or women being raped. We aren't even being shown dead Jewish bodies because the Israelis have too much dignity and respect for the dead to go hurling them around. There was no balance in this programme with no represntations from Israel. Jeremy Bowen doesn not count as an Israeli!! Mr Snow, you are a very sick man who lusts after hurting Israel's high moral standarding in the world. Israel-the only country that warns people to get out before it attacks. Israel-that targetted terrorists, as opposed to Hamas who indescriminantly fire at civilians. Israel-whose citizens do not hide bombs in their kitchens, their places of worship, their schools. Look at the IDF youtube site for real evidence-not the kind of hearsay that you get from "citizens" living in fear of Hamas. Mr Snow, you are inconsistent in your views (why do you not ask for pictures of dead Israelis to be shown if you are "unbiased"?) and your passion for targetting Israel again and again only confirms the nation's poor view of you. Isn't it time you retired?
Mark Regev
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=8795440001
Mark is amazing. Notice how Jon Snow cuts him short when Mark is winning the battle of words!!
Mark is amazing. Notice how Jon Snow cuts him short when Mark is winning the battle of words!!
This is what I wrote to Ch4 about their phosphorus allegations.
Mud sticks! If you continue to slur Israel's name, I will look into contacting a legal team to investigate the libellous allegations that you are making. Just as in the Jenin "massacre" that turned out to be totally untrue and the Gaza beach bombings that turned out to be Hamas but Channel 4 rushed in with the lies about an Israeli battleship causing the deaths of innocent people. This false and illegal manipulation of the truth, flaming extremists in this country is morally wrong. It STOPS here and now!!
Another Channel 4 propagation of lies
http://www.channel4.com/news/
Mud sticks. Just when people are acused of murder or some other crime and then they are proved innocent, there is always doubt about their integrity. I feel Channel 4 , especially that Jon Snow man should be taken to court for libel. They are slurring Israel's name! Any lawyers out there?
Mud sticks. Just when people are acused of murder or some other crime and then they are proved innocent, there is always doubt about their integrity. I feel Channel 4 , especially that Jon Snow man should be taken to court for libel. They are slurring Israel's name! Any lawyers out there?
This was my rant to Al-Beeb in the first place
Please don't support Hamas's propaganda battle and propogate their lies. Confirm facts before you enrage the militants in this counrty. The school was being used as a missile launch pad. Who in their right minds puts children next to a launch pad? You have to take a very poor view on their tactics. Please watch this video. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI
REMEMBER JENIN, AL-DURAH, GAZA BEACH BOMBING, LEBANON-ALL PROVEN TO BE PROPAGANDA AND LIES!! ONCE THE TERRORISTS REALISE THAT THE MEDIA HAS THEIR SYMPATHIES, IT WON'T BE LONG BEFORE THEY START BOMBING THE STREETS OF LONDON AGAIN-YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY!!
REMEMBER JENIN, AL-DURAH, GAZA BEACH BOMBING, LEBANON-ALL PROVEN TO BE PROPAGANDA AND LIES!! ONCE THE TERRORISTS REALISE THAT THE MEDIA HAS THEIR SYMPATHIES, IT WON'T BE LONG BEFORE THEY START BOMBING THE STREETS OF LONDON AGAIN-YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY!!
Blah blah blah from the BBC
Dear Ms Jones
Thanks for your e-mail. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we're sorry that you've had to wait on this occasion.
We understand that you feel BBC News coverage of the Gaza conflict has displayed a pro-Palestinian bias. We note that you make specific reference to our reporting of a 2007 Hamas attack.
We can assure you, Ms Jones, that we're committed to due impartiality in respect of all our news reports and we're careful that this is maintained. We're satisfied that our coverage of events in Israel and the Palestinian Authority has been balanced, fair and accurate.
We have reported the casualty figures from both sides: the fact is, however, that there have been many more Palestinian deaths than Israeli. We have also explained clearly and frequently that Israel sees this conflict as a necessary defensive action because of the rocket attacks it has faced for many years. It is for the audience, not the BBC, to judge whether, in its view, the action is justified.
However, we acknowledge that you feel our coverage of the Gaza conflict has been unbalanced and we'd like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Jonathan CarberryBBC Complaints
Thanks for your e-mail. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we're sorry that you've had to wait on this occasion.
We understand that you feel BBC News coverage of the Gaza conflict has displayed a pro-Palestinian bias. We note that you make specific reference to our reporting of a 2007 Hamas attack.
We can assure you, Ms Jones, that we're committed to due impartiality in respect of all our news reports and we're careful that this is maintained. We're satisfied that our coverage of events in Israel and the Palestinian Authority has been balanced, fair and accurate.
We have reported the casualty figures from both sides: the fact is, however, that there have been many more Palestinian deaths than Israeli. We have also explained clearly and frequently that Israel sees this conflict as a necessary defensive action because of the rocket attacks it has faced for many years. It is for the audience, not the BBC, to judge whether, in its view, the action is justified.
However, we acknowledge that you feel our coverage of the Gaza conflict has been unbalanced and we'd like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Jonathan CarberryBBC Complaints
I love Honestreporting!!
What really is behind the numbers reported on the number of civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip? Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera reported Thursday that a doctor working in Gaza's Shifa Hospital claimed that Hamas has intentionally inflated the number of casualties resulting from Israel's Operation Cast Lead.
"The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter," according to the newspaper article....
A Tal al-Hawa resident told the newspaper's reporter, "Armed Hamas men sought out a good position for provoking the Israelis. There were mostly teenagers, aged 16 or 17, and armed. They couldn't do a thing against a tank or a jet. They knew they are much weaker, but they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."
The reporter for the Italian newspaper also quoted reporters in the Strip who told of Hamas' exaggerated figures, "We have already said to Hamas commanders – why do you insist on inflating the number of victims?"
These same reporters mentioned that the truth that will come out is likely to be similar to what occurred in Operation Defensive Shield in Jenin. "Then, there was first talk of 1,500 deaths. But then it turned out that there were only 54, 45 of which were armed men," the Palestinian reporters told the Italian newspaper.
More info at The Jerusalem Post.
THE BBC'S OBSESSION WITH ISRAEL
What is it about the BBC and its obsession with Israel? In this story, Israel is compared to Rwanda. According to the BBC:
Rwanda has been described by some as the Israel of Africa.
The ethnic Tutsis of Rwanda experienced their genocide in 1994 but a Tutsi-dominated government then came to power and has ruled ever since.
Like the Israelis, the Tutsis have enemies on their borders, and now they have sent in their powerful army to deal with the ones who have bases in neighbouring DR Congo.
Is the BBC seriously suggesting that Israel is comparable to an African state where tribal warfare led to one of the worst genocides of the modern era? The Rwandan genocide is sometimes held up as an example of how the lessons of the Holocaust were not learned. This is, however, where any similarity ends, particularly when attempting to make any political or military parallels between the two countries. Indeed, this is the first time we have seen such a tenuous comparison made.
Please send your complaints to the BBC and ask why it felt compelled to employ such a downright misleading and erroneous linkage in an article totally unrelated to Mideast matters. You can send your comments to the BBC Complaints website -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints (for detailed instructions on how to navigate the BBC Complaints website, click here).
FOREIGN MEDIA REPORTING REALITY?
As more foreign journalists gain access to Gaza, different viewpoints from the default attacks on Israel are starting to emerge. Newsweek talked to gunmen who admitted using a hospital for firing at Israel:
One of the most notorious incidents during the war was the Jan. 15 shelling of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society buildings in the downtown Tal-al Hawa part of Gaza City, followed by a shell hitting their Al Quds Hospital next door; the subsequent fire forced all 500 patients to be evacuated . . . In the Tal-al Hawa neighborhood nearby, however, Talal Safadi, an official in the leftist Palestinian People's Party, said that resistance fighters were firing from positions all around the hospital. He shrugged that off, having a bigger beef with Hamas. "They failed to win the battle."
Daily Telegraph correspondent Tim Butcher returned to Gaza for the first time since the war:
I knew Gaza well before the attacks, so when Israel ended its ban on foreign journalists reaching Gaza on the day the ceasefire was announced, I was able to see for myself.
One thing was clear. Gaza City 2009 is not Stalingrad 1944. There had been no carpet bombing of large areas, no firebombing of complete suburbs. Targets had been selected and then hit, often several times, but almost always with precision munitions. Buildings nearby had been damaged and there had been some clear mistakes, like the firebombing of the UN aid headquarters. But, in most the cases, I saw the primary target had borne the brunt. ...
But, for the most part, I was struck by how cosmetically unchanged Gaza appeared to be. It has been a tatty, poorly-maintained mess for decades and the presence of fresh bombsites on streets already lined with broken kerbstones and jerry-built buildings did not make any great difference.
JORDANIAN AID SEIZED BY GAZA GUNMEN
Will your local media be reporting this from Jordan's Petra News Agency?
A number of armed men have seized on Tuesday a Jordanian aid convoy after entering the Gaza Strip via Karem Abu Salem Crossing Point, Petra was informed.The aid convoy, which was sent by the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organization (JHCO), was unloaded to non-Jordanian trucks driven by non-Jordanian drivers after crossing King Hussein Bridge.The UNRWA was expected to receive the convoy and unload it into its warehouses in Gaza to be distributed later on civilians in the strip.
The aid convoy, which was sent by the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organization (JHCO), was unloaded to non-Jordanian trucks driven by non-Jordanian drivers after crossing King Hussein Bridge.The UNRWA was expected to receive the convoy and unload it into its warehouses in Gaza to be distributed later on civilians in the strip.The armed men opened fire at drivers after crossing Karem Abu Salem crossing point and forced them to head to their own warehouses.UNRWA has asked the transport company not to send the aid convoys scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday until the issue of the seized convoy is solved.
