Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Hamas' spiritual forefathers

It is worth reposting a link to this article from the Palestine Post about the origins of fundamentalist Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood, from which Hamas and al-Qaeda were born.

I have mentioned before that there are two very consistent patterns that explain the entire Arab/Israeli conflict for the past century:

1) Israelis want security.
2) Arab leaders want to destroy Israel.

Essentially every political and military move done by both sides since before 1948 can be remarkably explained by those two concepts. There are rare exceptions, perhaps Jordan is one of them, but on the whole it is a very good rule of thumb that can be used both to understand history and to understand current events.

There is a third consistent pattern as well:

3) Arab people just want to raise their families with dignity and pride.

The entire brief history of the Palestinian Arabs shows this to be true. The ones who lived in Palestine in the 1800s didn't care that they were under Ottoman rule, they didn't crave independence. After the Jews started coming in serious numbers and the economy boomed, many (I believe most) of the ancestors of today's Palestinian Arabs moved into Palestine from Syria and Jordan, because that was how they could best provide for their families. More moved in under British rule than under Ottoman rule, because economic concerns were far more important than political concerns.

If "independence" was the uppermost concern of Arabs, then why do over a million choose to stay in Israel rather than move to PA-administered areas? As the Clinton team famously observed, "it's the economy, stupid."

The people who have screwed the Palestinian Arabs the most have always been their "leaders." It was their leaders who decided to force them to boycott Jewish goods to their detriment, it was their leaders who kept them in "refugee" camps, it was their leaders who forced them to fight losing battles against the hated Zionists.

The "golden age" of Palestinian Arabs was during the "occupation" - this was when they had good paying jobs, when Israel built them an electrical and safe water infrastructure, when the Zionists used their devious Jewish expertise to dramatically increase the Palestinian Arab life expectancy and slash their infant mortality rates. During Oslo, tens of thousands of Jordanians moved illegally into the West Bank so they could raise their families in the comparative paradise that Israel built for the Palestinian Arabs.

The ordinary Palestinian doesn't care who his leader is or about Zionism or occupation or terror or democracy as long as his basic needs are met.

This is the background needed to understand the Hamas victory.

The Palestinian Arabs did not vote for terror or to destroy Israel. They just voted for the party that actually has a chance to improve their day-to-day lives. The party that actually has social programs and builds schools and hospitals. The party that is not headed by "leaders" who live in expensive villas.

The average Palestinian remembers quite well that only a few years ago, they had jobs and they had their pride. They know that Israel treated them better than any Arab leader ever has. Certainly they are subject to brainwashing from the constant incitement against Israel and Jews in their media, but fundamentally their main concern is how to provide for their families with pride, not Israel. It was clear that Fatah would not ever do anything for them. This was highlighted by the chaos in Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal and the PA's incompetence at actually leading.

So, ironically, Israel helped elect Hamas. Also ironically, in what was perhaps the first free election the Palestinian Arabs ever had, they decided to kick out the leaders who screwed them over. And the final irony is that the US and EU backed the leaders who were screwing the Palestinians, which will not help world influence in the future.

The interesting part is that for all of its anti-Israel positions, Hamas will have no choice but to deal with Israel in some capacity, or else it will fail the people who elected it. If Hamas refuses to work with Israel at all, the Palestinians won't be able to cross the border at all, and vital services like water and electricity will end up disappearing. Nothing moderates like pragmatism. Terror will still continue and be supported indirectly by Hamas but if Hamas wants what is best for its people it will have to work with the enemy.

From Israel's perspective, it should emphasize the fact that it has no problem with Palestinian Arabs themselves and it will do anything possible to help them as long as it doesn't jeopardize Israel's own security. At this point Hamas needs Israel much more than Israel needs Hamas but since there is now a working democracy in Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas has to be much more careful as to how it acts, both in relations to the people and to Israel.

A major danger to worry about is that Hamas will demolish the democratic process and create yet another Islamist theocracy. If that is their aim, things are much less predictable.

As far as the peace process goes - there never was a peace process, just a process where Israel keeps giving concessions in exchange for nothing. Stopping such a "peace process" is a very desirable outcome from these elections, and detente is much better than a "peace process" punctuated by daily terror attacks.

Anti-semitism, courtesy of the World Economic Forum

The World Economic Forum happening now in Davos, Switzerland, included a booklet that included an anti-semitic and anti-Israel screed of the types normally only seen in fringe websites. Every delegate got one.

