Tuesday, June 12, 2007

  • Tuesday, June 12, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Another article about how Palestinian Arabs would prefer Israeli occupation to Hamastan:
Even before the civil war which Hamas and Fatah are starting in the Strip, Professor Jarbawi of Bir Zeit University maintained that the Palestinian Authority was a mere illusion of power: occupation under the guise of self government, and therefore useless.

On Tuesday, a Palestinian journalist likened the Palestinian Authority to a smoke-belching car wreck, adding that it was time to toss the keys to the Israelis. His view is shared by many Palestinian civilians in Gaza, who in recent days have told the media that they are fed up. "We've had enough, we should be so lucky as to see the return of the Israeli occupation."

Another article on how Jewish Israeli doctors keep saving Palestinian Arab lives:
In the Gaza Strip's Jab aliya refugee camp, Aref Suleiman was raised on Palestinian struggle against the Jewish state. Today he lies in an Israeli hospital bed, his body riddled with Palestinian bullets, his wounds tended daily by Israeli nurses.

For the 22-year-old Mr Suleiman, who was shot five times point blank by Hamas militants last month during a renewed bout of Palestinian infighting, this is not the Arab-Israeli conflict he learnt about as a child growing up in Gaza's desperate, rubbish-strewn alleys.

"Palestinians shoot me and Jews treat me," he laughs bitterly. "It was supposed to be different.

As Hamas destroys Fatah in northern Gaza, and as Fatah starts fighting back in the West Bank, let's go back in memory lane in those rosy days after Hamas' election when Jimmy Carter expressed his profound love for all things Hamas in February 2006 on the Larry King show:
KING: We're back with President Carter. You were there. Is there any chance of Hamas turning away from the violent statements in their concept?

CARTER: Yes, I think there's a good chance, Larry. After Arafat was elected ten years ago, I was there and he knew me and he asked me to intercede with Hamas leaders to see if at that time they wouldn't accept the new Palestinian government, the parliament members and Arafat as president.

And, I spent a while with them but some of their leaders were out of the country, so I arranged to meet with the leadership in Cairo after I left Palestine. But when the time came they canceled on the meeting, so I haven't had any contact with them since until two days after this election.

I did meet with some of the same Hamas members in Ramallah and I think they told me they want to have a peaceful administration. They want to have a unity government, bring in the Fatah members and the independent members and I think that there's a good chance that they will, of course, what they say, what they do is two different matters.

One thing they pointed out and Israeli security confirmed this to me, Hamas leadership in August of 2004 pledged themselves to apply a cease-fire and they haven't committed any actions of violence in the last 18 months. [Here is proof of that Hamas "truce" during those 18 months - EoZ]

This indicates what they might do in the future but it also indicates another thing I think is quite interesting. That is that Hamas is a highly-disciplined organization and if they say "We will not have any violence from our people," I think they can enforce what they say.
It's eerie. Almost like Jimmy was a prophet or something. He just nailed it - the discipline, the desire for peace, the chances of Hamas becoming peaceful. An amazing job.
  • Tuesday, June 12, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Unreal.

The Guidebook for Taking a Life

We were in a small house in Zarqa, Jordan, trying to interview two heavily bearded Islamic militants about their distribution of recruitment videos when one of us asked one too many questions.

“He’s American?” one of the militants growled. “Let’s kidnap and kill him.”

The room fell silent. But before anyone could act on this impulse, the rules of jihadi etiquette kicked in. You can’t just slaughter a visitor, militants are taught by sympathetic Islamic scholars. You need permission from whoever arranges the meeting. And in this case, the arranger who helped us to meet this pair declined to sign off.

“He’s my guest,” Marwan Shehadeh, a Jordanian researcher, told the bearded men.

With Islamist violence brewing in various parts of the world, the set of rules that seek to guide and justify the killing that militants do is growing more complex.

This jihad etiquette is not written down, and for good reason. It varies as much in interpretation and practice as extremist groups vary in their goals. But the rules have some general themes that underlie actions ranging from the recent rash of suicide bombings in Algeria and Somalia, to the surge in beheadings and bombings by separatist Muslims in Thailand.

Some of these rules have deep roots in the Middle East, where, for example, the Egyptian Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi has argued it is fine to kill Israeli citizens because their compulsory military service means they are not truly civilians.