RESOURCE: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE GAZA WAR
NGO Monitor examines what international law says about the war in Gaza and how it relates to issues like Gilad Shalit's fate, human shields, proportionate response, indiscriminate attacks, civilian casualties, collective punishment, and war crimes investigations.
"The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter," according to the newspaper article....
A Tal al-Hawa resident told the newspaper's reporter, "Armed Hamas men sought out a good position for provoking the Israelis. There were mostly teenagers, aged 16 or 17, and armed. They couldn't do a thing against a tank or a jet. They knew they are much weaker, but they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."
The reporter for the Italian newspaper also quoted reporters in the Strip who told of Hamas' exaggerated figures, "We have already said to Hamas commanders – why do you insist on inflating the number of victims?"
These same reporters mentioned that the truth that will come out is likely to be similar to what occurred in Operation Defensive Shield in Jenin. "Then, there was first talk of 1,500 deaths. But then it turned out that there were only 54, 45 of which were armed men," the Palestinian reporters told the Italian newspaper.
More info at The Jerusalem Post.
THE BBC'S OBSESSION WITH ISRAEL
What is it about the BBC and its obsession with Israel? In this story, Israel is compared to Rwanda. According to the BBC:
Rwanda has been described by some as the Israel of Africa.
The ethnic Tutsis of Rwanda experienced their genocide in 1994 but a Tutsi-dominated government then came to power and has ruled ever since.
Like the Israelis, the Tutsis have enemies on their borders, and now they have sent in their powerful army to deal with the ones who have bases in neighbouring DR Congo.
Is the BBC seriously suggesting that Israel is comparable to an African state where tribal warfare led to one of the worst genocides of the modern era? The Rwandan genocide is sometimes held up as an example of how the lessons of the Holocaust were not learned. This is, however, where any similarity ends, particularly when attempting to make any political or military parallels between the two countries. Indeed, this is the first time we have seen such a tenuous comparison made.
Please send your complaints to the BBC and ask why it felt compelled to employ such a downright misleading and erroneous linkage in an article totally unrelated to Mideast matters. You can send your comments to the BBC Complaints website -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints (for detailed instructions on how to navigate the BBC Complaints website, click here).
FOREIGN MEDIA REPORTING REALITY?
As more foreign journalists gain access to Gaza, different viewpoints from the default attacks on Israel are starting to emerge. Newsweek talked to gunmen who admitted using a hospital for firing at Israel:
One of the most notorious incidents during the war was the Jan. 15 shelling of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society buildings in the downtown Tal-al Hawa part of Gaza City, followed by a shell hitting their Al Quds Hospital next door; the subsequent fire forced all 500 patients to be evacuated . . . In the Tal-al Hawa neighborhood nearby, however, Talal Safadi, an official in the leftist Palestinian People's Party, said that resistance fighters were firing from positions all around the hospital. He shrugged that off, having a bigger beef with Hamas. "They failed to win the battle."
Daily Telegraph correspondent Tim Butcher returned to Gaza for the first time since the war:
I knew Gaza well before the attacks, so when Israel ended its ban on foreign journalists reaching Gaza on the day the ceasefire was announced, I was able to see for myself.
One thing was clear. Gaza City 2009 is not Stalingrad 1944. There had been no carpet bombing of large areas, no firebombing of complete suburbs. Targets had been selected and then hit, often several times, but almost always with precision munitions. Buildings nearby had been damaged and there had been some clear mistakes, like the firebombing of the UN aid headquarters. But, in most the cases, I saw the primary target had borne the brunt. ...
But, for the most part, I was struck by how cosmetically unchanged Gaza appeared to be. It has been a tatty, poorly-maintained mess for decades and the presence of fresh bombsites on streets already lined with broken kerbstones and jerry-built buildings did not make any great difference.
JORDANIAN AID SEIZED BY GAZA GUNMEN
Will your local media be reporting this from Jordan's Petra News Agency?
A number of armed men have seized on Tuesday a Jordanian aid convoy after entering the Gaza Strip via Karem Abu Salem Crossing Point, Petra was informed.The aid convoy, which was sent by the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organization (JHCO), was unloaded to non-Jordanian trucks driven by non-Jordanian drivers after crossing King Hussein Bridge.The UNRWA was expected to receive the convoy and unload it into its warehouses in Gaza to be distributed later on civilians in the strip.
The aid convoy, which was sent by the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organization (JHCO), was unloaded to non-Jordanian trucks driven by non-Jordanian drivers after crossing King Hussein Bridge.The UNRWA was expected to receive the convoy and unload it into its warehouses in Gaza to be distributed later on civilians in the strip.The armed men opened fire at drivers after crossing Karem Abu Salem crossing point and forced them to head to their own warehouses.UNRWA has asked the transport company not to send the aid convoys scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday until the issue of the seized convoy is solved.
RESOURCE: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE GAZA WAR
NGO Monitor examines what international law says about the war in Gaza and how it relates to issues like Gilad Shalit's fate, human shields, proportionate response, indiscriminate attacks, civilian casualties, collective punishment, and war crimes investigations.
Channel 4 again
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/gaza+rise+in+antisemitism+/2908307
Is it just me but even when they are talking about anti-semetism they seem to try and justify it by saying it is becasue of Israel? Does no-one round here get it? Extremism is extremism is extremism! No Hindus are beating up Pakistanis after Mumbai. No Sudanese are beating up Arabs after Darfur. No Sikhs are beating up Pakistanis after being chucked out of their ancestoral homelands!! There is NO justification for this behaviour and just shows the base nature of these people who hide behind their "love"of the Palestinians to justify crucifying the Jews.
Is it just me but even when they are talking about anti-semetism they seem to try and justify it by saying it is becasue of Israel? Does no-one round here get it? Extremism is extremism is extremism! No Hindus are beating up Pakistanis after Mumbai. No Sudanese are beating up Arabs after Darfur. No Sikhs are beating up Pakistanis after being chucked out of their ancestoral homelands!! There is NO justification for this behaviour and just shows the base nature of these people who hide behind their "love"of the Palestinians to justify crucifying the Jews.
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Watch this link and complain!!
Watch this
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/scale+of+gaza+devastation+revealed+/2908257
then complain here
http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New,Kb=C4_Author,Company={2EA1BB9C-510E-44A5-A481-01EB1DDA1669},T=CONTACT_VE,VARSET_TITLE=TV
I had a rant at Channel 4-I think I went a bit OTT but I was so cross with the lies!!
The news article by Jonathan Miller on Gaza must be one of the most factually deficient and unbalanced piece of reporting ever!! First of all, he makes no mention of the fact that Hamas were shooting at Israel from these houses, using the mosques as storehouses for their bombs and had boobytrapped alot of the houses. How do we know that alot of the damage was not from secondary explosions from stored weapons and not from the Israeli attack? He makes a hysterical comment-"this is worse than any Tsunami or earthquake" which I actually find quite offensive to the 100,000 people who innocently died in the Tsunami. These Palestinians have voted in a terror group as their leaders. I would not vote for BNP just because I feel immigration is out of control in this country!! In the same way, if the Palestinians were truely intent on peace, then they should not have voted in a terror group who use them as human shields. Look at youtube and there is tons of evidence of how evil these people are. Yet, you choose to propogate lies and propaganda which "fuel the extremists" in this country. Shame on you for such irresponsible journalism. Shame on you for not showing the devestation to Sderot and Ashkelon and Ashdod in the same news article. Shame on you for not telling the truth so you hurtle the world further and further into the hands of these extremists who use pictures like this as a cause to reek their havoc and destruction on the world. When the next suicide bomber occurs in this country, it will be your fault!! Already, synagogues are being burnt and Jews are being attacked. I don't see any Muslims being attacked by Jews. Do you not think that it is becasue they want to live in peace? Do Jews fly planes into Twin Towers? Do Jews blow up trains and buses in London? Do Jews murder as many people intentionally in Mumbai? These people are sick!!! The Israelis drop leaflets so that people don't have to leave at 2am in the morning! They knew to be out of their homes. And if they were being targetted it was because there was a rocket launcher on their roof!!!!! I have never said this in my life before but more and more I am coming to the conclusion that you are a bunch of anti-semites!! Did you know how many people were killed in Sri Lanka today in the war between the TT and the Govt? Where was the mention of that? Why do you care so much for the Palestinians who are still calling for the destruction of Israel and not for the Zimbwabeans who are being killed by their leader? Where are your reports on Darfur?
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/scale+of+gaza+devastation+revealed+/2908257
then complain here
http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New,Kb=C4_Author,Company={2EA1BB9C-510E-44A5-A481-01EB1DDA1669},T=CONTACT_VE,VARSET_TITLE=TV
I had a rant at Channel 4-I think I went a bit OTT but I was so cross with the lies!!
