Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, January 13, 2011

PA official accuses Hamas of being too peaceful

Spokesperson for the Palestinian security services in the Major General Adnan Dmeiri criticized Hamas on Wednesday, saying its leaders were adopting a two-faced and inconsistent policy, by calling for calm in Gaza and "escalating conditions" in the West Bank.

"Israel gets a free-of-charge calm," Dmeiri said, referring to a series of urgent talks the party held with militant groups on Wednesday to pass on a warning from Arab leaders about firing rockets at Israel.

The meeting at a Gaza City hotel came just days after Hamas said it would ensure militant factions obeyed a national consensus truce on rocket fire, following weeks of rising tensions along the border with Israel.

"Hamas considers calm an accomplishment in Gaza, but a crime in the West Bank," the official said in a statement, accusing the party of stepping up work against the Palestinian Authority with one hand, just as it deescalates in Gaza.

He said the move was one trying to evade national conciliation.

The "moderate" PA is criticizing Hamas' decision to avoid conflict with Israel. And not for the first time, either.

Just more proof that the PA doesn't regard peace as a goal, but rather as a tactic. Within that strategy, they welcome Hamas' unofficial role as "bad cop" and slam Hamas when they go off-script.

And the ultimate goal is anything but peaceful, at least if you are a Jew who happens to live in Israel.

Just imagine if Netanyahu said this

Let's pretend that Binyamin Netanyahu went in front of the Knesset and declared, "Jerusalem is a Jewish city, the heart of the Jewish nation, and If Jerusalem does not remain in Jewish hands, there will never be peace."

How many op-eds would be written by the next news cycle castigating the Israeli premier for making such a statement? People would say that this proves he is a warmonger, openly sabotaging the peace process and intentionally provoking the entire Arab world. Any terror attacks that follow would have this "context" mentioned, as the media would be quick to label Arab violence as a reaction to Netanyahu's intransigence.

Yet on Wednesday, Mahmoud Abbas said

"Jerusalem is the heart of the Palestinian cause, and unless Jerusalem is the capital of an independent Palestinian state, there will not be peace."

This was reported, without the least bit of embarrassment, by the official Palestinian Arab news agency, Wafa as well as on the Ministry of Information website. And Abbas says this practically every day.

Isn't this the exactly the same as a Mafia-style protection racket? Doesn't it sound suspiciously like "Do what we want, and no one will get hurt."

And then when they get what they want - they ask for more.

A cold dose of reality: How PalArabs in camps think (updated)

This is an amazing article from German magazine Cicero. A helpful email correspondent assisted with the translation.

Refugees from Reality

When Ingo Way visited the Palestinian refugee camp of Aida and met the people who live there. Startled and almost scared, he reports on their grim hope to "return" one day to a country in which many have never set foot.

The Aida refugee camp has been in Bethlehem since 1950. Today just over 3,000 people live there - descendants of those Arabs who fled during the war of 1948 from Israel. the Aida camp is maintained by the UNRWA and it doesn't look like one would imagine a "camp." Aida consists of massive houses and is thus more like a neighborhood than a camp - not even a slum. The entrance to the refugee camp is decorated with a gigantic key, written in English and Arabic, which reads: "Not for Sale". What is not for sale is not difficult to guess: the Arabian soil from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, which must not be abandoned for any peace treaty with Israel. Is this an uncharitable interpretation on my part? Let's see.

I enter the Lajee Center, a kind of community center for residents of Aida, with lounges, a tea kitchen, an Internet cafe and an exhibition space, in which they are presently showing a photo exhibition with pictures from several other refugee camps. Upstairs I meet Khouloud Al Ajarma, who according to her business card is the "Arts & Media Center Coordinator of Lajee Center." Khouloud was born 23 years ago in Aida; her grandmother came from a village in Israel that does not exist anymore. She studied in England, so she speaks with marked British accent. And she talks a lot - eloquent, fluent, confident. Khouloud does not wear a headscarf; instead she wears a pink knitted cap that covered her entire head of hair. On top of the pink sweater she is wearing a black jacket, a checkered skirt that covers her knees, but that allows a look at her black tights and fashionable ankle boots. I like Khouloud - she is educated and pretty with I've always liked British accents.