The war in Iraq is reshaping the etiquette, too. Suicide bombers from radical Sunni and Shiite Muslim groups have long been called martyrs, a locution that avoids the Koran’s ban on killing oneself in favor of the honor it accords death in battle against infidels. Now some Sunni militants are urging the killing of Shiites, alleging that they are not true Muslims. If there seems to be no published playbook, there are informal rules, and these were gathered by interviewing militants and their leaders, Islamic clerics and scholars in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and England, along with government intelligence officials in the Middle East, Europe and the United States.

Islamic militants who embrace violence may account for a minuscule fraction of Muslims in the world, but they lay claim to the breadth of Islamic teachings in their efforts to justify their actions. “No jihadi will do any action until he is certain this action is morally acceptable,” says Dr. Mohammad al-Massari, a Saudi dissident who runs a leading jihad Internet forum, Tajdeed.net, in London, where he now lives.

Here are six of the more striking jihadi tenets, as militant Islamists describe them:

Rule No. 1: You can kill bystanders without feeling a lot of guilt.

The Koran, as translated by the University of Southern California Muslim Student Association’s Compendium of Muslim Texts, generally prohibits the slaying of innocents, as in Verse 33 in Chapter 17 (Isra’, The Night Journey, Children of Israel): “Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause.”

But the Koran also orders Muslims to resist oppression, as verses 190 and 191 of Chapter 2 (The Cow) instruct: “Fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. ...”

In the typical car bombing, some Islamists say, God will identify those who deserve to die — for example, anyone helping the enemy — and send them to hell. The other victims will go to paradise. “The innocent who is hurt, he won’t suffer,” Dr. Massari says. “He becomes a martyr himself.”

There is one gray area. If you are a Muslim who has sinned, getting killed by a suicide bomber will clean some of your slate for Judgment Day, but precisely where God draws the line between those who go to heaven or hell is not spelled out.

Rule No. 2: You can kill children, too, without needing to feel distress.

True, Islamic texts say it is unlawful to kill children, women, the old and the infirm. In the Sahih Bukhari, a respected collection of sermons and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, verse 4:52:257 refers to Ghazawat, a battle in which Muhammad took part. “Narrated Abdullah: During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.”

But militant Islamists including extremists in Jordan who embrace Al Qaeda’s ideology teach recruits that children receive special consideration in death. They are not held accountable for any sins until puberty, and if they are killed in a jihad operation they will go straight to heaven. There, they will instantly age to their late 20s, and enjoy the same access to virgins and other benefits as martyrs receive.

Islamic militants are hardly alone in seeking to rationalize innocent deaths, says John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. “Whether you are talking about leftist radicals here in the 1960s, or the apologies for civilian collateral damage in Iraq that you get from the Pentagon, the argument is that if the action is just, the collateral damage is justifiable,” he says.

Rule No. 3: Sometimes, you can single out civilians for killing; bankers are an example.

In principle, nonfighters cannot be targeted in a militant operation, Islamist scholars say. But the list of exceptions is long and growing.

Civilians can be killed in retribution for an enemy attack on Muslim civilians, argue some scholars like the Saudi cleric Abdullah bin Nasser al-Rashid, whose writings and those of other prominent Islamic scholars have been analyzed by the Combating Terrorism Center, a research group at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Shakir al-Abssi, whose Qaeda-minded group, Fatah Al Islam, has been fighting Lebanese soldiers since May 20, says some government officials are fair game. He was sentenced to death in Jordan for helping to organize the slaying of the American diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002, and said in an interview with The New York Times that while he did not specifically choose Mr. Foley to be killed, “Any person that comes to our region with a military, security or political aim, then he is a legitimate target.”

Others like Atilla Ahmet, a 42-year-old Briton of Cypriot descent who is awaiting trial in England on terrorism charges, take a broader view. “It would be legitimate to attack banks because they charge interest, and this is in violation of Islamic law,” Mr. Ahmet said last year.

Rule No. 4: You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there.

Militants living in a country that respects the rights of Muslims have something like a peace contract with the country, says Omar Bakri, a radical sheik who moved from London to Lebanon two years ago under pressure from British authorities.

Militants who go to Iraq get a pass as expeditionary warriors. And the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks did not violate this rule since the hijackers came from outside the United States, Mr. Bakri said.

“When I heard about the London bombings, I prayed that no bombers from Britain were involved,” he said, fearing immigrants were responsible. As it turned out, the July 7, 2005, attack largely complied with this rule. Three of the four men who set off the bombs had been born in Britain; the fourth moved there from Jamaica as an infant.

Mr. Bakri says he does not condone violence against innocent people anywhere. But some of the several hundred young men who studied Islam with him say they have no such qualms.