The news article by Jonathan Miller on Gaza must be one of the most factually deficient and unbalanced piece of reporting ever!! First of all, he makes no mention of the fact that Hamas were shooting at Israel from these houses, using the mosques as storehouses for their bombs and had boobytrapped alot of the houses. How do we know that alot of the damage was not from secondary explosions from stored weapons and not from the Israeli attack? He makes a hysterical comment-"this is worse than any Tsunami or earthquake" which I actually find quite offensive to the 100,000 people who innocently died in the Tsunami. These Palestinians have voted in a terror group as their leaders. I would not vote for BNP just because I feel immigration is out of control in this country!! In the same way, if the Palestinians were truely intent on peace, then they should not have voted in a terror group who use them as human shields. Look at youtube and there is tons of evidence of how evil these people are. Yet, you choose to propogate lies and propaganda which "fuel the extremists" in this country. Shame on you for such irresponsible journalism. Shame on you for not showing the devestation to Sderot and Ashkelon and Ashdod in the same news article. Shame on you for not telling the truth so you hurtle the world further and further into the hands of these extremists who use pictures like this as a cause to reek their havoc and destruction on the world. When the next suicide bomber occurs in this country, it will be your fault!! Already, synagogues are being burnt and Jews are being attacked. I don't see any Muslims being attacked by Jews. Do you not think that it is becasue they want to live in peace? Do Jews fly planes into Twin Towers? Do Jews blow up trains and buses in London? Do Jews murder as many people intentionally in Mumbai? These people are sick!!! The Israelis drop leaflets so that people don't have to leave at 2am in the morning! They knew to be out of their homes. And if they were being targetted it was because there was a rocket launcher on their roof!!!!! I have never said this in my life before but more and more I am coming to the conclusion that you are a bunch of anti-semites!! Did you know how many people were killed in Sri Lanka today in the war between the TT and the Govt? Where was the mention of that? Why do you care so much for the Palestinians who are still calling for the destruction of Israel and not for the Zimbwabeans who are being killed by their leader? Where are your reports on Darfur?
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
These Palestinians are crazy!!!
I do so love the way the Palestinians are in a constant state of denial. See below posting below. One second into a ceasefire and they already calling for Israel's destruction!! Hmmm. Something tells me that they are not seriously interested in peace-just biding their time. As I said before, Pharoah was in a state of denial too and G-d sent a disproportionate set of plagues against him!! Watch out Palestinians, you don't know who you are up against!! Our G-d promised our forefather Abraham, Israel to his descendants through Issac. Our G-d took us out of Egypt with a strong hand. Our G-d has ensured our survival through inquisitions, pogroms and holocausts. Our G-d does not tolerate murderers and liars as you have time and again proven yourselves to be. Just as Haman hung from the very rope he had created for the Jewish Mordechai, so too will your methods of destruction of Israel, lead to your own destruction.
Emboldened Hamas Declares Victory
Emboldened by surviving Israel's military onslaught, Hamas declared victory Tuesday in rallies attended by thousands supporters waving green Islamic flags atop the ruins in Gaza.
The Islamic militants taunted Israel _ one huge banner proclaimed Israel's defeat in Hebrew _ and said Gaza is just a stepping stone for eliminating the Jewish state. "Hamas today is more powerful," Ismail Radwan, a Hamas leader, told a crowd from a terrace overlooking Gaza's main square, with the demolished parliament building serving as a backdrop.
However, beyond the fiery words, Hamas has offered no plans for rebuilding Gaza, which suffered about $2 billion in destruction during Israel's three-week war on Hamas. Also, Gaza's borders with Israel and Egypt, largely sealed since Hamas seized Gaza 19 months ago, are unlikely to open unless the militants relinquish some of their control.
Just a few hundred yards (meters) from the main Hamas rally, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon toured the local U.N. headquarters, inspecting damage from an Israeli shelling attack last week. The shells hit car repair shops and three warehouses where flour, oil and other food rations for Gaza's growing population of needy were stored.
Five days after the shelling, piles of rice, beans and medicine were still smoldering, and Ban spoke to reporters just a few feet (meters) away from where the white smoke rose into the air. The buzz of Israeli unmanned aircraft, accompanied his remarks.
The world's top diplomat said he felt "utter frustration, utter anger" over the shelling of the compound and two U.N. schools and demanded a full investigation. Israel has said troops responded to fire from militants from these areas, a claim the U.N. has vehemently denied. Israel says it's carrying out its own investigation.
During a tour of the compound, Ban was told that hundreds of tons of food and medicine had been destroyed in Thursday's shelling. "It's totally outrageous and unacceptable," he said, shaking his head.
He later visited the Israeli border town of Sderot, a frequent target of Hamas rockets in recent years, and expressed sympathy with the residents. "You live every day with a threat of a rocket falling from the sky. No human being can live in a state like this," Ban said. "I expect basic humanitarian law to protect civilian life to be respected and restored and not violated as Hamas has done."
Ban personally intervened during the war to try to stop the violence that killed nearly 1,300 Palestinians, including about 900 civilians and 168 civil police, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR).
The Gaza-based group also reported that 156 militants were killed, including 48 from Hamas, 34 from Islamic Jihad and the rest from Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement and smaller factions. Dr. Moawiya Hassanain, a Gaza Health Ministry official who also keeps track of casualties, said he believes Hamas and others have not reported all their dead fighters.
Hamas leaders have not spoken publicly about the number of fighters killed, in an apparent bid not to undermine morale. Hamas commands about 20,000 armed men.
In any case, Hamas has set the bar low for declaring victory _ to survive Israel's assault, which included air strikes on more than 2,500 targets, as well as a two-week ground offensive.
Hamas' leadership has remained largely intact, with two of the top five killed in Israeli bombings. Still, the others, particularly strongman Mahmoud Zahar, mastermind of the 2007 takeover, and Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh have not yet emerged from hiding.
Instead, a dozen victory rallies across Gaza were led Tuesday by second-tier Hamas officials. In several locations, marchers assembled at bombing sites, apparently to underscore the message of defiance.
In Gaza City, legislator Ismail Radwan spoke from a terrace near the new five-story parliament, reduced to a gray pile of concrete by several bombings. Next to him, on the terrace, Hamas security men held up a large banner in Hebrew, that read: "Hamas is victorious. Israel has been defeated."
Radwan said Hamas is stronger than ever and poised to one day take control not just of the West Bank, ruled by Abbas, a Hamas rival, but also of what is now Israel.
"Gaza is not our goal," he told a subdued crowd of several thousand. "The liberation of all of Palestine, from the river to the sea, God willing, will be achieved," he said, referring to the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Hamas speaks with several voices, and Radwan's uncompromising message is not necessarily shared by all Hamas leaders in Gaza. For example, Ghazi Hamad, a pragmatic leader, told journalists earlier this week that Hamas would be satisfied with ending Israeli control over areas occupied in the 1967 Mideast War _ the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.
However, hardliners seem to be setting the tone at a time when the international community is scrambling to broker a more durable cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Any deal would have to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza, but also end the blockade of the territory _ requiring compromises that neither side has so far been unwilling to make.
Israel had withdrawn the bulk of its forces from Gaza by Tuesday evening, coinciding with the inauguration of Barack Obama as U.S. president. However, the temporary cease-fire remained shaky.
Palestinians and human rights workers reported that Israeli troops shot to death two Gaza farmers in separate incidents since the truce took hold Monday. The military said troops returned fire in one case, and had no information on the other. On Tuesday evening, the air force struck a Gaza mortar squad after it shelled Israel, the military said.
The rebuilding of Gaza is also turning into an increasingly contentious issue.
Many donor countries may be reluctant to funnel aid to Hamas, but may also not want to get embroiled in Hamas' political battle with Abbas, who is seeking a leading role in rebuilding Gaza.
On Tuesday, an Arab League summit in Kuwait ended without agreement on a reconstruction plan. One camp, led by Syria and Qatar, supports Hamas. The other, headed by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, wants to pressure the Islamic militants to moderate their positions.
Many ordinary Gazans are apprehensive about their future.
"I'm not affiliated with anyone. I just want to raise my eight children," said Jawdat Abu Nahel, who sells tea and coffee from a cart in Gaza City's Square of the Unknown Soldier. He dismissed Hamas' victory claims. "We can't talk about real victory because there were thousands of martyrs, and we didn't liberate anything," he said.
However, Samiha Shaheen, 45, watching the rally from a park bench, said Gazans should be proud.
"We, the people of Gaza, survived the full extent of Israel's force, the tanks, the warplanes, the shelling, the rockets. Is that not a victory?" she asked.
The Islamic militants taunted Israel _ one huge banner proclaimed Israel's defeat in Hebrew _ and said Gaza is just a stepping stone for eliminating the Jewish state. "Hamas today is more powerful," Ismail Radwan, a Hamas leader, told a crowd from a terrace overlooking Gaza's main square, with the demolished parliament building serving as a backdrop.
However, beyond the fiery words, Hamas has offered no plans for rebuilding Gaza, which suffered about $2 billion in destruction during Israel's three-week war on Hamas. Also, Gaza's borders with Israel and Egypt, largely sealed since Hamas seized Gaza 19 months ago, are unlikely to open unless the militants relinquish some of their control.
Just a few hundred yards (meters) from the main Hamas rally, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon toured the local U.N. headquarters, inspecting damage from an Israeli shelling attack last week. The shells hit car repair shops and three warehouses where flour, oil and other food rations for Gaza's growing population of needy were stored.
Five days after the shelling, piles of rice, beans and medicine were still smoldering, and Ban spoke to reporters just a few feet (meters) away from where the white smoke rose into the air. The buzz of Israeli unmanned aircraft, accompanied his remarks.
The world's top diplomat said he felt "utter frustration, utter anger" over the shelling of the compound and two U.N. schools and demanded a full investigation. Israel has said troops responded to fire from militants from these areas, a claim the U.N. has vehemently denied. Israel says it's carrying out its own investigation.
During a tour of the compound, Ban was told that hundreds of tons of food and medicine had been destroyed in Thursday's shelling. "It's totally outrageous and unacceptable," he said, shaking his head.
He later visited the Israeli border town of Sderot, a frequent target of Hamas rockets in recent years, and expressed sympathy with the residents. "You live every day with a threat of a rocket falling from the sky. No human being can live in a state like this," Ban said. "I expect basic humanitarian law to protect civilian life to be respected and restored and not violated as Hamas has done."
Ban personally intervened during the war to try to stop the violence that killed nearly 1,300 Palestinians, including about 900 civilians and 168 civil police, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR).
The Gaza-based group also reported that 156 militants were killed, including 48 from Hamas, 34 from Islamic Jihad and the rest from Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement and smaller factions. Dr. Moawiya Hassanain, a Gaza Health Ministry official who also keeps track of casualties, said he believes Hamas and others have not reported all their dead fighters.