After her graduation, Khouloud returned back to Aida. She is aiming to "return" to Israel, although she has not been there before. "To remain a refugee is a political decision," she admits. Hence it is for her and for the other inhabitants of Aida out of the question to start a new life elsewhere, or to even become ordinary citizens of Bethlehem - because then they lose their refugee status conferred on them by the UNRWA. "We want no normalization," says Khouloud. "We want to remain refugees to exercise our right of return one day."

At this point something must be said about the UNRWA. The United Nations has two refugee relief organizations: the UNRWA for Palestinian refugees, and another, the UNHCR, for all other refugees in the world. And for all these UNHCR refugees their status will end after the first generation. The status of refugee is not inherited. And accordingly it is the responsibility of UNHCR to ensure that refugees get full civil rights in the countries in which they have fled. Life in refugee camps is a status that UNHCR resolves to end.

UNRWA has a completely different mandate. They regard it as their task to attend to the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Lebanon, in Jordan and Syria, and they extend the refugee status over generations. And there is no end in sight. Khouloud is also, according to UN definition, a refugee - she would be even if she had stayed in England - and her children will be too. Khouloud's sister lives in Jordan and is married to a Jordanian. Through this marriage she is able to choose whether she wants to become a Jordanian citizen or remain a Palestinian refugee. She chose the latter. This inheritability of refugee status is an exception that the UN has established for Palestinians and for nobody else.

Khouloud doesn't protest this in any way. She says, "Yes, it is a special privilege. But this special privilege is our due. Why? It's about justice!" Tt is therefore not surprising that Khouloud doesn't grant any importance to the negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. "Our people do not want a two-state solution. Our leadership is not acting in our name. And the Israelis know that as well." But what do "the people" want, what does Khouloud want? "It's about the right of our country," she says. "To renounce this right would not only be a betrayal of the refugees, it would be a betrayal of Palestine. That's not what our martyrs died for."

I get a little queasy. Before me is not a screaming fanatic like Shirin A., but a young woman with a Western education that speaks with a quiet and serene voice of blood and soil as if she were discussing an upcoming business meeting. She speaks very clearly of what they wish for: a single state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, in which all Palestinians, the descendants of refugees from 1948 and are now scattered all over the world return to live, can return to live. Toclarify the scale: In the wake of Israel's independence war of 1948 left about 700,000 Arabs left the territory of present-day Israel. Some were forced, some went voluntarily, hoping to come back for a victory of Arab armies. But the Arab states lost the war they had begun. Today there are between four and five million people who hold the status of "Palestine refugees". Khouloud even speaks of eight million. If it were up to her, they would all be allowed to settle in Israel.

For Khouloud it seems to matter little that this will never happen by peaceful means. Because for the Israeli side, it is unacceptable - it would be the end of Israel as a Jewish state. "Why do we need a Jewish state?" Khouloud asks rhetorically. "Surely we can all live together in a democratic state of Palestine." This would, she says, of course, have a "Palestinian majority. " And what would happen to the Jewish minority in such a state? "Such small things," says Khouloud, "are not important. For them a solution will eventually be found."

What I find so frightening about Khouloud Al Ajarma is not so much her complete lack of self-criticism. It's not so much her radicalism -in comparison, the settlers spokesman David Wilder from Hebron comes across as a conciliatory pacifist (and he, by the way, represents only a tiny minority of Israeli society). What really frightened me is this: No representative of the UN, who built the schools and community centers in Aida, nor the EU, who gives the refugee camps such as this financial support, nor the employees of all the Western aid agencies and NGOs that are active here- none of them would tell Khouloud straight out that her demands are not only inhuman - because of course they count on the expulsion and disenfranchisement of Jews in Israel, and this is still the most favorable interpretation - but also unrealistic. Not one says, "You will not get your demands. Work instead towards a peaceful compromise with the Israelis, advocate for a two-state solution and waive your threatening right to return. Finally take over responsibility for yourself and your own people, build an infrastructure and tear down the refugee camps. Stop getting nannied by the UN and the EU, get a grip on things yourselves." No one tells them this because no one thinks that way. No one is bothered by the graffiti, which is found on every house, showing an undivided Palestine and reaffirming the explicit Palestinian claim even over Greater Tel Aviv. And that's the most depressing experience I have had in the Aida refugee camp.