“We have a voting system here in Britain, so anyone who is voting for Tony Blair is not a civilian and therefore would be a legitimate target,” says Khalid Kelly, an Irish-born Islamic convert who says he studied with Mr. Bakri in London.

Rule No. 5: You can lie or hide your religion if you do this for jihad.

Muslims are instructed by the Koran to be true to their religion. “Therefore stand firm (in the straight Path) as thou art commanded, thou and those who with thee turn (unto Allah), and transgress not (from the Path), for He seeth well all that you do,” says verse 112 of Chapter 11 (Hud). Lying is allowed only when it is deemed a necessity, for example when being tortured, or when an innocuous deception serves a good purpose, scholars say.

But some militants appear to shirk this rule to blend in with non-Muslim surroundings or deflect suspicion, says Maj. Gen. Achraf Rifi, the general director of Lebanon’s internal security force who oversaw a surveillance last year of a Lebanese man suspected of plotting to blow up the PATH train under the Hudson River.

“We thought the story couldn’t be true, especially when we followed this young man,” General Rifi said. “He was going out, drinking, chasing girls, drove a red MG.” But he says the man, who is now awaiting trial in Lebanon, confessed, and Mr. Rifi recalled that the Sept. 11 hijacker who came from Lebanon frequented discos in Beirut.

Mr. Voll takes a different view of the playboy-turned-militant phenomenon. He says the Sept. 11 hijackers might simply have been “guys who enjoyed a good drink” and that militant leaders may be seeking to do a “post facto scrubbing up of their image” by portraying sins as a ruse.

Rule No. 6. You may need to ask your parents for their consent.

Militant Islamists interpret the Koran and the separate teachings of Muhammad that are known as the Sunna as laying out five criteria to be met by people wanting to be jihadis. They must be Muslim, at least 15 and mature, of sound mind, debt free and have parental permission.

The parental rule is currently waived inside Iraq, where Islamists say it is every Muslim’s duty to fight the Americans, Dr. Massari says. It is optional for residents of nearby countries, like Jordan.

In Zarqa, Jordan, the 24-year-old Abu Ibrahim says he is waiting for another chance to be a jihadi after Syrian officials caught him in the fall heading to Iraq. He is taking the parental rule one step further, he said. His family is arranging for him to marry, and he feels obligated to disclose his jihad plans to any potential bride.

“I will inform my future wife of course about my plans, and I hope that, God willing, she might join me,” he said.

Notice that the minimum age for a jihadi is 15.

Also notice that the NYT bends over backwards to minimize as "miniscule" the number of jihadis who believe in this philosophy, all the while quoting Yusuf al-Qaradawi in his support of terror - and Qaradawi has a huge influence in the Muslim world.
  • Tuesday, June 12, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Fatah executed the nephew of former Hamas leader Rantisi this morning.

Fatah was killing Hamas members taken to hospitals, so now Hamas has taken over three hospitals in Gaza.

Fatah attacked "Prime Minister" Haniyeh's house twice and his office once.

A woman died of her wounds from shelling yesterday. For some reason YNet is not including her in its grand total.

Ha'aretz adds:
Both Hamas and Fatah, on Web sites and in text messages to activists, called for the execution of the other side's military and political leaders. Both sides described the fighting, which is turning more brutal with each day, as all-out civil war.

Fatah is threatening to spread the violence to the West Bank of Hamas keeps winning in Gaza. (Already there was some gunfire in Nablus.)

Tough to keep track but I believe that the count of Palestinian Arabs violently killed by each other in 2007 is now up to 310.

UPDATE: PalToday confirms total number at 19 since Monday, also that Fatah kidnapped four Hamas-niks in Ramallah, in the West Bank.

UPDATE 2: Since daybreak, it looks like the score is Hamas 1, Fatah 1 (even though Hamas appears to be winning the war hands-down.) 312.

UPDATE 3: Ma'an Arabic (6:30 PM) counts 22 dead since Monday, making our total 315. YNet (8 PM) adds two more Hamas dead terrorists in the evening, making it 317.

UPDATE 4:
Ma'an English reports a total of 43 dead since Monday including 21 on Tuesday evening (10 Fatah, 11 Hamas) as Hamas seemd to capture the last Fatah post in northern Gaza. This puts our count at 336.

UPDATE 5:
Ma'an Arabic, always more up to date, counts 50 dead since Monday. 343.

UPDATE 6: Two more died from their wounds. 345.