Hamas leaders have not spoken publicly about the number of fighters killed, in an apparent bid not to undermine morale. Hamas commands about 20,000 armed men.
In any case, Hamas has set the bar low for declaring victory _ to survive Israel's assault, which included air strikes on more than 2,500 targets, as well as a two-week ground offensive.
Hamas' leadership has remained largely intact, with two of the top five killed in Israeli bombings. Still, the others, particularly strongman Mahmoud Zahar, mastermind of the 2007 takeover, and Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh have not yet emerged from hiding.
Instead, a dozen victory rallies across Gaza were led Tuesday by second-tier Hamas officials. In several locations, marchers assembled at bombing sites, apparently to underscore the message of defiance.
In Gaza City, legislator Ismail Radwan spoke from a terrace near the new five-story parliament, reduced to a gray pile of concrete by several bombings. Next to him, on the terrace, Hamas security men held up a large banner in Hebrew, that read: "Hamas is victorious. Israel has been defeated."
Radwan said Hamas is stronger than ever and poised to one day take control not just of the West Bank, ruled by Abbas, a Hamas rival, but also of what is now Israel.
"Gaza is not our goal," he told a subdued crowd of several thousand. "The liberation of all of Palestine, from the river to the sea, God willing, will be achieved," he said, referring to the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Hamas speaks with several voices, and Radwan's uncompromising message is not necessarily shared by all Hamas leaders in Gaza. For example, Ghazi Hamad, a pragmatic leader, told journalists earlier this week that Hamas would be satisfied with ending Israeli control over areas occupied in the 1967 Mideast War _ the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.
However, hardliners seem to be setting the tone at a time when the international community is scrambling to broker a more durable cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Any deal would have to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza, but also end the blockade of the territory _ requiring compromises that neither side has so far been unwilling to make.
Israel had withdrawn the bulk of its forces from Gaza by Tuesday evening, coinciding with the inauguration of Barack Obama as U.S. president. However, the temporary cease-fire remained shaky.
Palestinians and human rights workers reported that Israeli troops shot to death two Gaza farmers in separate incidents since the truce took hold Monday. The military said troops returned fire in one case, and had no information on the other. On Tuesday evening, the air force struck a Gaza mortar squad after it shelled Israel, the military said.
The rebuilding of Gaza is also turning into an increasingly contentious issue.
Many donor countries may be reluctant to funnel aid to Hamas, but may also not want to get embroiled in Hamas' political battle with Abbas, who is seeking a leading role in rebuilding Gaza.
On Tuesday, an Arab League summit in Kuwait ended without agreement on a reconstruction plan. One camp, led by Syria and Qatar, supports Hamas. The other, headed by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, wants to pressure the Islamic militants to moderate their positions.
Many ordinary Gazans are apprehensive about their future.
"I'm not affiliated with anyone. I just want to raise my eight children," said Jawdat Abu Nahel, who sells tea and coffee from a cart in Gaza City's Square of the Unknown Soldier. He dismissed Hamas' victory claims. "We can't talk about real victory because there were thousands of martyrs, and we didn't liberate anything," he said.
However, Samiha Shaheen, 45, watching the rally from a park bench, said Gazans should be proud.
"We, the people of Gaza, survived the full extent of Israel's force, the tanks, the warplanes, the shelling, the rockets. Is that not a victory?" she asked.
Monday, 19 January 2009
Which side are you on?
The Human Spirit: Which side are you on?
Jan. 15, 2009Barbara Sofer , THE JERUSALEM POST
Dear Overseas Friends and Relatives,
Thanks to all of you who have been closely following our war with Hamas, and for your heartfelt support for our soldiers and home front. Many of you live in communities and campuses where speaking up for Israel has become unpopular and even dangerous. We value your courageousness and resilience. We felt cheered by the photos of you standing in the cold in New York and London last weekend demonstrating for Israel. We hail those students who refuse to be intimidated for their loyalty to Israel on campus. And we appreciate each of you who has surprised your fellow guests by halting the Israel bashing over dinner.
I'd like to address a few words to those of you who didn't come out to support Israel these past weeks because of so-called moral reservation. I'd like to ask you to reconsider your position.
I don't doubt your affection for our country, nor do I think anyone has automatically to agree with every decision of its government. Far from it. But I'd like you to reexamine your core belief that your ongoing private and public criticism is a loving expression of an important ethical correction for an errant nation.
With a long-practiced sigh of exasperation, you assume we're mulishly jingoistic and morally obtuse. There must be something wrong, you say. After all, we've had so many wars.
I spent my childhood in America, too. My home state of Connecticut hadn't seen fighting on its soil since the British blasted the coast in 1812. Before that, the infamous Benedict Arnold attacked New London in the Revolutionary War.
Until moving here, I'd never experienced the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air of which we sing in the American national anthem. The paradox of growing up without warfare at your doorstep is that you feel qualified to preach to others about how they should behave in protecting themselves.
Many of us are old enough to remember the evening in October 1962, when we felt threatened. I was just a child when president John Kennedy went on TV to prepare the American people. Soviet missile launchers were being built in our hemisphere, in Cuba. I recall uncontrollable shivering with fear. Faced with the threat of American military retaliation, the Soviet launchers were dismantled before the first missile was fired.
But what if the Cubans had insisted that it was their right as a sovereign nation to arm themselves as they see fit? Would the United States have waited for thousands of missiles to pound Orlando before reacting seriously? Israel has felt the blast of rockets from Iraq, rockets from Syria and Lebanon and rockets from Gaza. We do everything possible - except to surrender - before going to battle. We have no illusions about war being anything but blood, sweat and tears. The army that has sworn to protect us is made up of our own sons and daughters.
IN THE current conflict, each of us personally knows soldiers risking their lives by seeking Hamas in the alleys of Gaza. Last week, I was at the funeral of a friend's beautiful son, a gentle scholar, killed in the fighting. Another young man I know is still in intensive care. My children and grandchildren are among the 750,000 Israelis responding to warning sirens in missile attacks that began long before this war started. Instead of learning to read, they watch an animated program to remind them that they must run for shelter each time the Color Red alarm sounds. Suddenly they have gone from normal childhoods to becoming another generation of children in war zones.
Nor are you the only ones saddened by photos of injured children on the other side. We struggle with tough decisions about how to fight a war without losing our humanity. We send warning notes and even phone calls to Gaza civilians in the planned attack zone. We stop fighting to truck in food supplies. Leading columnists suggest bringing the injured here for us to heal them alongside our own.
But moral decisions are complicated. A senior military figure I met last week spoke about his decision not to fire from a helicopter at a terrorist because the terrorist's wife and children were with him. The following week the terrorist - sworn to our destruction - engineered a bus bombing inside Israel, killing children. The correctness of his earlier decision no longer was clear. We always regret killing children. Despite the absurd claims in the media, to the contrary, children are never our targets nor our shields.
GIVE PEACE a chance, you say. How can you fault us vis-a-vis Gaza? We did the impossible by sending in our own army to remove our own citizens from their farms and dairies in the Gaza Strip for the sake of peace. Back then, many voices complained that we had taken the best land of the Gaza Strip for our own breadbasket. The people of Gaza were being held back, they claimed, by our offensive presence. It didn't really make sense, but as a nation we went along with prime minister Ariel Sharon with his copious military experience and made this painful territorial concession for peace.
Many Palestinians had worked on the productive farms and could easily have turned out the same prize-winning celery and vitamin-rich milk. Instead, they wrecked the farms, and then they went to the polls and overwhelmingly endorsed a party with a clear platform to use the enormous human resources of the Gaza Strip and the inpouring of EU money to create a maze of terror.
Still, we did not choose war. We allowed our own citizens to be targeted by 6,500 missiles since the disengagement in 2005.
The horror of life in Gaza under Hamas is no secret. Is there one Palestinian in your community ready to move the family as new immigrants to build a modern state in Gaza City or Khan Yunis? Bad went to worse. Hamas declared that even its semi-commitment to a lower level of violence was off.
This time, we could not ignore the threat.
In Gaza, our soldiers found mosques turned into ammunition storage rooms and a network of tunnels built to smuggle in thousands of rockets and kidnap soldiers, not to supply the people with cases of penicillin and baby formula. Instead of investing in a cancer treatment center at Shifa Hospital, Hamas terrorized Palestinian doctors and nurses and put its talented engineers to the task of building a national arms bunker beneath the head of ailing patients. Remember, please, if you find this counterintuitive, that such behavior is consistent with the expression of jihad. All must be sacrificed to destroy the Jewish infidel.
We're not suffering from moral numbness. We simply have a close-up of what you can only so far fortunately see from a distance.
So, please rethink your position. You might start with asking yourself why you're so quick to think the worst of us. And, as the old Pete Seeger song says, it might be the right time to decide just which side you are on.
Jan. 15, 2009Barbara Sofer , THE JERUSALEM POST
Dear Overseas Friends and Relatives,
Thanks to all of you who have been closely following our war with Hamas, and for your heartfelt support for our soldiers and home front. Many of you live in communities and campuses where speaking up for Israel has become unpopular and even dangerous. We value your courageousness and resilience. We felt cheered by the photos of you standing in the cold in New York and London last weekend demonstrating for Israel. We hail those students who refuse to be intimidated for their loyalty to Israel on campus. And we appreciate each of you who has surprised your fellow guests by halting the Israel bashing over dinner.
I'd like to address a few words to those of you who didn't come out to support Israel these past weeks because of so-called moral reservation. I'd like to ask you to reconsider your position.
I don't doubt your affection for our country, nor do I think anyone has automatically to agree with every decision of its government. Far from it. But I'd like you to reexamine your core belief that your ongoing private and public criticism is a loving expression of an important ethical correction for an errant nation.