I go back to the checkpoint, countless Christian tourists are with me in the queue, others approach me, little boys trying to sell us wooden flutes (recorders.) Once on the other side, I take a deep breath. I have the feeling to return to something that the writer Michael Klonovsky - also during a trip to Jerusalem and also reluctantly - called "my own value system." And I enjoy that feeling.

(h/t Silke)

UPDATE: SoccerDad reminds me of another enterprising reporter - the famous Martha Gellhorn -who actually bothered to speak to Palestinian Arabs who were in camps, in 1961 and 1967. Sounds very familiar!

Hamas Deputy Director General of Police Mansour Hamad announced that Hamas arrested 150 people during 2010 for practicing witchcraft.

While Hamas characterizes most of the practitioners of magic to be swindlers, this information was discovered during a workshop held by the religious affairs ministry entitled "Dealing with the phenomenon of witchcraft and sorcery, and its impact on the individual and society" that was held today in Gaza City.

The religious affairs minister went through the history of sorcery and said that it is affecting the stability and cohesion of families, today.

The meeting ended with a call to educate people about witchcraft, carefully keep track of the phenomenon, let people know how serious it is and hold the practitioners responsible for their actions.

(h/t Folderol)

Wednesday linkdump

Hezbollah forced the collapse of the Lebanese government, ahead of the expected indictment of Hezbollah members to be handed down "within hours or days." Meryl Yourish noticed an interesting quote:

Alloush, a former lawmaker, expressed concern about possible street violence encouraged by Hezbollah and the movement's patrons in Tehran.

"At the end of the day, it's an Iranian decision," he said.

Because, in the end, Hezbollah is merely a wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Lebanon will never be free as long as Hezbollah has effective veto power over the government.

Lee Smith at Tablet talks about the problems of reporters believing Arab statements when the Arabs have a tendency to, you know, lie. (h/t Silke)

Jennifer Rubin talks about another elephant in the room: that Muslim countries aren't quite as tolerant of religious freedom as Western countries. Shouldn't American foreign policy be pushing these human rights issues?

The State Department awarded a multi-year, multimillion dollar contract to an organization with ties to Blackwater, apparently for securing US consulate personnel in the West Bank. Hamas is complaining, calling it a "scandal" and saying it proves the collusion between the PA, the CIA and Israel. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said it is "aimed at protecting the security of the occupation and the liquidation of all the defenders of the Palestinian cause."

Which sort of makes it sound like Hamas considers US diplomats to be legitimate targets, doesn't it?

And, from JTA, "Former French actress and national sex symbol Brigitte Bardot is leading an animal rights campaign against ritual kosher and halal methods of slaughtering animals."

Jerusalem Arabs wouldn't be thrilled about dividing the city either

From Jackson Diehl in WaPo:

One of the givens of the Middle East peace process is that Palestinians are eager to be free of rule by Israel and to live in a state of their own. That's why a new poll of the Arabs of East Jerusalem is striking: It shows that more of those people actually would prefer to be citizens of Israel than of a Palestinian state.
The poll, conducted in November, may be something of an embarrassment to Palestinian political leaders, who lately have been insisting that Israel should stop expanding settlements in the eastern half of Jerusalem -- in effect giving up any claim to it -- as a precondition for the resumption of peace negotiations. This week the demolition of a hotel in an Arab neighborhood in preparation for the construction of Jewish housing prompted fresh criticism of Israel from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, while a leaked memo from European Union diplomats stationed in the city proposed that EU governments recognizeEast Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state.
The awkward fact is that the 270,000 Arabs who live in East Jerusalem may not be very enthusiastic about joining Palestine. The survey, which was designed and supervised by former State Department Middle East researcher David Pollock, found that only 30 percent said they would prefer to be citizens of Palestine in a two-state solution, while 35 percent said they would choose Israeli citizenship. (The rest said they didn't know or refused to answer.) Forty percent said they would consider moving to another neighborhood in order to become a citizen of Israel rather than Palestine, and 54 percent said that if their neighborhood were assigned to Israel, they would not move to Palestine.