Monday, June 11, 2007

  • Monday, June 11, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Some Palestinian Arabic news services autotranslate better than others. With the Wafa News Agency, it is sometimes hard to figure out exactly what is going on. But that doesn't mean I should deprive my readers of the pleasure of trying to puzzle it out:
Injuring a number of citizens shot by Qassam and operational orientation of the house during the martyr Abu Billygoats

Beit Lahia - 11-6-2007 Lofa security sources today, injured a number of citizens shot by the Qassam Brigades and the executive power, on their way to the house of the martyr leader Jamal Abu Billygoats leadership in the "open" in the draft of Beit Lahia, north of Gaza.

The correspondent, said that a group of citizens had entered the house of Abu Billygoats besieged, where they get his body, and go to the nearest hospital, and then shot and operational elements of the Qassam fire intensity, which led to a number of them.

Recall, that Colonel Abu Billygoats a secretary of the Movement "Fatah" in the north, was killed in an attack by groups of Qassam Brigades and executive at his house in the town of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip.

The house of Abu Billygoats subjected to a blockade of Qassam and operational for four hours and they bombed missile and showered him with a barrage of bullets, which led to the destruction of parts of the house and wounding a number of his family members.

  • Monday, June 11, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Ma'an Arabic reports (autotranslated, somewhat cleaned up):
Data revealed by the international observers working at the Rafah crossing show that about 14 thousand Palestinians migrated from the Gaza Strip since the Israeli withdrawal from the sector in 2005.

The phenomenon of migration was attributed by Palestinian experts, in the Israeli Maariv newspaper which published the news, to poverty, pressure from the Israeli military and political infighting going on between Fatah and Hamas. Those factors which rose levels of despair among the Palestinians and driving them into the brain of Gaza confirmed the high magnitude of the phenomenon since the families of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and the concomitant pressure an Israeli military.

226,396 people have left to Egypt via the Rafah crossing since it was handed over to the Palestinian Authority, and 212,660 have returned to the Gaza Strip. This means that the residents of Gaza had declined in that period by about 14 thousand, which is equivalent to more than 1% of the total population.
I see some analogies between the Palestinian Arabs who are leaving now and the ones who left in late 1947 and early 1948. The first wave of Palestinian "refugees" were the smart and rich ones who didn't want to be around while a war was going on, so they moved to family and friends in other Arab countries by the tens of thousands right after the UN partition vote. The ones who were left behind were the ones who were most susceptible to rumor and false reports., and they were by definition less stable than their more intelligent and wealthier brothers. (I hope to get to that episode in a few weeks - I'm only up to 1928.)
  • Monday, June 11, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Nine dead today so far, including a father and two of his sons. Don't know if they are minors.

Which means that we have reached one of those grim milestones: the PalArab self-death count for 2007 is now at an even 300.

UPDATE:
YNet counts 11 killed today, including a high-ranking Hamas member whose body was tossed near a TV station. 302.

UPDATE 2:
13 today. 304.

UPDATE 3:
17 today according to Haaretz. 308.

UPDATE 4:
The Jerusalem Post reports 3 women and a child killed at a Fatah home early Tuesday morning. Haaretz adds a 16-year old killed earlier. It appears that these were included in the earlier count.

  • Monday, June 11, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
One would think that this news would be a bit more publicized:

It's not 1979, and we're not watching it every night on television. But Iran has taken hostages again. Does anyone care? The sounds of near silence out of Washington suggest, "not as much as we should."

On May 8, the tyrannical regime in Tehran formally arrested a 67-year-old grandmother, Haleh Esfandiari. Not a sailor or marine -- like the 15 Brits Iran held hostage earlier this spring -- Esfandiari is a U.S.-Beltway-policy wonk: She is director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. She was forbidden exit from the mullahcracy, where she had been to visit her sick mother. At the airport, her passports were taken, and she's spent 2007 under house arrest -- and is now in the hellish Evin Prison. The regime says she's a pawn of the evil neocon Bush administration's plot to take over Iran.

Esfandiari is not the only American recently taken hostage by Iran. Her prison mate is another supposed American spy: Kian Tajbakhsh, a sociologist from the Open Society Institute (a New York group that promotes democracy). Iran has also detained a peace activist named Ali Shakeri and a journalist, Parnaz Azima, from the Persian version of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. A fifth American is missing there: Robert A. Levinson, a former FBI agent. (You can imagine what they think of him.)

That a number of these Americans do not exactly sound like likely members of the vast-right-wing-Jewish-conspiracy to do Zionist and Ugly American bidding means nothing to the terror regime in Iran, which thrives on "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" propaganda.