With a long-practiced sigh of exasperation, you assume we're mulishly jingoistic and morally obtuse. There must be something wrong, you say. After all, we've had so many wars.
I spent my childhood in America, too. My home state of Connecticut hadn't seen fighting on its soil since the British blasted the coast in 1812. Before that, the infamous Benedict Arnold attacked New London in the Revolutionary War.
Until moving here, I'd never experienced the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air of which we sing in the American national anthem. The paradox of growing up without warfare at your doorstep is that you feel qualified to preach to others about how they should behave in protecting themselves.
Many of us are old enough to remember the evening in October 1962, when we felt threatened. I was just a child when president John Kennedy went on TV to prepare the American people. Soviet missile launchers were being built in our hemisphere, in Cuba. I recall uncontrollable shivering with fear. Faced with the threat of American military retaliation, the Soviet launchers were dismantled before the first missile was fired.
But what if the Cubans had insisted that it was their right as a sovereign nation to arm themselves as they see fit? Would the United States have waited for thousands of missiles to pound Orlando before reacting seriously? Israel has felt the blast of rockets from Iraq, rockets from Syria and Lebanon and rockets from Gaza. We do everything possible - except to surrender - before going to battle. We have no illusions about war being anything but blood, sweat and tears. The army that has sworn to protect us is made up of our own sons and daughters.
IN THE current conflict, each of us personally knows soldiers risking their lives by seeking Hamas in the alleys of Gaza. Last week, I was at the funeral of a friend's beautiful son, a gentle scholar, killed in the fighting. Another young man I know is still in intensive care. My children and grandchildren are among the 750,000 Israelis responding to warning sirens in missile attacks that began long before this war started. Instead of learning to read, they watch an animated program to remind them that they must run for shelter each time the Color Red alarm sounds. Suddenly they have gone from normal childhoods to becoming another generation of children in war zones.
Nor are you the only ones saddened by photos of injured children on the other side. We struggle with tough decisions about how to fight a war without losing our humanity. We send warning notes and even phone calls to Gaza civilians in the planned attack zone. We stop fighting to truck in food supplies. Leading columnists suggest bringing the injured here for us to heal them alongside our own.
But moral decisions are complicated. A senior military figure I met last week spoke about his decision not to fire from a helicopter at a terrorist because the terrorist's wife and children were with him. The following week the terrorist - sworn to our destruction - engineered a bus bombing inside Israel, killing children. The correctness of his earlier decision no longer was clear. We always regret killing children. Despite the absurd claims in the media, to the contrary, children are never our targets nor our shields.
GIVE PEACE a chance, you say. How can you fault us vis-a-vis Gaza? We did the impossible by sending in our own army to remove our own citizens from their farms and dairies in the Gaza Strip for the sake of peace. Back then, many voices complained that we had taken the best land of the Gaza Strip for our own breadbasket. The people of Gaza were being held back, they claimed, by our offensive presence. It didn't really make sense, but as a nation we went along with prime minister Ariel Sharon with his copious military experience and made this painful territorial concession for peace.
Many Palestinians had worked on the productive farms and could easily have turned out the same prize-winning celery and vitamin-rich milk. Instead, they wrecked the farms, and then they went to the polls and overwhelmingly endorsed a party with a clear platform to use the enormous human resources of the Gaza Strip and the inpouring of EU money to create a maze of terror.
Still, we did not choose war. We allowed our own citizens to be targeted by 6,500 missiles since the disengagement in 2005.
The horror of life in Gaza under Hamas is no secret. Is there one Palestinian in your community ready to move the family as new immigrants to build a modern state in Gaza City or Khan Yunis? Bad went to worse. Hamas declared that even its semi-commitment to a lower level of violence was off.
This time, we could not ignore the threat.
In Gaza, our soldiers found mosques turned into ammunition storage rooms and a network of tunnels built to smuggle in thousands of rockets and kidnap soldiers, not to supply the people with cases of penicillin and baby formula. Instead of investing in a cancer treatment center at Shifa Hospital, Hamas terrorized Palestinian doctors and nurses and put its talented engineers to the task of building a national arms bunker beneath the head of ailing patients. Remember, please, if you find this counterintuitive, that such behavior is consistent with the expression of jihad. All must be sacrificed to destroy the Jewish infidel.
We're not suffering from moral numbness. We simply have a close-up of what you can only so far fortunately see from a distance.
So, please rethink your position. You might start with asking yourself why you're so quick to think the worst of us. And, as the old Pete Seeger song says, it might be the right time to decide just which side you are on.
Sick, sick, sick!!
When Hamas leader Nizar Rayyan was assassinated in an IAF strike last week, his four wives and 11 of his children died with him. According to his surviving children, the death of the Rayyan family children was not an accident: Rayyan had trained his wives and children to die with him as "martyrs."
Surviving family members spoke to local Arab media and said that in the days before his death, Rayyan has repeatedly asked his children, "Who wants to die with me as a martyr?" The children would respond, "Yes, daddy, we all want to be with you alive or dead."
Rayyan's adult daughter, Wala, said even the younger children wished to die with their father. "If you had asked my four-year-old sister Aisha, who died in the attack, she would have told you that she preferred to die as a martyr," Wala told Ma'an news.
One of Rayyan's daughter-in-laws said she was offered the chance to die with the family. She stopped by the family's large home in Jabaliya and was asked by Rayyan if she wished to die with him, his wives and their children. She agreed to die, but later left the building, shortly before the IAF strike.
As it turned out, when Rayyan offered his daughter-in-law the "opportunity" to die he had already received a phone call from the IDF warning him to evacuate his house due to an impending airstrike.
The 11 children who died with Nizar Rayyan ranged in age from one year old to 16. Another son died years earlier when Rayyan sent him to carry out a suicide bombing in Gaza. Two Israelis were murdered in that attack.
Rayyan was one of Hamas' extremist preachers, and believed that those who die fighting Israel die as "martyrs" and go directly to paradise. He encouraged his followers to have several wives and as many children as possible, in order to provide future soldiers in the fight against Israel. He also encouraged Hamas to take over Judea and Samaria and carry out suicide attacks targeting Jews.
Surviving family members spoke to local Arab media and said that in the days before his death, Rayyan has repeatedly asked his children, "Who wants to die with me as a martyr?" The children would respond, "Yes, daddy, we all want to be with you alive or dead."
Rayyan's adult daughter, Wala, said even the younger children wished to die with their father. "If you had asked my four-year-old sister Aisha, who died in the attack, she would have told you that she preferred to die as a martyr," Wala told Ma'an news.
One of Rayyan's daughter-in-laws said she was offered the chance to die with the family. She stopped by the family's large home in Jabaliya and was asked by Rayyan if she wished to die with him, his wives and their children. She agreed to die, but later left the building, shortly before the IAF strike.
As it turned out, when Rayyan offered his daughter-in-law the "opportunity" to die he had already received a phone call from the IDF warning him to evacuate his house due to an impending airstrike.
The 11 children who died with Nizar Rayyan ranged in age from one year old to 16. Another son died years earlier when Rayyan sent him to carry out a suicide bombing in Gaza. Two Israelis were murdered in that attack.
Rayyan was one of Hamas' extremist preachers, and believed that those who die fighting Israel die as "martyrs" and go directly to paradise. He encouraged his followers to have several wives and as many children as possible, in order to provide future soldiers in the fight against Israel. He also encouraged Hamas to take over Judea and Samaria and carry out suicide attacks targeting Jews.
Hamas never fire from civilian buildings!?!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JY50cktUKbA
This is the funniest!! Click on the right hand side CC to get English subtitles.
This is the funniest!! Click on the right hand side CC to get English subtitles.
At last an answer to the phosphorus lies
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232100169292&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull The article is pasted below:
Human Rights Watch is one of the most powerful organizations claiming to promote international morality and law, but along with Amnesty International and the United Nations, shares responsibility for the transformation of these principles into weapons aimed at Israel.
In the most recent example, HRW, headed by Kenneth Roth, initiated a campaign alleging that the IDF was using white phosphorus weapons unlawfully in the conflict in Gaza with Hamas. The organization issued a news release, followed by a more detailed publication, while officials gave press interviews to promote the allegations. Marc Garlasco, who claims the title "senior military analyst" (based on a short stint in the Pentagon), declared, "White phosphorous can burn down houses and cause horrific burns when it touches the skin... Israel should not use it in Gaza's densely populated areas."
In a few hours, the "white phosphorous" story was featured in dozens of newspapers, Internet blogs and television news programs. IDF officials, including Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Ashkenazi, denied that Israel was using phosphorous in anti-personnel weapons, but this did not slow the viral spread of this story.
HRW's "evidence" was based entirely on innuendo and unverifiable "eyewitness" reports. One report states that "[o]n January 9, Human Rights Watch researchers on a ridge overlooking Gaza from the northwest observed multiple air-bursts of artillery-fired WP that appeared to be over the Gaza City/Jabalya area. In addition, Human Rights Watch has analyzed photographs taken by the media on the Israel-Gaza border." HRW does not name its researchers; it does not provide a detailed location of its observation, nor does it identify the photos it "analyzed" making independent verification of this "evidence" impossible.
INDEED, TWO days later, the International Committee of the Red Cross, which certainly cannot be accused of a pro-Israeli bias, issued a statement that backed the IDF statements. "Using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law," it said, adding that there was no evidence that Israel was "using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk." (Flares assist search and rescue forces in saving the lives of wounded soldiers and preventing Hamas from snatching the bodies of dead soldiers. To claim that such operations are illegitimate is, in and of itself, immoral.)