Excerpts:

Boycott Israel
Mazin Qumsiyeh

Global civil society ought to boycott Israel until it ends its apartheid-like treatment of Palestinians, says Mazin Qumsiyeh

Millions of activists have come to see an organic link between the occupation and colonization of Palestine and diverse and pressing global issues ranging from the war on Iraq to global poverty.
Those who advocate political Zionism cannot defend it on its own merits, so they focus instead on diverting attention and distorting reality. The best example of this is ignoring the cause of the disease and focusing attention on one of its many symptoms – violence of the natives against the colonial settlers, but not the vastly more deadly violence of the colonizers on native people. The idea is that if we vilify the natives and make them look subhuman, we will not be criticized for killing them and taking their lands.
This is an old strategy to justify the pillaging. It was used by the French in Algeria, by European colonizers in the Americas, by apartheid South Africa, by the Americans in Vietnam and in hundreds of other places where western economic and colonial interests came into conflict with the rights of indigenous people.

Israeli apartheid

Zionism not only supposes that Jewish people, including converts, enjoy ethnic, national or historical rights to Palestine, but also that these rights are superior to the rights of the native population. Unlike in South Africa, where black labour was needed, Zionism wanted the natives out. Simply put, the goal of Zionism was to create a state by, for and of “the Jewish people everywhere” to the exclusion of most of the native people and then to ensure that the minority that remained at all odds is not treated equally.

Zionism represented a colonial British venture later taken up as one of many possible responses to discrimination in Europe. Other responses to discrimination such as socialism and humanism were available and had at least equal strength.
Zionism can be seen as the 19th century-style chauvinistic, ethnocentric – mostly Ashkenazi (central European Jewish) – nationalistic response to prevalent European chauvinistic ethnocentric nationalisms. It is in that sense an attempt at assimilation by some Jews following a now outdated European colonial model.

It is not, therefore, surprising that the Zionist lobby has been pushing America into a neo-colonial perpetuation of these outmoded forms of human relations. In a society that values equality and separation of church and state, a concerted media campaign justifies “pre-emptive” invasion of other countries, religious apartheid, sectarianism, ethnic cleansing and putting walls around ghettoized “undesired” people. Zionist apologists support equality in America and Europe, but tolerate discrimination and exclusion of Palestinian refugees in Palestine/Israel for being not Jewish. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent by groups ranging from the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to “think-tanks” in our nation’s capital to promote such bankrupt ideas.

The relentless efforts of many to defend apartheid and separation can only be described as symptoms of cognitive dissonance at best and racism at worst. In their Orwellian world, occupation becomes “security”, a relentless war of colonization and occupation becomes “advancing democracy”, an apartheid wall becomes a “security fence”, being anti- or post-Zionist is morphed into being anti-Jewish, and “moderation” becomes a code word for shredding international law and basic human rights.

Our demands

In July 2005, more than 170 Palestinian civil society organizations issued a historic document. It articulated Israel’s persistent violations of international and humanitarian laws and conventions and called upon “international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era”.

The call stated that “these non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194” (which the Arabs never accepted - EoZ)

We propose that global civil society take this call seriously and build a coalition open to all people for a global Movement Against Zionism or a global Movement Against Israeli Apartheid. This would bring peace with justice to all people regardless of their religion or ethnicity. It would also contribute to exposing American government-led programmes of domination and hegemony in the Middle East, most aptly revealed by its support of Zionism.

CV Mazin Qumsiyeh

Mazin Qumsiyeh has served on the faculties of Duke and Yale universities. His latest book is Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle. He is involved in many campaigns supporting Palestinian rights.

I didn't notice anything in this article about the discrimination of non-Muslims in Arab countries, about denouncing Palestinian terror, about the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, about the overwhelming desire on the part of the Arab world desire to ethnically cleanse the Middle East of Jews.

Must have been an oversight, because, after all, the writer cares so much about human rights. I'm sure he's written other articles about Saudi apartheid or how the Lebanese treat Palestinian Arabs, and calling for economic boycotts against Yemen for expelling its Jews.

UPDATE: SoccerDad found that he was indeed an instructor at Duke - of genetics.

A senior Iranian official threatened that Tehran may forcibly prevent oil export via the Straits of Hormuz if the UN imposed economic sanctions due to Iran's nuclear program, an Iranian news Web site said on Monday.

This is the first time an Iranian official makes military threats in a public statement on Tehran's recent disagreements with the West.

I hope it happens.

It has now been over four years since 9/11. Analysts and politicians have been falling over themselves looking for the "root causes" of terror. The real, practical root cause is obvious but uncomfortable so people naturally veer away from admitting it.

The root cause is a combination of the fact that Islamism is a political ideology that wants nothing less than world domination, together with the fact that oil revenue gives the Islamists the power to actually influence world events.

The fact that Islamism is a political movement makes people uncomfortable because it clothes itself as a religious movement, and no one wants to restrict religion. The fact that petrodollars fund terror makes people uncomfortable because any disruption of the flow of oil from the Gulf would cause worldwide economic chaos.

What we needed, immediately after 9/11, was an energy-independence Manhattan project. I hope it is not too late to start it.

The money to fund it should come from the massive defense budget. Putting only a few high-tech weapons projects on hold for a few years would pay for it without much effort, and eliminating our dependence on Arab oil is solidly a self-defense initiative.