The news of the Shakeri arrest came down from the State Department days after the United States held talks with Iran for the first time in 25 years.

While I don't have easy answers ready for how to solve the problem that is a nuclear, jihadist Iran, I also have the hardest time squaring these negotiations with President George W. Bush's brave and morally clear insistence of "you're either with us or against us." He named Iran as part of an "axis of evil," encouraging terrorism against American citizens, of the sort we saw when jihadists killed some 3,000 Americans on our soil, none too far from where I work and live.

As its humiliation of Britain earlier this year proved, Iran is clearly in the mood to test how far it can go -- how much the United Nations and the United States will let it get away with. The answer appears to be, pretty far. A recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency tells us that over the course of a year, Iran has gone from 164 centrifuges to 1,312. Maybe 8,000 by year's end? Clearly, we have no time to be messing around. I'm all for diplomacy in general -- but with Iran? The country fomenting violence against our troops and allies in Iraq? The country that wants to wipe Israel off the map? The country that answers our diplomatic olive branches with hostage-taking?

But we're in diplomatic mode anyway. A diplomatic mode that -- with the names Parnaz Azima, Haleh Esfandiari, Ali Shakeri, Tajbakhsh and Robert Levinson on our minds -- should have all Americans angry, nervous and praying that the Bush administration is working on something good they're keeping close to the vest. Praying that they are as skeptical of Iran as they should be. Praying that they are willing to put in place a debilitating sanctions policy and send clear signals of support to the good men and women of Iran who want another kind of life there, free of the terrorists who run the country.

George W. Bush has had his good moments of leadership on Iran. A big believer in the yearning of all men and women for democracy, he's sent signs to the democracy activists and dissidents in Iran, some of them being held in the same Evin Prison some of our American compatriots are in right now. But, as far as we know, they are not getting the help they need from us, the West.

The State Department presumably won't be as outraged as it should be by the abduction of American citizens because they care about "engaging" those who would rather talk about "Death to America." Something's got to give. And it better be us making them do the giving, one way or another.

Kathryn Lopez is the editor of National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com). She can be contacted at klopez@nationalreview.com.

The State Department is not giving good signals:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday the detentions show ''what kind of regime this is.'' But Rice said the situation was not akin to the seizure of U.S. diplomats three decades ago.

In an interview with The Associated Press, the top U.S. diplomat said the detentions are unwarranted but will not stop the United States from trying to engage Iran on other matters, including its disputed nuclear program and alleged support of insurgents in Iraq.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

  • Sunday, June 10, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Besides the two killed and 40 injured yesterday:

A PalArab taxi driver was murdered in Nablus;
The director of sports in the Sports Ministry said that Hamas threatened to kill him if her doesn't hire four Hamas members;
A Fatah member was pushed off a 15-story building to his death;
Fatah terrorists killed a Hamas preacher;
and Ha'aretz adds one more Fatah member killed from yesterday.

Our PalArab self-death count is rising again, with the number of Palestinian Arabs violently killed by each other this year now at 288.

UPDATE: Fatah seems to like the "throw your enemies off a building" idea. Perhaps it is not considered murder in some Koranic interpretation because it is gravity that kills him, not the guy who tossed him. Either way, they threw a Hamas guy off a 12-story building, adding to the year's count: 289.

UPDATE 2: Ma'an Arabic reports a fourth man died from Sunday injuries. 290.

UPDATE 3:
PalArab "police" had a shootout with suspected drug traffickers in the Jabalya camp on Saturday, killing a 54-year old man and putting a bullet into the head of a 3 year old. If the 3-year old dies, as usual, no one will know and my count will remain under-reported. For now, we are at 291.

  • Sunday, June 10, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Asharq al-Awsat published an op-ed that is extremely rare in its honesty and criticism of the Arab world.

Ironically, the author succumbs himself to the same bigotry against Palestinian Arabs that he reveals:

Regarded by some as a temporary issue, the tragedy of the Palestinians is rarely presented to the Arab and international public opinion through the media or during political occasions. Even some Arabs and Palestinians intentionally turn a blind eye to the issue so as not to expose abuses. What is happening in Lebanon's Nahr al Bared camp today is just one such example where battles have raised an overwhelming number of questions: who are these people? How long have they lived in the camp and how? What are their rights? The answers can be found on the UNRWA's website. Tens of thousands of people crammed in undignified houses, where many of them were born and have lived for five decades.