The reasons for these attitudes are pretty understandable, even healthy. Arabs say they prefer Israel's jobs, schools, health care and welfare benefits to those of a Palestinian state -- and their nationalism is not strong enough for them to set aside these advantages in order to live in an Arab country. The East Jerusalemites don't much love Israel -- they say they suffer from discrimination. But they seem to like what it has to offer. Remarkably, 56 percent said they traveled inside Israel at least once a week; 60 percent said access to its Mediterranean beaches was "very important" or "moderately important" to them.
"Quite clearly there is a discrepancy between people's attitudes and the assumption that Palestinian neighborhoods should be part of Palestine," said Pollock, whose work was sponsored by Pechter Middle East polls and the Council on Foreign Relations. "That's not actually what the people want."

If those who think that the wishes of Jews are not as important as the infinitesimal chance of peace that dividing Jerusalem would supposedly create, what about the wishes of the Arabs of Jerusalem?

(h/t Steve)

Jailed Iranian journalist claims Israel, Iran like the status quo

An interesting article at Al Arabiya:

Jailed Iranian Nader Karimi uncovered an “intimate” relationship between Iran and Israel and vowed to release a book about the information he has when he is set free.

Nader Karimi, an inmate of the Evin Prison in Tehran over charges of destabilizing the regime, said that the animosity between Iran and Israel does not exceed a verbal war that is meant to give the Muslim world the impression that Iran is Israel’s staunch enemy and the protector of Palestinians.

“Observers, journalists, and political analysts got caught in this verbal war and were not capable of delving into the depths of the relationship between the two countries,” Karimi wrote in an article he sent to AlArabiya.net.

Karimi added that the Iranian and Israeli governments have been using journalists to make their “charade” credible and to deceive the world into thinking that they are enemies.

Before writing about the nature of Iranian-Israeli relationships, Karimi decided to hold meetings with representatives of intelligence agencies in both countries.

“I went to Turkey and approached Israeli agents of Iranian origins,” he wrote. “I told them I am an opposition journalist who wants to oust the current regime and that was enough to gain their trust.”

According to what Karimi heard from Mossad agents, the fall of the current regime is not in Israel’s benefit for the time being.

“Israel prefers a weak and isolated regime in Iran because this makes it easier for them to wage those verbal wars that spread terror in the region.”

Karimi said that Iran’s preoccupation with huge armament projects is in fact an Israeli and American plan to which the regime has fallen prey.

Through his meetings with Mossad agents, Karimi found it unlikely that Israel will launch a military attack against Iran.

As for Iranian intelligence agents, Karimi pretended that he made a grave mistake by contacting Mossad agents and he wanted to confess in an attempt to gain an insight of the Iranian intelligence perspective.

After spending 20 hours throughout two weeks with Mossad agents, Karimi spent more than 200 hours interrogated and tortured at Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and National Security until he was finally forced to write confessions of crimes he had not committed.

“However, I have to admit that it was much easier to extract information from Iranian intelligence agents during interrogations than to get similar information from Israeli agents.”

One of the most important conclusions Karimi reached during his long interaction with Iranian intelligence agents is that it was in Iran’s interest to have Israel launch a war of words against it every now and then or even embark on violent actions in the Occupied Territories.

“Israeli actions make it easier for the Iranian government to flex its muscles and to incite Arab public opinion.”

In his article, Karimi pointed out that despite the declared war between Iran and Israel, there are trade relations between the two countries.

“Several goods, like fruits, are brought from Israel, and many Israeli companies have businesses in Iran. They are dealing with the economy of the country they call ‘the enemy’.”

Karimi added that the Iranian government has never made a list of Israeli commodities or companies that should be banned and that it is not expected to do so.

According to Karimi, since the Iran-Iraq war, Iran brokers have been buying expensive weapons and equipment with the help of Israeli brokers.

Some of what he says has a ring of truth to it, but he doesn't address the elephant in the room: the Iranian nuclear program. If that didn't exist, then the stuff he says might make sense, but in fact Iran is hellbent on becoming a regional superpower - and acquiring nuclear weapons is only one way to accomplish that.

The existence of the program skews his entire analysis, if he is telling thew truth to begin with.

Ahmadiyya adherents persecuted by PalArab court

Last year there were a couple of articles about persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims by Palestinian Sunnis:

Palestinian Arabs belonging to the little-known Ahmadiyya sect of Islam have come under increased persecution, while being denied basic protections by the Palestinian Authority.