But these points were secondary to the NGO ideologues - the important point was that the images fit the dominant narrative of Israel as always guilty of war crimes, and of the Palestinians (or, in the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Hizbullah) as innocent victims. In this campaign, HRW was joined by Amnesty International, B'Tselem and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. The latter two are funded by the European Union, ostensibly to promote democracy and human rights. When Hamas launched a phosphorus shell into Israel, these organizations, including HRW, were silent, as has been the case regarding the use of human shields in Gaza and other real war crimes.
By the time the ICRC confirmed the IDF statements, the damage was done - the image of Israel as a serial violator of international law and human rights was reinforced - a major success for Hamas. CNN, the Times (London) and Christian Science Monitor ran major stories, embellished with quotes from doctors in Gaza, including propagandist Mads Gilbert, who claimed to have seen phosphorous burns. Gilbert also justified the 9/11 terror attacks, but this did not prevent the government-funded Norwegian Aid Committee from financing his incitement. (CNN quoted but then ignored Dr. Peter Grossman, a burns expert in California and unconnected with the conflict, who stated that "it is not possible to tell, based on pictures of burns, whether white phosphorus was responsible.")
Based on these reports, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan repeated the false claim in an anti-Israel diatribe, thereby deepening the rift between Ankara and Jerusalem and increasing the sense of isolation in Israel.
THE FALSE white-phosphorous allegation is part of a pattern led by HRW that reflects the modern version of the blood libel. For the past year, HRW has been a leader in the use of international legal rhetoric such as "collective punishment," to attack Israel. And in the July 30, 2006 Kana incident in the Second Lebanon War, Lucy Mair (HRW's former researcher with a prior history of anti-Israel campaigning) disregarded the Red Cross on-scene estimate of 28 casualties (which proved to be the actual figure) in favor of a higher estimate of 54 provided by an alleged "survivor." HRW's false estimate was widely picked up by the media and further disseminated by HRW in an August 1, 2006 press release, sparking an international outcry and leading to a 48-hour halt in IAF operations, which extended the war.
Similarly, Marc Garlasco led HRW's high-profile "investigation" into the Gaza Beach incident in 2006, repeating claims that "the evidence overwhelmingly supports the allegations that the civilians were killed by artillery shells fired by the IDF," and ignoring details that did not fit his ideological "conclusion." Garlasco was also among the authors of HRW's "Razing Rafah" report of 2004, which contained many unverifiable and disputed claims, erased the context of terror and was used to justify HRW involvement in anti-Israel boycott campaigns.
In this way, HRW and other self-proclaimed human rights organizations have contributed a great deal to undermining the moral basis of morality and international law. Instead of repeatedly calling for "independent investigations" of Israel, the donors to HRW need to undertake an investigation of how this once-serious organization has been destroyed from within.
The writer is the chairman of the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University and executive director of NGO Monitor.
Human Rights Watch is one of the most powerful organizations claiming to promote international morality and law, but along with Amnesty International and the United Nations, shares responsibility for the transformation of these principles into weapons aimed at Israel.
In the most recent example, HRW, headed by Kenneth Roth, initiated a campaign alleging that the IDF was using white phosphorus weapons unlawfully in the conflict in Gaza with Hamas. The organization issued a news release, followed by a more detailed publication, while officials gave press interviews to promote the allegations. Marc Garlasco, who claims the title "senior military analyst" (based on a short stint in the Pentagon), declared, "White phosphorous can burn down houses and cause horrific burns when it touches the skin... Israel should not use it in Gaza's densely populated areas."
In a few hours, the "white phosphorous" story was featured in dozens of newspapers, Internet blogs and television news programs. IDF officials, including Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Ashkenazi, denied that Israel was using phosphorous in anti-personnel weapons, but this did not slow the viral spread of this story.
HRW's "evidence" was based entirely on innuendo and unverifiable "eyewitness" reports. One report states that "[o]n January 9, Human Rights Watch researchers on a ridge overlooking Gaza from the northwest observed multiple air-bursts of artillery-fired WP that appeared to be over the Gaza City/Jabalya area. In addition, Human Rights Watch has analyzed photographs taken by the media on the Israel-Gaza border." HRW does not name its researchers; it does not provide a detailed location of its observation, nor does it identify the photos it "analyzed" making independent verification of this "evidence" impossible.
INDEED, TWO days later, the International Committee of the Red Cross, which certainly cannot be accused of a pro-Israeli bias, issued a statement that backed the IDF statements. "Using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law," it said, adding that there was no evidence that Israel was "using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk." (Flares assist search and rescue forces in saving the lives of wounded soldiers and preventing Hamas from snatching the bodies of dead soldiers. To claim that such operations are illegitimate is, in and of itself, immoral.)
But these points were secondary to the NGO ideologues - the important point was that the images fit the dominant narrative of Israel as always guilty of war crimes, and of the Palestinians (or, in the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Hizbullah) as innocent victims. In this campaign, HRW was joined by Amnesty International, B'Tselem and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. The latter two are funded by the European Union, ostensibly to promote democracy and human rights. When Hamas launched a phosphorus shell into Israel, these organizations, including HRW, were silent, as has been the case regarding the use of human shields in Gaza and other real war crimes.
By the time the ICRC confirmed the IDF statements, the damage was done - the image of Israel as a serial violator of international law and human rights was reinforced - a major success for Hamas. CNN, the Times (London) and Christian Science Monitor ran major stories, embellished with quotes from doctors in Gaza, including propagandist Mads Gilbert, who claimed to have seen phosphorous burns. Gilbert also justified the 9/11 terror attacks, but this did not prevent the government-funded Norwegian Aid Committee from financing his incitement. (CNN quoted but then ignored Dr. Peter Grossman, a burns expert in California and unconnected with the conflict, who stated that "it is not possible to tell, based on pictures of burns, whether white phosphorus was responsible.")
Based on these reports, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan repeated the false claim in an anti-Israel diatribe, thereby deepening the rift between Ankara and Jerusalem and increasing the sense of isolation in Israel.
THE FALSE white-phosphorous allegation is part of a pattern led by HRW that reflects the modern version of the blood libel. For the past year, HRW has been a leader in the use of international legal rhetoric such as "collective punishment," to attack Israel. And in the July 30, 2006 Kana incident in the Second Lebanon War, Lucy Mair (HRW's former researcher with a prior history of anti-Israel campaigning) disregarded the Red Cross on-scene estimate of 28 casualties (which proved to be the actual figure) in favor of a higher estimate of 54 provided by an alleged "survivor." HRW's false estimate was widely picked up by the media and further disseminated by HRW in an August 1, 2006 press release, sparking an international outcry and leading to a 48-hour halt in IAF operations, which extended the war.
Similarly, Marc Garlasco led HRW's high-profile "investigation" into the Gaza Beach incident in 2006, repeating claims that "the evidence overwhelmingly supports the allegations that the civilians were killed by artillery shells fired by the IDF," and ignoring details that did not fit his ideological "conclusion." Garlasco was also among the authors of HRW's "Razing Rafah" report of 2004, which contained many unverifiable and disputed claims, erased the context of terror and was used to justify HRW involvement in anti-Israel boycott campaigns.
In this way, HRW and other self-proclaimed human rights organizations have contributed a great deal to undermining the moral basis of morality and international law. Instead of repeatedly calling for "independent investigations" of Israel, the donors to HRW need to undertake an investigation of how this once-serious organization has been destroyed from within.
The writer is the chairman of the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University and executive director of NGO Monitor.
I wish all Palestinians could read this letter!
Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former New York Times Middle East Correspondent and Wall Street Journal Energy Editor for 25 years, is a freelance writer based in New York City and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates .
Subject: The War with Israel Is Over.....and they won. By Youssef M. Ibrahim
To my Arab brothers: The War with Israel Is Over - and they won. Now let's finally move forward With Israel entering its fourth week of an incursion into the same Gaza Strip it voluntarily evacuated a few months ago, a sense of reality among Arabs is spreading through commentary by Arab pundits, letters to the editor, and political talk shows on Arabic-language TV networks.
The new views are stunning both in their maturity and in their realism. The best way I can think of to convey them is in the form of a letter to the Palestinian Arabs from their Arab friends: Dear Palestinian Arab brethren: The war with Israel is over. You have lost.
Surrender and negotiate to secure a future for your children. We, your Arab brothers, may say until we are blue in the face that we stand by you, but the wise among you and most of us know that we are moving on, away from the tired old idea of the Palestinian Arab cause and the "eternal struggle" with Israel .
Dear friends, you and your leaders have wasted three generations trying to fight for Palestine , but the truth is the Palestine you could have had in 1948 is much bigger than the one you could have had in 1967, which in turn is much bigger than what you may have to settle for now or in another 10 years. Struggle means less land and more misery and utter loneliness.
At the moment, brothers, you would be lucky to secure a semblance of a state in that Gaza Strip into which you have all crowded, and a small part of the West Bank of the Jordan . It isn't going to get better. Time is running out even for this much land, so here are some facts, figures, and sound advice, friends. You hold keys, which you drag out for television interviews, to houses that do not exist or are inhabited by Israelis who have no intention of leaving Jaffa , Haifa , Tel Aviv, or West Jerusalem . You shoot old guns at modern Israeli tanks and American-made fighter jets, doing virtually no harm to Israel while bringing the wrath of its mighty army down upon you. You fire ridiculously inept Kassam rockets that cause little destruction and delude yourselves into thinking this is a war of liberation.
Your government, your social institutions, your schools, and your economy are all in ruins. Your young people are growing up illiterate, ill, and bent on rites of death and suicide, while you, in effect, are living on the kindness of foreigners, including America and the United Nations. Every day your officials must beg for your daily bread, dependent on relief trucks that carry food and medicine into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank , while your criminal Muslim fundamentalist Hamas government continues to fan the flames of a war it can neither fight nor hope to win. In other words, brothers, you are down, out, and alone in a burnt-out landscape that is shrinking by the day.
What kind of struggle is this? Is it worth waging at all? More important, what kind of miserable future does it portend for your children, the fourth or fifth generation of the Arab world's have-nots? We, your Arab brothers, have moved on. Those of us who have oil money are busy accumulating wealth and building housing, luxury developments, state-of-the-art universities and schools, and new highways and byways. Those of us who share borders with Israel , such as Egypt and Jordan , have signed a peace treaty with it and are not going to war for you any time soon. Those of us who are far away, in places like North Africa and Iraq , frankly could not care less about what happens to you.
Only Syria continues to feed your fantasies that someday it will join you in liberating Palestine , even though a huge chunk of its territory, the entire Golan Heights, was taken by Israel in 1967 and annexed. The Syrians, my friends, will gladly fight down to the last Palestinian Arab. Before you got stuck with this Hamas crowd, another cheating, conniving, leader of yours, Yasser Arafat, sold you a rotten bill of goods - more pain, greater corruption, and millions stolen by his relatives - while your children played in the sewers of Gaza . The war is over. Why not let a new future begin?
Subject: The War with Israel Is Over.....and they won. By Youssef M. Ibrahim
To my Arab brothers: The War with Israel Is Over - and they won. Now let's finally move forward With Israel entering its fourth week of an incursion into the same Gaza Strip it voluntarily evacuated a few months ago, a sense of reality among Arabs is spreading through commentary by Arab pundits, letters to the editor, and political talk shows on Arabic-language TV networks.
The new views are stunning both in their maturity and in their realism. The best way I can think of to convey them is in the form of a letter to the Palestinian Arabs from their Arab friends: Dear Palestinian Arab brethren: The war with Israel is over. You have lost.
Surrender and negotiate to secure a future for your children. We, your Arab brothers, may say until we are blue in the face that we stand by you, but the wise among you and most of us know that we are moving on, away from the tired old idea of the Palestinian Arab cause and the "eternal struggle" with Israel .
Dear friends, you and your leaders have wasted three generations trying to fight for Palestine , but the truth is the Palestine you could have had in 1948 is much bigger than the one you could have had in 1967, which in turn is much bigger than what you may have to settle for now or in another 10 years. Struggle means less land and more misery and utter loneliness.
At the moment, brothers, you would be lucky to secure a semblance of a state in that Gaza Strip into which you have all crowded, and a small part of the West Bank of the Jordan . It isn't going to get better. Time is running out even for this much land, so here are some facts, figures, and sound advice, friends. You hold keys, which you drag out for television interviews, to houses that do not exist or are inhabited by Israelis who have no intention of leaving Jaffa , Haifa , Tel Aviv, or West Jerusalem . You shoot old guns at modern Israeli tanks and American-made fighter jets, doing virtually no harm to Israel while bringing the wrath of its mighty army down upon you. You fire ridiculously inept Kassam rockets that cause little destruction and delude yourselves into thinking this is a war of liberation.
Your government, your social institutions, your schools, and your economy are all in ruins. Your young people are growing up illiterate, ill, and bent on rites of death and suicide, while you, in effect, are living on the kindness of foreigners, including America and the United Nations. Every day your officials must beg for your daily bread, dependent on relief trucks that carry food and medicine into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank , while your criminal Muslim fundamentalist Hamas government continues to fan the flames of a war it can neither fight nor hope to win. In other words, brothers, you are down, out, and alone in a burnt-out landscape that is shrinking by the day.
What kind of struggle is this? Is it worth waging at all? More important, what kind of miserable future does it portend for your children, the fourth or fifth generation of the Arab world's have-nots? We, your Arab brothers, have moved on. Those of us who have oil money are busy accumulating wealth and building housing, luxury developments, state-of-the-art universities and schools, and new highways and byways. Those of us who share borders with Israel , such as Egypt and Jordan , have signed a peace treaty with it and are not going to war for you any time soon. Those of us who are far away, in places like North Africa and Iraq , frankly could not care less about what happens to you.
Only Syria continues to feed your fantasies that someday it will join you in liberating Palestine , even though a huge chunk of its territory, the entire Golan Heights, was taken by Israel in 1967 and annexed. The Syrians, my friends, will gladly fight down to the last Palestinian Arab. Before you got stuck with this Hamas crowd, another cheating, conniving, leader of yours, Yasser Arafat, sold you a rotten bill of goods - more pain, greater corruption, and millions stolen by his relatives - while your children played in the sewers of Gaza . The war is over. Why not let a new future begin?
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Read the 2 entries below this one first:
What do you notice about the difference in the tone between the Israelis and the Palestinians? The Israelis are so hopeful for peace that they are desperate for a ceasefire because no one wants to be involved in a war BUT they are realistic that Hamas have been dented and not destroyed and will start firing again very soon in an Israeli town near you. (But hey, the BBC never reports about Israelis being fired at!!)
The Palestinians boast about how they won and how the Israelis love killing their children and their schools and their mosques. They have lapped up the propaganda and are spouting it themselves!! They don't see the bigger picture! Hamas has brainwashed them. If Hamas is truely a part of the Palestinian people as Raafat says then surely the Palestinian people are all part of a terrorist group and there are no "innocent civilians"? They talk of defending their land. Against what? Israel would never have attacked if they weren't firing rockets at Israel.
In the next few weeks parshas(weekly portion from the Torah/bible) it talks about how Pharoah's heart was hardened and despite plague after plague after plague(a disproportionate response from G-d?), Pharoah still just didn't get it; he was still in denial about the bigger picture. I never thought I would see that happen in my life time, but no!! Not just one individual but a whole nation, a whole religion, a whole United Nations against Israel have hardened their hearts. Look what happened to Pharoah -let this be a warning to you all !! It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow but whenever the Jewish people hit rock bottom, G-d will always save us. History is on our side-watch out world!!
The Palestinians boast about how they won and how the Israelis love killing their children and their schools and their mosques. They have lapped up the propaganda and are spouting it themselves!! They don't see the bigger picture! Hamas has brainwashed them. If Hamas is truely a part of the Palestinian people as Raafat says then surely the Palestinian people are all part of a terrorist group and there are no "innocent civilians"? They talk of defending their land. Against what? Israel would never have attacked if they weren't firing rockets at Israel.
In the next few weeks parshas(weekly portion from the Torah/bible) it talks about how Pharoah's heart was hardened and despite plague after plague after plague(a disproportionate response from G-d?), Pharoah still just didn't get it; he was still in denial about the bigger picture. I never thought I would see that happen in my life time, but no!! Not just one individual but a whole nation, a whole religion, a whole United Nations against Israel have hardened their hearts. Look what happened to Pharoah -let this be a warning to you all !! It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow but whenever the Jewish people hit rock bottom, G-d will always save us. History is on our side-watch out world!!
Palestinian version of ceasefire
Raafat, shop worker, Ramallah
I am so happy because in the end we won. Their plan was to destroy Gaza and destroy the fighters, but we won.
Hamas has not been damaged. It is not like if they destroy the regime they destroy Hamas – Hamas is part of the Palestinian people.
They damaged the schools, the mosques, the homes. If they think this is a win, then OK, they won.
Saeda, student, E Jerusalem
They had to stop the war in Gaza. They were killing boys and girls without reason.
Sure Israel is stronger, but it's our land and Hamas must defend it.
I hope there will be peace. But I think the Israelis will continue to kill children. Israeli soldiers are killers and don't like Palestinian people.
I don't know if Hamas will stop fighting.
Nayef, shoe seller, Ramallah
Definitely Israel didn't mean the ceasefire as it seems, there is something behind it.
This is just Israeli propaganda, not stopping the war on Gaza.
They didn't finish the resistance or Hamas. It's still going and it will not be defeated.
Words and pictures by Heather Sharp and Muhannad Alami
I am so happy because in the end we won. Their plan was to destroy Gaza and destroy the fighters, but we won.
Hamas has not been damaged. It is not like if they destroy the regime they destroy Hamas – Hamas is part of the Palestinian people.
They damaged the schools, the mosques, the homes. If they think this is a win, then OK, they won.
Saeda, student, E Jerusalem
They had to stop the war in Gaza. They were killing boys and girls without reason.
Sure Israel is stronger, but it's our land and Hamas must defend it.
I hope there will be peace. But I think the Israelis will continue to kill children. Israeli soldiers are killers and don't like Palestinian people.
I don't know if Hamas will stop fighting.
Nayef, shoe seller, Ramallah
Definitely Israel didn't mean the ceasefire as it seems, there is something behind it.
This is just Israeli propaganda, not stopping the war on Gaza.
They didn't finish the resistance or Hamas. It's still going and it will not be defeated.
Words and pictures by Heather Sharp and Muhannad Alami
Israelis view on Israel on BBC news
Eyal, legal worker, W Jerusalem
I am very upset because I think that we didn't achieve our goals. We should have finished Hamas and ended their attacks. I'm sure the rockets won't stop.
I'm sure Hamas is damaged, but I don't think it's as damaged as Olmert wants it to look like.
It's a political season and he has to show that he succeeded more than in Lebanon.
Leon, retired, W Jerusalem
I feel elated. I am anxious to see a peaceful solution after so many years of hatred.
The ceasefire was right. There was tremendous pressure Israel to end the conflict because of all the casualties, and we want to show the world we are willing to take risks for a peaceful solution.
Only time will tell if the other side will compromise.
Erez, lawyer, W Jerusalem
I think the ceasefire came a bit early. I don't think this operation will achieve its goals.
A one-sided ceasefire will not be recognised by Hamas.
Hamas has not been damaged. They didn't fight. They just showed themselves as civilians, but most of them are terrorists. Once Israel leaves they will go out with their weapons again.
I am very upset because I think that we didn't achieve our goals. We should have finished Hamas and ended their attacks. I'm sure the rockets won't stop.
I'm sure Hamas is damaged, but I don't think it's as damaged as Olmert wants it to look like.
It's a political season and he has to show that he succeeded more than in Lebanon.
Leon, retired, W Jerusalem
I feel elated. I am anxious to see a peaceful solution after so many years of hatred.
The ceasefire was right. There was tremendous pressure Israel to end the conflict because of all the casualties, and we want to show the world we are willing to take risks for a peaceful solution.
Only time will tell if the other side will compromise.
Erez, lawyer, W Jerusalem
I think the ceasefire came a bit early. I don't think this operation will achieve its goals.
A one-sided ceasefire will not be recognised by Hamas.
Hamas has not been damaged. They didn't fight. They just showed themselves as civilians, but most of them are terrorists. Once Israel leaves they will go out with their weapons again.
AAAAAAGHHHHHHHH!!!!! THe $&^£&BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7836660.stm
This is what I have written to the BBC complaints dept. I suggest you do too!!!:
This is appalling journalism. The Israelis UNILATERALLY held a ceasefire whilst Hamas continued firing at sederot. Paul Wood interviews Palestinians whithout getting collabarating evidence. How do we know he is not speaking to Hamas terrorists themselves??? When a man tells him he is blind and no threat to the Israelis, how does he know this is true? When he talks about a mosque being bombed, why doesn't he point out that mosques were being used as storage depots for weapons and bombs? Your journalistic integrity is way off line. Remember all those massacres in Jenin that you went on and on about and then didn't even have the decency to go on and on about the fact that the Palestinians were moving dead bodies into Jenin to make it look like a massacre??Shame on you!!!
This is what I have written to the BBC complaints dept. I suggest you do too!!!:
This is appalling journalism. The Israelis UNILATERALLY held a ceasefire whilst Hamas continued firing at sederot. Paul Wood interviews Palestinians whithout getting collabarating evidence. How do we know he is not speaking to Hamas terrorists themselves??? When a man tells him he is blind and no threat to the Israelis, how does he know this is true? When he talks about a mosque being bombed, why doesn't he point out that mosques were being used as storage depots for weapons and bombs? Your journalistic integrity is way off line. Remember all those massacres in Jenin that you went on and on about and then didn't even have the decency to go on and on about the fact that the Palestinians were moving dead bodies into Jenin to make it look like a massacre??Shame on you!!!
What country in the world supplies humanitarian aid to its enemies???
3333 TONS OF SUPPLIES CONVEYED IN TO GAZA
Humanitarian effort continues on a daily basis, as such the flow of goods is an ongoing operation. On Friday, (16 Jan.) 3333 tons of humanitarian aid and 115,000 liters of heavy duty diesel were transferred to the Gaza Strip.
The shipment was comprised of basic food commodities, medical supplies, dairy products, a large Jordanian donation medical supplies and powdered milk from the World Health Organization and a donation from an Israeli peace initiative. The private sector continues to transfer supplies according to humanitarian demands including toiletries.
Due to ongoing constrictions at Nahal Oz some 115,000 liters of heavy duty diesel were transferred via Kerem Shalom for the Gaza Power station.
At the Karni conveyor 1400 tons of grain, including wheat, corn and animal feed were transferred.
Since the beginning of the operation, 32,445 tons of humanitarian supplies have been transferred to Gaza in 1314 trucks. Also, 1,551,351 liters of fuel have been conveyed through Nahal Oz and Kerem Shalom.
*****
1135 TONS OF SUPPLIES CONVEYED IN TO GAZA
Kerem Shalom operated today in order to convey humanitarian goods. Throughout the day 51 trucks loaded with 1135 tons of supplies for UNRWA and the private sector were shipped to Gaza via Kerem Shalom cargo terminal.
Also, 115,000 liters of heavy duty diesel were transferred to the Gaza Strip via a temporary mechanism established for heavy duty diesel for the Gaza power plant.
Between 12:00-15:00 the IDF carried out a "humanitarian recess" in order to enable Palestinians to replenish stocks and seek aid. Throughout the recess terrorist factions continued to attack the IDF and launch rockets putting civilians in direct danger.
Since the beginning of the operation, 33,580 tons of humanitarian supplies have been transferred to Gaza in 1365 trucks. Also, 1,666,351 liters of fuel have been conveyed through Nahal Oz and Kerem Shalom.
*****
COORDINATION CENTER ENABLES REPAIR TO MAIN GAZA STRIP SEWAGE SYSTEM
Tel Aviv , 17 Jan. The Joint Humanitarian Coordination Center (JHCC) facilitated the repair of Gaza's main sewage treatment facility in Beit Lahiya on Wednesday (15 January) thereby averting a potential major ecological threat.
For six days the COGAT had attempted to coordinate the movement of a convoy of Palestinian technicians to refuel the generator and had halted all IDF operational activity in the region. However for lack of organization on the Palestinian side the repairs could not be carried out, despite assurances given by the IDF. On Wednesday the Palestinians were able to organize their own convoy and COGAT Humanitarian Affairs officers in the field coordinated the passage of the convoy with the Palestinians and with Divisional HQs. During the duration of the repair operation the IDF forces took up defensive positions. The repairs, which consisted of refueling the generator and repairing a valve were successfully completed.
*****
JOINT HUMANITARIAN COORDINATION CENTER COORDINATES PAVING ACCESS ROUTES TO UNRWA FACILITIES AND SHELTERS
The Joint Humanitarian Coordination Center (JHCC) and the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) will coordinate with UNRWA the repairing of main access routes to and from UNRWA installations in order to facilitate the transport and distribution of food, supplies and medicines to Gaza residents who are using UNRWA schools and installations. In addition tomorrow (18 January) will coordinate with UNRWA the access of a convoy of Palestinian electrical technicians to repair a technical malfunction at the Nahal Oz fuel depot. This would enable the Palestinians to resume pumping fuel needed by the power plant to generate electricity. Brigadier General, Baruch Spiegel, Head of the JHCC, "UNRWA is carrying out a most valuable mission in the field with excellent coordination of their representative on the JHCC staff. Their operations under the current situation are truly appreciated".
Humanitarian effort continues on a daily basis, as such the flow of goods is an ongoing operation. On Friday, (16 Jan.) 3333 tons of humanitarian aid and 115,000 liters of heavy duty diesel were transferred to the Gaza Strip.
The shipment was comprised of basic food commodities, medical supplies, dairy products, a large Jordanian donation medical supplies and powdered milk from the World Health Organization and a donation from an Israeli peace initiative. The private sector continues to transfer supplies according to humanitarian demands including toiletries.
Due to ongoing constrictions at Nahal Oz some 115,000 liters of heavy duty diesel were transferred via Kerem Shalom for the Gaza Power station.
At the Karni conveyor 1400 tons of grain, including wheat, corn and animal feed were transferred.
Since the beginning of the operation, 32,445 tons of humanitarian supplies have been transferred to Gaza in 1314 trucks. Also, 1,551,351 liters of fuel have been conveyed through Nahal Oz and Kerem Shalom.
*****
1135 TONS OF SUPPLIES CONVEYED IN TO GAZA
Kerem Shalom operated today in order to convey humanitarian goods. Throughout the day 51 trucks loaded with 1135 tons of supplies for UNRWA and the private sector were shipped to Gaza via Kerem Shalom cargo terminal.
Also, 115,000 liters of heavy duty diesel were transferred to the Gaza Strip via a temporary mechanism established for heavy duty diesel for the Gaza power plant.
Between 12:00-15:00 the IDF carried out a "humanitarian recess" in order to enable Palestinians to replenish stocks and seek aid. Throughout the recess terrorist factions continued to attack the IDF and launch rockets putting civilians in direct danger.
Since the beginning of the operation, 33,580 tons of humanitarian supplies have been transferred to Gaza in 1365 trucks. Also, 1,666,351 liters of fuel have been conveyed through Nahal Oz and Kerem Shalom.
*****
COORDINATION CENTER ENABLES REPAIR TO MAIN GAZA STRIP SEWAGE SYSTEM
Tel Aviv , 17 Jan. The Joint Humanitarian Coordination Center (JHCC) facilitated the repair of Gaza's main sewage treatment facility in Beit Lahiya on Wednesday (15 January) thereby averting a potential major ecological threat.
For six days the COGAT had attempted to coordinate the movement of a convoy of Palestinian technicians to refuel the generator and had halted all IDF operational activity in the region. However for lack of organization on the Palestinian side the repairs could not be carried out, despite assurances given by the IDF. On Wednesday the Palestinians were able to organize their own convoy and COGAT Humanitarian Affairs officers in the field coordinated the passage of the convoy with the Palestinians and with Divisional HQs. During the duration of the repair operation the IDF forces took up defensive positions. The repairs, which consisted of refueling the generator and repairing a valve were successfully completed.
*****
JOINT HUMANITARIAN COORDINATION CENTER COORDINATES PAVING ACCESS ROUTES TO UNRWA FACILITIES AND SHELTERS
The Joint Humanitarian Coordination Center (JHCC) and the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) will coordinate with UNRWA the repairing of main access routes to and from UNRWA installations in order to facilitate the transport and distribution of food, supplies and medicines to Gaza residents who are using UNRWA schools and installations. In addition tomorrow (18 January) will coordinate with UNRWA the access of a convoy of Palestinian electrical technicians to repair a technical malfunction at the Nahal Oz fuel depot. This would enable the Palestinians to resume pumping fuel needed by the power plant to generate electricity. Brigadier General, Baruch Spiegel, Head of the JHCC, "UNRWA is carrying out a most valuable mission in the field with excellent coordination of their representative on the JHCC staff. Their operations under the current situation are truly appreciated".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)