Some Arab countries “hosting” refugees ban them from leaving [camps], from occupying a large number of positions and deny them any other legal rights. Some of them have to jump over walls and sneak out to complete their chores or to breathe and experience the outside world. One can imagine these randomly and poorly built houses during the winter chill and sweltering heat of the summer among the sewage and insufficient services. It is a shame. How can we talk about the liberation of Palestine, which we simply associate with stolen land, a desecrated mosque and a powerful enemy, while we do not allow Palestinians to settle down, earn a living or travel like all other human beings?

Our insistence to lock the Palestinians in camps and treat them like animals in the name of preserving the issue is far worse a crime than Israel stealing land and causing the displacement of people. The 60 year-old camps only signify our inhumanity and double standards. Israel can claim that it treats the Palestinians better than their Arab brothers do. It gives citizenship to the Palestinians of 1948 as well as the right to work and the right to lead a somewhat normal life, although they are treated as second-class citizens.

In Nahr al Bared and other camps, however, they are neither citizens nor humans based on weak pretexts. I cannot believe Lebanese allegations that state that they have been confining the Palestinians, being Sunnis, to camps so as not to disturb the demographic balance between the Shia and Christians. It is a ridiculous excuse that even Israel would not try to use. No one is asking for citizenship or permanent settlement for them—only permission to live like any other foreigner. Blame lies with the Arab League and Arab governments that took part in or kept silent about this moral scandal. Rather than seeking to help them or provide for their demands, they preoccupy Arab public opinion with conferences and hollow rhetoric on the issue and on refugees.

Finally, we have to be true to ourselves and ask whether the way of life of these one million people is fair.


While the article is scathing within its own context, the author still managed to soft pedal Arab abuses against Palestinian Arabs and inadvertently show how deep the Arab bigotry against Palestinian Arabs really is.

He pointedly ignores Jordan's killing over 7000 Palestinian Arab civilians in a single month - probably more civilians than Israel has killed in 40 years. He doesn't mention Syria or Egypt by name, only Lebanon. He says only that Israel can "claim" to treat PalArabs better than Arabs do - he cannot bring himself to actually admit it as a fact. And he mentions a million Palestinian Arabs in "refugee" camps - the number according to UNRWA is over 1.3 million.

Perhaps most egregiously, he himself accepts the idea that alone among all Arabs, Palestinian Arabs cannot become full citizens of most Arab countries. The idea of Palestinian Arabs becoming citizens is dismissed without discussion - of course it is absurd, of course they must remain stateless, of course we cannot treat them as true brothers.

Because, when all is said and done, even the most moderate and understanding Arab still hates Israel more than he loves his Palestinian brethren.

Friday, June 08, 2007

Unbelievable.

A single Arab family decides not to sell their house in the middle of one of the most important archaeological sites on the planet. Their neighbors do.

Israel does not condemn and demolish the Arab house. New Jewish neighbors try to be friendly, only to be rebuffed by the Arab family. The Arab can sell her house for a fortune if she decides to. She might be killed by Arabs if she does decide to sell to Jews.

The artifacts that are found at an undeniably Jewish historical site that belong to the Islamic period are not destroyed but sent to museums, including a dedicated Islamic museum in Jerusalem.

All of these facts are in the article below - but they are written in such a way as to make the homeowner some sort of hero and Israel to be the villain. Every Arab claim is made first, with an Israeli response afterwards. Indisputable facts are treated as claims. Comparisons to how Arabs have historically treated Jews in Jerusalem are never brought up. (Israel's birth is also distorted in a single, amazingly inaccurate sentence.) And Reuters proves yet again that it has an agenda, including a headline that generalizes the situation in an absurd way:
Jewish history crowds out Jerusalem Arabs
Fri Jun 8, 2007 9:09AM BST

By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Widad Sha'abani is living history -- and not liking it much.

Many of the Palestinian widow's original neighbours are gone, bought out by an Israeli heritage trust. Now there are Jewish settlers next door. Beyond sprawls an archeological dig with a political programme in which she is, at best, a guest.

"We used to have a sense of community here, but I find myself a stranger among all these people," Sha'abani, 74, said in the courtyard of her two-room home, which forms an uncanny centrepiece to the open-air museum known as City of David.

Carved out of the teeming Silwan valley, below the walls of the Old City, the development is among several projects Israel has pursued in Arab East Jerusalem since capturing it 40 years ago this week -- in the Six Day War of 1967 that many Jews saw heralding a "return" to the biblical Zion of King David.

For Palestinians like Sha'abani, Israeli annexation -- never recognised abroad -- has brought some improvement in conditions but also a sense of innate alienation under the Jewish state.