Ahmadi Muslims follow the teachings of Mirzam Ghulam Ahmad, whom they believe to have been the Muslim messiah. They reject the use of violence in all cases, and believe that mainstream Islam has been distorted into a blood-thirsty religion.

For their beliefs, top Palestinian clerics have ruled that the Ahmadi Muslims among them are apostates, a label that puts them in danger of regular acts of intimidation, violence and other mistreatment. As apostates, Palestinian Ahmadis are also stripped of their rights in court, meaning they have no legal recourse against their more violent Sunni neighbors.

The Palestinian Authority is “encouraging the cold-blooded murder of Ahmadis” by failing to take concrete action to protect the community, Mohammed Sharif Ouda, head of the Ahmadi community in Israel, told Arutz Sheva radio.

Palestine Today has an article giving an example of this persecution.

An Ahmadiyyah couple's marriage was annulled last year by a Palestinian Arab court because their beliefs were considered "apostasy." They are now appealing the decision to the Palestinian Supreme Court, saying that it "constituted interference in their personal lives and in contravention of Islamic and Palestinian laws in force in the Palestinian territories...[they] consider what was done to be a conspiracy against them aimed at destroying their lives."

The hearing was postponed to the end of this month.

Jeffrey Goldberg's mistake

Here is the crux of a column by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic:

Peace will not come without the birth of a Palestinian state on the West Bank which has its capital in East Jerusalem. I'm as sure of that as I am of anything in the Middle East. Of course, peace may not come even with the birth of this state -- I'm no longer quite so sure in the possiblity, or at least in the availability, of peace -- but it will surely never happen without it.

What is peace?

If peace means the settlement of all conflict with everyone living happily side by side and the lion lying down with the lamb, then perhaps Goldberg has a point - Palestinian Arabs will not be happy or satisfied without Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian Arab state, and, by definition, there will never be peace.

From a purely logical perspective, there is no reason Jerusalem must be the capital of "Palestine." Ramallah is fulfilling the role nicely. The only reason it supposedly must be their capital is because they assert it, repeatedly. Together with that demand is their implicit threat that peace will never happen without dividing Jerusalem. Goldberg, for good reason, believes them.

There is a major flaw with this thought process, though.

There are a number of other demands that the Palestinian Arabs have that are equally critical if you believe their statements. First and foremost is the "right to return" - to destroy Israel demographically by forcing Israel to accept millions of so-called "refugees" within its borders. They have been just as adamant and intransigent concerning that demand as they have been towards Jerusalem. If you take their statements at face value, the two are equally important.

And if you are taking their demands at face value, there will never be peace without the "right to return" just as there will never be peace without their control over what Goldberg mistakenly capitalizes as "East Jerusalem."

So why is the demand for Israel to capitulate on Jerusalem considered by Goldberg a pre-requisite for peace, while their demand for the right to return is not?

The reason is obvious. Goldberg doesn't believe that Israel would ever accept the right to return, and therefore it is, to his mind, off the table. He is making an assumption that in any final peace agreement, the Palestinian Arabs will drop their demand for "return."

(The correlary to this is that if Israel had been adamant about a united Jerusalem, and if Barak had never put it on the table, Goldberg would not be writing this column today. It is Israel's lack of fortitude on the Jerusalem issue that makes Goldberg believe that Jerusalem is negotiable while "return" is not.)

So we have seen that the only reason to believe that Jerusalem is a non-negotiable demand is because Palestinian Arabs say it is. But they say that the "right to return" is just as non-negotiable. Goldberg's assumption that the latter demand will somehow not be an impediment to peace while the former would be is based on nothing more than wishful thinking and a belief system wedded to the idea of "everyone knows what a final agreement will look like."

But has Goldberg heard a single word from any Palestinian Arab leader, ever, that they would be more flexible on "return" than on Jerusalem? If they are equally important to the Palestinian Arab mind - and they are, undoubtedly - then Goldberg must admit that his vision of "peace" is impossible. While he uneasily admits that peace may not be possible even with splitting Jerusalem, the fact is that his own logic shows that it is impossible without "return" - which means that a real permanent peace is, literally, impossible.