If there were no oil revenues there would have been no Saddam, no Saudi madrassas, no al-Qaeda, no Iranian threat, no Hamas, no Hezbollah. Islam would just be a relatively harmless religion.

Since such a Manhattan project is not going to happen anytime soon without a major external event, I think that the world would be better off if Iran indeed stops the oil supply (or, as is feared, they end up contaminating the entire Gulf with radiation from an accident.) This would wake up the US quickly. More importantly, the free market would kick in, because alternate fuels would fast become economical.

It would hurt, no doubt. But in a few years we would be seeing clean and safe fuel sources emerge, reducing pollution, helping the environment and incidentally saving the world from Islamic terror - if it is not too late.

Reviews! I feel so important!

At least three blogs have reviewed the blogs nominated for Best Design in the JIB awards, and while there is a snowball's chance in hell that this blog would win anything it is still nice to be reviewed. Luckily, most reviews aren't vicious.

Ezzie started off during the first round with this:

ElderofZiyon's header is okay, though I don't like the fade all the way to white. I also am not a fan of pure white backgrounds, though it actually looks decent on his blog. Fonts and font colors are good, links are well organized. The message board is a nice addition, though appearance-wise it's kind of ugly.

In response, I realized that my tagboard colors were indeed ugly and changed them to match the blog colors.

After I miraculously made it to the finals, I got an extensive review from Chaim of Life of Rubin:

This is a site I do check out from time to time. It’s a good site, and I’m a fan. As far as design goes, this is another “simplistic” look. The white content color is always a good choice. This enables people to read the actual posts without any squinting or eyes glare afterwards. I’m sorry, but if you have a blog with a black color content background, I don’t usally read your blog at your site. If it’s a blog that I like, I read it through blogines. The white on black just kills my eyes.

I like the header, good choice of image, but I can’t tell if you left some of those blogger html DIV headers there because you wanted to or because your not sure how to delete them. If it’s the latter contact me, I’ll help you, since my own blog is a reworked version of that blogger template.

I like the sidebar, it has a very good source of information and all the links are divided up into through categories. I’m not a fan of the embedded chat. It slows down loading time, and honestly who really uses them that often. The other thing I don’t like is the block quote box/form used. For a blog that quotes often from other articles etc, it should have a less noticeable background. It sticks out at you too much, it’s the first thing you notice when you load the page. Overall, I like the design, it pulls off simple but neat at the same time.

I appreciate the thoroughness of the review!

To address the points made:

I like the dividing lines even though they are the default Blogger ones. I think I even used them in places beyond the default, if I recall correctly.
I always hope that people would use the tagboard more. I worked hard to find one that looks decent and doesn't cause pop-up ads. (I used to have a much busier sidebar, along with scrolling news, but the pop-ups and CPU utilization became crazy. But I want to keep the tagboard. Its main problem is that it cannot handle apostrophes.)
I actually like the background color for the quote boxes. It matches the template well. I've noticed on some browsers/monitors it is more noticeable than on others.
I agree that white on black is hard to read, but I am pretty sure it is how teenagers ensure that their parents aren't reading their blogs.

But thanks again for the kind words!

Jewlicious, which is an extremely well-designed blog itself, also weighed in:

The Elder has clearly done as much as can be done with a blogspot blog. The side links are good an chock full o’ links. The color scheme seems to be meant to reflect the color of the Kotel in the header while still maintaining that whole “this blog contains many serious and important ideas” look. Love the name too but how far can one really push a blogspot template?

Good question! I never thought of this blog as pushing the limits of Blogspot, and perhaps this review is an overanalysis, but it sure makes me feel "serious and important" to have people spend so much effort reviewing this.

SoccerDad weighs in:

It's a shame that Elder of Ziyon didn't get more support in other categories. He undertakes the important task of making sure that his readers learn from history. Much of what is happening now, has happened before. Still I've always loved the design of his blog.

Which makes me feel guiltyfor not having done any Palestine Post-ings for a while.

I appreciate all the kind words!

Notable articles

An interview of a German Holocaust historian in Der Spiegel.

It's impossible to combat obsessive historical revisionism using arguments and even the most basic logic. It is quite simply absurd to, on the one hand thank Hitler's Germany for the Holocaust -- which unfortunately does happen -- and then in the next breath say that the murder of six million Jews never took place. It's hard to understand how a state, which accepts aspects of modern life, is able to make obvious lunacy official national policy.

An interesting analysis of Iran's goals, mostly in line with mine and with some points I disagree with.

Iran's Israel policy is a sub-set of its US policy, not the other way around. Given the current war of words between Iran and Israel, this is an important distinction seemingly missed by many of the media and pro-Israel lawmakers in Washington...

Who will cave in first?

Hamas?