Resentment runs especially deep in Jerusalem, where vying religious claims underscore a national struggle that, decades after the city's physical unification, is nowhere near resolved.

City of David's organisers receive funding from foreign donors and the Israeli government. They make no bones about their vision of boosting the nationalist Jewish population in parts of the city abounding with 3,000-year-old Judean relics.

"In the state of Israel today we have Jews and Arabs living side by side, and also in City of David are Jews and Arabs living side by side," said Doron Spielman, the project's international director of development.

"However, we believe City of David -- biblical Jerusalem, this little 14 acres of land -- should be a project which is uniquely Jewish," he said. "The roots go back to King David."

Sha'abani, a Christian who was married to a Muslim, endures a daily din of archaeologists' drilling. Tourists peer at her from City of David's reconstructed ramparts, and sometimes wander into her property thinking it is part of the dig.

BLANK CHEQUE

There are also visits from City of David's financiers, who try to persuade her, or her sons, to sell the house and leave.

"Once they offered $50,000, and another time a blank cheque on which they said we could write any sum we wanted. But no, we refused, and we will continue to refuse," Sha'abani said.

She recalled efforts by some of her Jewish neighbours to be friendly but said cultural difference and political mistrust were insurmountable problems: "You have to be careful of their intentions. As an Arab, you know you could be manipulated."

Palestinian officials complain that East Jerusalem Arabs who sell their property to Jews often do so after years of exasperation with an Israeli municipality that is less than attentive to Muslim and Christian residents of the city.

Israelis say the transactions -- sometimes in the millions of dollars -- are legal and consensual, and brokered amid vigilante death threats to the Palestinian seller. An East Jerusalem Arab was shot dead in the West Bank last year after it emerged that a house he had sold ended up in Jewish hands.

City of David's sleekly produced Web site includes a timeline of history at the site. It skips though from 70 A.D., when the Romans razed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, to 1882, when modern Zionism first took wing.

Israel was founded amid a war in 1948 as imperial Britain withdrew from Palestine.

Spielman acknowledged that the intervening 18 centuries after the destruction of the Temple saw extended Arab, Crusader and Ottoman rule in Jerusalem. Non-Judaic antiquities uncovered at City of David are handed over to Israeli museums, including one in Jerusalem dedicated to Islamic culture, he said.

"Our dream is to have the entire world come to Jerusalem and look to the city and see the fact that Jewish families have returned after 2000 years of exile," Spielman said.

"They live above ground and beneath their feet there is Jewish history, Arab history and Christian history."

Hat tip: Zionist Spy
  • Friday, June 08, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Any feedback on my series, A Psychological History of Palestinian Arabs, is much appreciated. I'm trying to write it as quickly and thoroughly as possible but it is certainly not as well-researched or as well-annotated as a book or published article would be. Please point out any mistakes you may think I am making.

I'm really trying to get to the 1948 post, and all that I am writing now is meant to lead up to that point. (I am very surprised that I still haven't made it to the 1929 pogroms.) That would be the end of Part 1; the PalArab psychology changes dramatically from 1948 to today and that is a series of posts in itself, if people are interested.

So far, in default word processing formatting it is nine pages long, so it is already a long magazine article. I don't think that it will end up anywhere near book-length but the topic can easily fill a book. I anticipate the next post to cover the 1929 riots and political aftermath up until 1936, part 6 will be the 1936-39 disturbances and strikes, part 7 would cover World War II. I have a feeling that part 8 may go from 1945-47 and then part 9 would be the "naqba" itself. But things can change.

On the meta level, I am wondering if I am an "historian." I know when I am making conjectures, and anything that I write that is not based on solid fact bothers me, but from what I can tell "real" historians do exactly the same thing - making assumptions about the reasons events occur that can only be based on educated guesses. Historians clearly have biases as well, and their histories reflect their biases, something I am undoubtedly guilty of.

My method is that I try hard to find consistencies in behavior that can be explained by a mindset. This is harder to do than I had thought originally in this case, because the Palestinian Arabs at this point in my history had not yet coalesced into a "people" so there are a number of competing mindsets that need to be accounted for.

But, besides the fact that I am not being as careful in writing this as I would if it was for publication, am I doing anything different than historians? I do not have access to original source materials but I am relying heavily on contemporaneous newspaper articles and books that are online, as well as more conventional histories that are also online. (Google Scholar and Google Books helped tremendously for the first two parts; the Palestine Post archives will be my major source through 1948. I expect the Time magazine archives will be invaluable during the 1950s and 60s.) I have nothing but the highest regard for historians who discover and study original source material in the original languages, but I suspect that many of them are doing pretty much the same thing I am here.