This is not the only unstated assumption that Goldberg makes about what Palestinian Arabs will compromise on. It was only a couple of months ago that the Palestinian Ministry of Information posted a paper on their website asserting that there was no Jewish connection to the Western Wall. Even though that paper was removed under pressure from the US, it has been repeated in the official Palestinian Arabic media since then. This was Arafat's position and it is, today, the position of the "moderate" PA. Goldberg assumes what "everyone knows" - that the PLO would allow Jewish holy places would remain under Israeli rule. But that assumption is also belied by the facts, facts that Goldberg is unwilling to consider.

It is very distasteful for most people to contemplate that "peace is impossible." Americans especially are brought up to believe that all problems are solvable, and we have a blind spot to accepting that some problems cannot be solved. It is this blind spot that Goldberg is falling victim to. He believes, passionately, that peace is required, and that the only way to peace is with Israel compromising on the spiritual soul of its nation. And while he admits that it may not be enough, the very chance for peace is worth the sacrifice in his mind.

What is that sacrifice? At the very least, it means the forcible removal of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. As Yaacov Lozowick points out (follow the links as well,) it also means some very bizarre choices must be made in dividing Jerusalem. We are in a strange world where dividing a city that has always been unified with the exception of 19 anomalous years is considered a sine qua non for peace.

But what if peace, in the sense that Goldberg uses the term, is impossible? What if the "right to return" is non-negotiable as well? What if significant swaths of Palestinian Arab society do not accept any negotiated agreement? What if the Kotel once again becomes a battleground as it was in 1929?

Now, let's consider what kind of peace Jerusalemites would have under a divided city. It would be dangerous for Jews to visit their holy places. It is easily conceivable that instead of rocks, the Arabs who are a bit more extreme would be able to bring in RPGs and small rockets into their areas. (Only last week was the plot to shoot a missile to an Israeli sports stadium foiled - what would stop that from having been successful if Jerusalem was divided?) Today's sense of security would be instantly replaced with fear and uncertainty for all of Jerusalem's residents, and the city would suffer greatly as people are forced to leave.

The new "peace" would be worse than what we have today.

If we change our definition of "peace" from the fantasy idea of everyone in the Middle East living happily together to a more pragmatic "absence of conflict"," then we are suddenly given far more options than what "everyone knows."

Even with the tensions in the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood now referred to as Sheikh Jarrah, Jerusalem today is largely peaceful. It is certainly far more peaceful than it was seven years ago during the height of the intifada - a war that was the result of a "peace process" failing, it will be recalled. It is certainly more peaceful than it was in 1948 or 1936 or 1929. Only since Israel reunified the city has it been possible for Jews to walk to their holiest places without fear of being beaten or killed.

If this sort of peace is the goal - if we accept that the comprehensive peace that would make everyone happy is literally impossible, and we decide we want to manage conflict rather than eliminate it - then Jerusalem must remain undivided. It must remain under Jewish control. Only under Jewish rule has there been truly free access to the holy places (with the ironic exception of Jews being able to visit their own holiest spot on the Temple Mount.) Only under Jewish rule has Jerusalem grown and thrived.

It is not a huge surprise to find that under Jewish rule there is a museum of Islamic art in a unified Jerusalem. Can one imagine a similar museum of Jewish art under an Arab-controlled portion of Jerusalem?

Only under Jewish rule can there be a reasonable peace for the residents of Jerusalem, Arab and Jew alike.

Too many people are ready to sacrifice the lives and safety of thousands of people for the tiny chance for a "peace" that will never be. Set your sights a little lower and try for a realistic alternative, and peace is not only possible - it is here, today.

It would be the height of folly to create a city that would inevitably be at war with itself in the name of "peace."

Egyptian academic blames US, Israel for church attack

From Al Masry al-Youm:

An Alexandria University professor has accused Israel and the US of being behind the New Year's church bombing in Alexandria that killed 23 and injured around 100.

Ismail Saad, professor of political sociology at Alexandria University, told Al-Masry Al-Youm that Israel, the US and Europe all seek to provoke unrest in Egypt so that its attention will be focused on internal issues.

Saad pointed to attempts to limit Egypt's political role in the region and said that his country was besieged by several powers. "First, they bombed a church, but then they will do it to a mosque," he said.

The professor said he believed that restoring ties with Turkey and Iran is the best way to confront external pressures.

Saad maintained that the Alexandria blast demonstrates plots against Egypt, ruling out the possibility of the culprit being Egyptian.

So I guess this guy was really a Mossad agent:

CAIRO (AFP) - A policeman shot dead a Christian on a train in Egypt Tuesday and wounded five other people, including the man's wife, as tensions remain high after a New Year's church bombing killed 21 people, the interior ministry said.

The shooter's motives were not immediately clear, but the ministry said at least four of the five people hurt were Coptic Christians.

And a Coptic bishop told AFP that the gunman, named by the ministry as Amer Ashur Abdel Zaher, had sought out Christians on board the train and shouted a Muslim slogan -- Allahu Akbar -- as he opened fire.

The policeman, who was said to be on his way to work, boarded a stationary Cairo-bound train at Samalut, in the southern Minya province, and began shooting with his service weapon, the ministry said.

He killed Fathi Said Ebeid, aged 71, and wounded his 61-year-old wife.

Two of the others wounded were said to be in critical condition.

And a detail:

Sources said the assailant had checked passengers for the green cross traditionally tattooed on the wrists of Coptic Christians in Egypt. After identifying several Copts, the culprit killed one of them and injured five others.

When is "offensive Jihad" Islamically approved?

Translating Jihad notices a recent fatwa on IslamOnline.net, one of the most influential Muslim websites worldwide:

Fighting Against Non-Muslims -- Legitimacy and Rulings

islamonline.net, 8 Jan 2011

Q: When is it permissible to fight against non-Muslims, and when is it not permissible? Please elaborate.

Mufti: Dr. 'Imad Mustafa, Professor of Fiqh and Its Origins, at the Universities of al-Azhar and Umm al-Qary

In the name of God, praise be to God, and prayers and peace be upon the prophet of God, etc.:

Fighting against non-Muslims is what is known in Islamic jurisprudence as Jihad in the path of God. Jihad is a prescribed duty in cases of aggression from the infidels against Muslims, for we must resist them, make jihad against them, and defend against them. This is according to the text of the Qur'an, for Almighty God has said: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors" (Qur'an 2:190). This type of jihad is known as defensive jihad, and it is a duty agreed to by all Islamic scholars and all who are wise, and is endorsed in our day by recognized international charters. However, the occupier and his associates have come to label this "terrorism."

Then there is another type of fighting against the non-Muslims known as offensive jihad. Islamic scholars have differed on the issue of offensive jihad, which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression or assistance to him. Some scholars have gone as far to say that this jihad is illegitimate, while others have gone as far as to say that it is legitimate and even required.

However there can be no disagreement that offensive jihad is not totally prohibited, for two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam's border, to extend God's religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula, and to save the captive and weak. [...]

Ny the way, Translating Jihad is a very worthwhile site to follow. Here is another good post from today.

Arabs saying that Jerusalem is not...Jerusalem

MEMRI reports:

At a conference convened in Damascus by the Palestinian Culture Institute and the Palestinian Center for Documents and Manuscripts, participants claimed that the Zionists have forged archeological artifacts and inscriptions to back up their claims about Jerusalem. The general coordinator of the Arab Archeologists Union, Muhammad Bahjat Qubaisi, said that there are historical proofs that Al-Quds is not Biblical Jerusalem, adding that none of the Zionist claims are supported by ancient texts from the region.

Well, except for the ones are are.

The original article is here.

Meanwhile, Palestine Today quotes Secretary-General of the Arab League for Palestine Affairs Mohamed Sabih as warning against Israel's "Judaizing" of Jerusalem.

Sabih charged that the Jews were falsifying history by saying that Jerusalem is Jewish - and then he stated that "Egyptians built 90% of the city of Jerusalem."

BBC just can't resist taking a dig at Israel

The BBC has a welcome story about the plight of Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon. But it cannot even consider writing a story about Palestinian Arab suffering without taking a shot at Israel. The story starts with:

It is sometimes controversially said that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon live in worse conditions than those during the Israeli occupation in Gaza.

Is that idea "controversial"? Let's see.

	Gaza	Lebanon
Are there restrictions on the jobs they can have?	No	Yes
Are there any restrictions on where they can live?	No	Yes
Are they systematically discriminated against by their government?	No	Yes
Are they forced to live in camps?	No	Yes
So where exactly is the "controversy"? More from Just Journalism.