Mahmoud Zahar, a top Hamas leader, struck back in the campaign's final days, playing to Hamas's political base in the destitute Gaza neighborhoods and refugee camps that have supplied many Hamas suicide attackers and that revere them as martyrs. Before crowds of thousands, he and other candidates went out of their way to deny they would ever give up their insistence on the destruction of Israel and the right to armed struggle.

Zahar hammered home a fiery stump speech at several campaign stops, including one extravaganza that featured masked and camouflaged Hamas performers leaping through flaming hoops and rappelling down buildings into an enraptured crowd.

Hamas's armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, will never be dismantled, as Israel and the US-backed road map peace plan demand, he said.

''They will remain, they will grow, they will be armed more and more until the complete liberation of all Palestine," he said, stressing that Palestine includes not just the West Bank and Gaza Strip that Israel occupied in 1967, but all of Israel as well.

He vowed to send the brigades to take up positions along Gaza's borders -- a step Israeli officials would surely view as a provocation -- to prevent Israel from sending its army back into the strip it vacated last summer, as Israeli officials have threatened to do if they deem it necessary for security.

Or the West?

A senior State Department official said the United States would not deal directly with members of Hamas in a new government.

"Our position is simple, in order to be an effective partner for peace, the Palestinians have to accept the idea of the state of Israel and renounce violence. That is currently the position of the Palestinian government."

"We will not accept terror on any basis," he added.

Asked directly whether the U.S. would recognize a new Palestinian government that contained large numbers of Hamas members, he said: "Let's see what happens first."

"It is very difficult for us to be in the position of negotiating or talking to Hamas unless there’s a very clear renunciation of terrorism," said Mr Blair at his monthly press conference today.

The answer is that, as always, wishful thinking will replace real facts. Hamas will use the PLO playbook and start floating possible less-terroristic scenarios to the West while continuing to support full Jihad against all Jews in the Middle East in Arabic. The West (including Israel) will want to believe that Hamas has turned over a new leaf so much that it will all ignore the inconvenient calls for genocide and jump on every word or omitted words that could be construed as being more moderate.

Get ready to see the words "moderate" and "Hamas" go together more often to justify the inevitable thaw, and get ready to see Palestinian Islamic Jihad used as the corresponding "extremists."

The irony, of course, is that Hamas is no less moderate than Fatah is, but Fatah had better PR and better liars. But in the end, both groups explicitly demand the destruction of Israel, both groups explicitly cheer suicide bombings and call the dead terrorists "martyrs", and both groups' supporters celebrate dead Jews - and dead Americans.

Made it to the finals!

Amazingly, this blog made it to the finals in the JIB awards for Best Designed Blog!

I would like to once again emphasize that the header logo and color scheme of the blog came from the always beautiful and talented Daughter of Ziyon, who is really starting to irritate me with her now having gotten better than me at guitar, keyboards, Photoshop and general design including web design.

Check out the competition and vote!

Interesting article on Iranian worldview

This is a very long article where the author claims to interview some Iranian politicians and military men. The author is clearly sympathetic towards his subjects and it is hard to know how much of what they say is true and how much is bluster. Also, it is not clear that the average Iranian agrees with them - the level of patriotism in Iran is almost certainly not as described. Even so, their analyses are interesting. One excerpt:

When I asked them what Iran would do if the U.S. was serious in attacking Iranian nuclear sites, Hussein said, "Then they open hell's gates towards themselves," and smiled. When I asked him to elaborate more, he continued, "In the papers there is always talk about air attacks on Iranian installations by Israel or the U.S. This type of psychological warfare is used to divert our attention. We know for a fact that no two Western wars are similar and we are sure that the Israelis would not risk an air attack. We know there are at least three possible scenarios of attacking these sites, including using their submarines in the Persian Gulf, commandos from the sea, or Mojahedin Khalgh trained in Israel and Azerbaijan to destroy the Bushehr nuclear power plant from the inside, but these are only plans. We have even more plans for how to confront them as well. This is a game of chess and we have practiced many different scenarios." Ali, another revolutionary guard, smiled and responded, "We have indicated directly and indirectly that with the first bullet shot at Iran, the map of the Middle East will be changed forever. Many American puppet regimes and dictators will fall and there will never be a government like what is now in Israel. The Apartheid system in Israel will be dismantled and a democratic government which embraces Jews, Christians, and Moslems equally will come to power. Millions of Palestinians will return home and millions of European and American migrants will return back from Palestine to their countries."

When I mentioned the immense firepower of the U.S. and the chemical, biological, and nuclear arsenal of Israel Hussein smiled and said, "We are ready, bring them on." Then after chuckling he said, "We have our sensors in place in the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and most Arab countries. We know ahead of the time when they are coming, and since Mr. Bush has given American democracy along with the preemptive strike as the right of everybody in the world, we are going to use it and use it effectively. We are present in most of the military briefings of the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. As soon as we see that it is imminent we hit them and hit them hard. If U.S. commanders used a sledgehammer to break a walnut in Iraq, we will use two sledgehammers for a hazelnut everywhere in the Middle East! Whether the U.S. or Israel attacks us, we will consider it as Israeli attack since we know how much power they have over the U.S. political and decision-making system." When I asked why they would hold Israel responsible if the U.S. attacked unilaterally, he responded that the American policy in Middle East is designed and dictated by Jewish organizations such as the AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) which in turn gets its agenda and policy from Israel. "Don't you remember the role of three Jewish Musketeer's in Iraq invasion?" He meant Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Michael Ledeen. Ali added, "The U.S. political system is under heavy pressure from Zionist organizations. Look at the articles published in U.S. papers about Iran. Most of the authors are Zionists strongly affiliated with AIPAC. Most of these guys dream of an Israel which extends from the Nile to the Euphrates. This is dangerous ideology. We must stop this at some stage and this is the best time. Many Western immigrants in Israel are thinking and working toward it. Look at the Mayflower ship which brought a handful of Europeans to America, the American natives lost their identity and culture, and the rest is the history. We do not want this to happen to the Middle Eastern countries."

Jamshid said, "Since her inception by the Europeans, Israel has had four wars with her neighbors and in three of those wars she obtained more land. That is until 1979, the year the Islamic Republic was born in Iran, and since then she has not started any wars, since she knew she cannot, because Iran would definitely intervene. They want more land for all these Russian and other immigrants and that is why they put pressure on the U.S. to attack Iran."

I asked Jamshid what the possible response could be, he said very calmly, "If our peaceful nuclear installations are attacked, no doubt we will take out that chocolate factory in Dimona, and not only that one, but all other shops which sell that kind of chocolate in Israel!" He was referring to Israeli nuclear sites, and then continued, "We will make a big mess in Israel and leave it to the Europeans and the Americans to clean this mess up. Both the U.S. and Israel know that, and for that matter, if they are serious about their intention, they have to bomb not only the nuclear research centers, but all the Shahab-3 silos and to be safe many other military sites as well- and that means an all out war. We are ready for that. That is a hard job for them since finding and destroying these sites quickly is very hard," and laughed.

I asked them how they saw the war scenario. Ali said, "The possible war would be outside of Iranian borders. We have many theaters of operations including Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and some Arab countries where U.S has troops there. We can increase the U.S. fatalities to a few dozen a day easily. In the case of Israel we are going to cause the immigration of 2-3 million European and Americans." When I asked for further explanation, he said, "Well if Iran is attacked we know who is responsible and that is when we decide that they should not live in our neighborhood." When I mentioned the Arrow anti-missiles Israelis have, he smiled. "Arrow anti-missiles are not accurate, and we know that for fact. They are working hard to improve it, but have not been successful so far. It is mainly a propaganda tool for the USraelis," stressing the last word with smile, before adding, "The Shahab-3 can easily take care of them. Their accuracy has been improved greatly. We have enough of them to spend more per target to increase the chance of hitting a target accurately, also do not forget we have satellite which looks at our target there and gives us real time information."

Javid, an Iran-Iraq war veteran calmly said, "There are many obstacles to the invasion of Iran. Iran is four times bigger than Iraq, so the number of soldiers has to be more accordingly. The U.S. does not have that many troops, even it were to bring in NATO and can double or triple the size of troops of what is has now in Iraq, there are still a lot of shortfalls. Iranian people have a very distinct culture and history which make them stand out as a solid nation. Two main elements which play important role in the defense of the country are nationalism and Shi'ism. These two are our real nuclear weapon. Both played an important role in the Iraq-Iran war. During the chaos of the revolution where there was no formal army to stand in front of hundreds of Iraqi tanks, ordinary people took up arms and stood in front of the Iraqis heavy army and stopped them for months. Young citizens took up grenades and threw themselves under the tanks and stopped Iraqi tanks. Saddam thought the war would take a few weeks, and although he was backed by Russia, Europe, U.S. and the Arab world, it took eight years and at the end he did not gain a meter of Iranian soil."

When I mentioned the superiority of U.S. military hardware, software, as well as their tactics he said, "Even if they could bring few thousand more soldiers and the best hardware they can not get to Tehran- conquering Iran is wishful thinking a corn-grower from Kansas might believe. First of all, in Iran people always fought against invaders and the army helped them. The U.S. can defeat the Iranian army, but not the Iranian people. There has never been any army in the world that could defeat a nation. Vietnam is the recent history lesson. On the basis of a military evaluation done by some western analysts and institutions, in any invasion of Iran 200,000 to 500,000 troops will be lost. Which country or countries are going to handle that amount of loss just for a problem which there is a diplomatic solution?" When I raised my eyebrow at his figures he got agitated and said, "Well, look, Saddam Hussein penetrated into Iran about 20-60 kilometers and lost about half a million men. Since the Americans have a better army and equipments, then they will have fewer casualties than Saddam. However, anybody who wants to get to Tehran which is a long way from the Iraqi border must pay more". Then he laughed and said, "Otherwise if they want to pay a friendly visit to us, then they are welcome!" He continued on, "Most Iranian cities are near a mountain or in a valley, and it is very easy for a few fighters to go to those mountains that overlook the cities and make hell for the invaders. That is why as a nation we had only two major defeats in the last 2,500 years: one by Greeks and one by Arab Moslem armies. Suppose that an imaginary army comes to Iran; to be successful that army has to get control of at least 10-12 major cities which have more than a million in population, since if any of these cities are ignored, then their mission is not accomplished and that city would quickly become the main point of resistance. Iraq had two cities and quickly was overcome by the invaders. Basra was mainly Shiite and Baghdad was partly Shiite and you know that the Shiite hate Saddam. The reason was that Saddam was a dictator, who did not have popular support, and many disliked him. Iraq had gone through two terrible wars and exhausted its resources physically and mentally. The government of Iran is not like Saddam's, it still has many supporters and even the opposition groups want to correct its shortcomings and not topple the regime. In case of such an invasion, it will inevitably back up the government. Iran came out of the war with Iraq quickly and now it produces his own armaments including airplanes, rockets, missiles, tanks, and heavy armor."

On Friday afternoon, 20 January 2006, Mohammed Bassam Shuhaiber, 11, from Gaza City, was injured by a live bullet to the abdomen during an electoral gathering. According to investigations conducted by PCHR, Shuhaiber was attending an electoral gathering organized by Fatah in the al-Sabra neighborhood in the east of Gaza City, when a member of Fatah fired gunshots into the air. One of the bullets hit the child, who was evacuated to a hospital in the city. Soon after, the child's family destroyed a car belonging to the member of Fatah, who is believed to be responsible for the shooting and also beat him. PCHR also discovered that the suspected shooter is a member of the security services.

Meanwhile, Hamas is accusing Fatah of forcing the Palestinian Police to vote for Fatah.

Somehow, this is all Israel's fault. A prominent Yemeni columnist notes, with a straight face:

One is truly amazed to watch the US coverage of the Israeli Prime Minister’s latest illness and how little mention, if any, is ever given of the black record that Sharon has accumulated over the years. On the contrary there were efforts made to paint the man as having turned to the only “hope for peace”, as he has shown by his unilateral decision to get the settlements out of Gaza. Nothing could be further than the truth. If you ask anyone in Gaza, they will tell you that not much has changed since the Israelis “withdrew”, as they are confronted with daily killings, encroachments, assaults and what have you, to make life as miserable for the residents of Gaza as possible.

Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing.

Put simply, the experimenters concluded that human beings, when asked to lie without being given sufficient justification, will convince themselves that the lie they are asked to tell is the truth. Only when sufficient justification is given, researchers speculated, are human beings able to resist having their mind instantly reprogrammed by any request that they lie.

Anti-zionism is racism:

The General Assembly declared 2005 the Year of the Desert. Famine and poverty-ridden countries in Africa and Asia benefit from technologies created in Israel's Negev, where, with scientific and technological ingenuity, the desert miraculously became a productive region of wealth creation.

At Turtle Bay, however, Arab diplomats threatened to vote down a resolution because Israel proposed to insert a paragraph hailing an international desert conference in Beer Sheba. Although it is within Israel's pre-1967 borders, the Negev capital is "disputed territory," the Arabs said. In a "compromise," a balancing paragraph alleging Israeli destruction of natural Arab resources was awkwardly slapped on.

Most African and Asian countries joined the attack on Israel. Some Europeans, too, eagerly jumped in, while other Europeans religiously observed their abstaining tradition. As a result, the desert resolution was turned into a petty Middle Eastern dispute.

Iran secretly increasing nuclear capabilities

Hamas' "equal rights" for women:

With her textured handbag, heavy mascara, and a veil revealing only her eyes, Alaa Awdeh sounds like the ultimate feminist. Women, she believes, should have equal rights in Palestinian society, especially the right to die in the armed struggle against Israel.

''That's what I am looking for, to sacrifice my life," said Awdeh, 18, an Islamic studies major at Al Najah University in Nablus and enthusiastic member of the youth wing of Hamas, the radical Islamic group.

HH54

Haveil Havalim #54 is out, this week hosted at Jack's Shack.

As usual, it is an excellent collection of more good articles from the Jewish blogosphere than I have time to read. There are two articles from here, one which I submitted (at the advice of Soccer Dad) and one which I didn't, so presumably Jack liked it. Even a little appreciation towards a blog goes a long way, and although I may like to pretend to have no ego, I have to admit it feels very nice when someone compliments an article I wrote.

Check it out!

It's all a game - and the cards are stacked

The Nobel-prize winning Professor Israel Aumann has been spending his newfound fame on giving advice about how game theory affects the Middle East conflict. What he says makes sense, and I like his backhanded swipe at "Peace Now."

Rushing to surrender territory to Israel's enemies in an effort to increase security and foster peace is a bankrupt policy that will only lead to further bloodshed.

So said Nobel Laureate Professor Israel Aumann Saturday evening during a speech to participants in the Herzliya Conference on the folly of Israel's “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria.

Aumann explained the problem is most Israelis, unlike their Islamic foes, have become convinced they are out of time.

“The Arabs always said they have time, and that they can wait 10, 20 or 50 years until we disappear,” he noted.

But Israelis, “we're in a hurry. We're destroying beautiful, flourishing communities in the name of peace, because 'something has to be done.'”

Instead, Aumann lectured, Israel should be patient and wait until the Arabs truly accept the fact of Israel's existence, regardless of how long it takes.

“If we had patience,” he said, “We might really achieve peace. [But] anyone who wants peace now won't ever get a lasting peace.”

“The very act of running headlong after the longed-for peace is precisely that which distances it from us.”

The man recognized as one of the world's leading game theorists also criticized his government's failure to demand any reciprocity from the Arabs, while under Western pressure Israel continues to dole out concessions.

“The wretched Oslo Agreement,” as he referred to it, “includes a clause in which the Palestinian Authority agrees to stop the unbridled incitement in their schools against Israel and the Jews... This clause has never been carried out, and the incitement gets worse and worse each year.”

The rape of impressionable young minds with such hate-filled propaganda “is much more serious than any terrorist acts or Kassam rockets,” the professor warned.

“If children learn in school that the state of Israel should be wiped off the map, they'll become adults who believe the same thing. And not long from now, they'll be the leaders.”

His point about time is very important.

A little-known and counter-intuitive fact is that if you go to Vegas and bet on a coin toss for an arbitrary number of times, the odds are not 50/50 - the house has an edge. The reason is because the house has unlimited funds and you don't, so it is possible that you will go on a losing streak and lose everything but that is impossible for the casino.

This may be similar. The sheer number of Arabs and Muslims who are dead-set against Israel make even equitable-sounding agreements severely tilt towards the Arab side in reality. Israel does not have unlimited time, unlimited territory ,unlimited population or unlimited resources, and the Arab world has great advantages in all those areas.

There is a well-known saying - the Arabs can afford to lose many wars against Israel, but Israel cannot afford to lose one. I believe that this fact needs to be a major part of the strategy that Israel uses when deciding whether to give more concessions or to cave to more Western pressure. Those who push for a solution now are the ones who ultimately hurt Israel, even if their hearts are in the right place.

NY Sun: Possible terror connection to Brandeis professor

The Al-Arian trial showed some evidence that a Palestinian professor at Brandeis University may have been raising money for Islamic Jihad.

Alisa Flatow, murdered by Islamic Jihad in 1995, was a Brandeis student.

Concern is mounting about the possible connections between a prominent Palestinian Arab scholar, Khalil Shikaki, and leading members of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Government wiretaps introduced at the trial of a Florida professor accused of operating the American wing of PIJ, Sami Al-Arian, show Mr. Shikaki distributed money in the West Bank for Al-Arian associates allegedly tied to PIJ - conversations the federal government argues may represent terrorist activity.

Mr. Shikaki is, among many scholarly affiliations, the founder and director of a prominent polling institute, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, and last year was named a scholar at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University. Among Palestinian Islamic Jihad's more notorious acts was an April 1995 bombing in Israel that killed a Brandeis student, Alisa Flatow.

He is also the brother of the assassinated founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fathi Shikaki, and a former director of the Florida-based World & Islam Studies Enterprise. WISE was founded by Mr. Al-Arian and connected to several other figures involved in the recent PIJ terrorism trials in Tampa, Fla., during which Mr. Al-Arian and three co-defendants were acquitted.

{...]
Wiretaps of conversations between Messrs. Shikaki, Shallah, and Hammoudeh introduced as evidence at the Al-Arian trial...suggest that Mr. Shikaki distributed money in the West Bank for Al-Arian associates, who raised the funds in America, and then stopped the money transfers in January 1995, shortly after PIJ was declared a blocked terrorist organization by President Clinton.

In a government wiretap dated January 15, 1995, in a conversation between Messrs. Shikaki and Hammoudeh, Mr. Hammoudeh says to Mr. Shikaki: "If you please, do us a favor. There is an amount of money for orphans in Nablus." In the case against Mr. Al-Arian, the government argued and introduced evidence indicating that "orphans" was a code for Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Mr. Shikaki replies: "Um ... Eah. [Pause.] [Sighs.] Okay, when you want to give it to them."

In a wiretap from January 28, 1995, Mr. Hammoudeh calls Mr. Shikaki again from Florida to inquire about the money distribution, and Mr. Shikaki refuses - five days after Mr. Clinton signed an executive order prohibiting financial transactions with terrorist organizations threatening the Middle East peace process, including PIJ.

"What have you done for us regarding the subject," Mr. Hammoudeh asks. "Ehh ... I did not do anything for you yet, by God, Sameeh," Mr. Shikaki replies. "If you have another way to give them money, a way other than my way ..."

Mr. Hammoudeh then says: "By God... I mean I can send them a check through the mail. But I thought this way is better, more secure."

This sounds exactly the way two people would speak about giving money to orphans, right?

Hamas' extreme makeover

This story almost seems like a spoof, but the sad part is that not only is it serious - but it will work in Europe.

Hamas is paying a spin doctor $180,000 (£100,000) to persuade Europeans and Americans that it is not a group of religious fanatics who relish suicide bombings and hate Jews.

The organisation, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, has hired a media consultant, Nashat Aqtash, to improve its image at home and abroad because it expects to emerge from next week's Palestinian general election as a major political force, and wants recognition and acceptance by the US and EU.

"Hamas has an image problem. The Israelis were able to create a very bad image of the Palestinians in general and particularly Muslims and Hamas. My contract is to project the right image," said Mr Aqtash, who also teaches media at Birzeit University in Ramallah.

"We don't need the international community to accept Hamas ideology, we need it to accept the facts on the ground. We are not killing people because we love to kill. People view Hamas as loving sending people to die. We don't love death, we like life."

Mr Aqtash, who describes himself as opposed to violence and "believing in the Gandhi route", has advised Hamas leaders to change their image by explaining that they do not hate Israelis because they are Jews. And he is attempting to persuade influential foreigners that Hamas is essentially a peaceful organisation that was forced to fight, but is now committed to pressing its cause through politics, not violence.

"Hamas does not believe in terrorism or killing civilians. But Ariel Sharon pressed buttons to make people angry. Sometimes we are innocent enough to react in a way that the Israelis use the reaction against us," he said.

Next week Mr Aqtash says he will address the former US president Jimmy Carter and former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt, and other prominent foreigners monitoring the election. But he admits he and his small team working from an office in Ramallah have their work cut out. Hamas is responsible for scores of suicide bombings, killing and maiming hundreds of civilians (many of them children), although not for yesterday's attack in Tel Aviv.

Hamas's founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel and it wants to impose an Islamic state on all Palestinian territory.

Mr Aqtash, who says he is not a member of Hamas and does not know where it got the money to pay him but frequently refers to the group as "we", says he has told the leadership it has to change its rhetoric. He says Hamas has not helped itself by celebrating suicide bombings; he advises against celebration. And he has told Hamas leaders not to talk about destroying Israel.

"Abdel Aziz Rantisi [the former Hamas leader killed by Israel two years ago] was on television saying things that foreigners cannot accept, like we will remove Israel from the map. He should have talked about Palestinian suffering. He should have said we need this occupation ended. Foreigners will accept this," he said.

Mr Aqtash has also advised Hamas leaders to emphasise that they are not anti-semitic or against Israelis because they are Jews. Hamas has taken the message on board. In an interview earlier this week, Muhammad Abu Tir, who is second on the Hamas election list, twice (and unprompted) offered an assurance that he is not a Jew hater.

"Loving others is part of our religion. We are not against Jews as Jews, we are against oppression," he said.

Mr Aqtash also told Mr Abu Tir to rid himself of a red beard, coloured by henna, because it makes people laugh.

The PR man wriggles away from questions about whether Hamas has more than an image problem when it sends bombers on buses and into cafes.

"I'm personally against killing. All civilians should not be killed. Killing Israeli civilians is not accepted by the international community. They think it is a terrorist act," he said.

"But Sharon was responsible for killing civilians too. During this intifada Hamas killed a thousand Israelis, some of them civilians, some of them soldiers. But the Israelis killed 4,000 Palestinians. It's a war. The Israelis use F16s; Hamas uses people. Anyway, Hamas hasn't sent a suicide bomber in a year."

Hamas is also attempting to soften its image at home with the launch of a television station in Gaza that includes a children's show presented by "Uncle Hazim" and men in furry animal suits. The station, named Al Aqsa Television after Islam's third holiest site, says it intends to put across the group's message "but without getting into the tanks, the guns, the killing and the blood". It will instead focus on religious readings, discussion programmes and a talent show.

Mr Aqtash, however, is not entirely confident in his powers of persuasion.

"How did I do?" he asked as the interview ended. "Did I make you think differently about Hamas?"

Just wait. In a few weeks we will be seeing op-ed pieces from the Eurabians saying that "Israel has to negotiate with enemies" and "Hamas has changed and embraced democracy" and "Islamic Jhad is the menace, not Hamas" and "Hamas has no control over its military wing."

Because when people want to believe something badly enough, they don't need too many reasons to ignore the truth.