Either way, I am learning a great deal that I was unaware of and I hope my readers are learning as well.
  • Friday, June 08, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
As the 1920s went on, the Arabs of Palestine underwent some changes.

While the majority stayed the same, not caring about the political issues of the day as long as they got their pay, the Mufti's power grew. He was able to use his political and financial influence, as well as his ability to manipulate Arab masses with a well-placed rumor.

At the same time, there was an explosion in illegal Arab immigration. A drought in Hauran started in 1927 and as a result over 35,000 Hauranites moved from Syria to Palestine over the next few years, many sending money back to families they left behind. They were not alone - despite an economic recession in Palestine that started in 1926, things were still better there than in the Arab countries, and tens of thousands of immigrants, mostly illegal, streamed in from Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and the Hejaz area of Arabia, and even as far as Yemen. In all, one demographer estimated 100,000 illegal Arab immigrants into Palestine from 1922-1931, and possibly another 100,000 between 1931 and 1933.

This influx increased Arab unemployment and crime in Palestine. It brought more uncertainty and less security to the existing Arab residents. There were complaints about foreign Arabs willing to work for less than the already settled Arabs. These newly unemployed and disgruntled Arabs were more receptive to the Mufti's racist ideology, as well as to be on his side as he fought his own political battles.

Inevitably, contact between Jews and Arabs increased as Jews continued to immigrate to Palestine as well. The Arab leaders feared the possibility of persecuted Jews moving to Palestine by the millions and raised this issue as their single biggest concern to the British, constantly hammering away at that theme.

The Arab senses of honor and community started combining in a way that reverberates today. Not only is one's individual honor fantastically important in Arab culture, but also the honor of the Arab people as well. Just as personal disgrace is to be avoided at all costs, so is disgrace to the larger Arab community.

When these two factors are put together, it means that Arabs will almost never accept the blame for anything they do - to accept blame is to bring disgrace on the community. If there is someone else to blame for any problems, no matter how far-fetched, the natural Arab tendency will be to grab onto any possible tenuous thread that supports the ability to blame the Others and escape responsibility.

In this early example, the illegal Arab immigration that caused the economic problems was swept under the rug, and a new scapegoat had to be found. Jews were the obvious first choice for that role. Even Arabs who were happily employed as a direct result of Jewish capital would side with their brethren in any conflict - to break ranks was unthinkable. Arab projection meant that rather than blame their own immigration for their problems, Arabs would blame Jewish immigration, even though all data showed that Jewish immigration improved the economy and Arab immigration degraded it.

Arab leaders know how much the people abhor breaking ranks with the larger Arab world, and they take advantage of it. As long as their selfish actions can be construed as being for the Arab community, any public disagreements or dissent is self-censored. In private, Arab individuals can and do argue and criticize their leaders, but their ability to organize any real opposition is hampered by this fear of disgracing the community at large and embarrassing the Arab world in view of the West.

In 1920 there were no real Palestinian Arab leaders so ordinary Arabs could criticize that year's riots without fear of either retribution or of disgracing the Arab nation. But by the end of the decade the Mufti had enough power, partially conferred by the British, that he knew that he could use the Arab population as yet another tool in his power base without fear of serious dissension from the masses.

His main target was the Jewish population of Jerusalem.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
  • Friday, June 08, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
In 1966 and 1967, Jordan did not exactly see eye-to-eye with Syria and the PLO. By any measure, King Hussein was far more moderate and pro-Western than other Arab leaders, and the US naturally wanted him to stay in power.

Nevertheless, it is a bit disconcerting to see the first highlighted paragraph in the following news story from January, 1967:

So the US sent arms to prop up a "moderate" Arab ruler in danger from more radical Arabs, and five months later those weapons meant to be used against the terrorists were used against Israel.

And the terrorists the weapons were meant to be used against are the same people whom the US now considers "moderate" and in need of bolstering by sending support and allowing weapons shipments....

Thursday, June 07, 2007

  • Thursday, June 07, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
The amount of paranoia and perceived victimhood among the uber-left is a wonder to behold.

Because, of course, the Zionists control the merely ultra-left.

From the first phrase:
I have never been one for conspiracy theories..."
to the final conclusion:
Just WHO is really running the show at the Daily Kos?

To this civilian journalist, justice and peace activist, politically progressive Christian, it sure smells like a right wing Zionist cabal.

This rambling posting shows how messed up the "progressive" thinkers are.
But it is really, really funny.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive