Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Lebanon?

I do not place much stock in anonymous Hezbollah terrorists, but this story is still interesting:

The cease-fire acted as a life jacket for the organization [at the end of the Second Lebanon War]," a Hizbullah officer said in an interview aired by Channel 10 on Tuesday. The officer shown on Channel 10 said the organization's gunmen had been running low on food and water and facing rapidly diminishing arms supplies.
In the interview, the unnamed officer said Hizbullah gunmen would have surrendered if the fighting last summer had continued for another 10 days.
The officer also said that many Hizbullah commanders were ordered to hide before the war started, and that the gunmen who remained were forced to fire Katyusha rockets from inside urban populations because of the IDF's efficiency in destroying launchers minutes after a launch had been detected.
He said that when the gunmen relocated to cities and villages, they knew innocent civilians would be hurt as a consequence.
The quick arrival of IAF jets at rocket-launch sites, sometimes only four to five minutes after a Katyusha was fired, "surprised" Hizbullah, the officer said.

If this is true, it is more evidence that stopping a war too soon is almost as bad as defeat.

A Psychological History of Palestinian Arabs, part 11

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
December, 1948 was notable for one other event: the passing of UN General Assembly Resolution 194. The non-binding resolution has been cited innumerable times by Arabs as the source for Israel's obligation to accept all Palestinian Arab refugees. It says nothing of the sort.

The resolution included a number of parts, none of which has ever been implemented:

Protection of all holy sites in the area and allowing free access,
Placing Jerusalem under UN control,
Allowing free access to all parts of Jerusalem by everybody,
And, most famously: "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

This paragraph does not only apply to Arab refugees but to Jews as well.

Throughout the succeeding decade, Israel steadfastly emphasized the section saying "refugees wishing to...live at peace with their neighbors" and the Arab world equally steadfastly ignored that phrase. Israel's position was that the Arabs who fled, by and large, were not willing to live in peace with a ruling Jewish government, and it felt that this provision could only be implemented in the context of a full and comprehensive peace plan with all neighboring Arab states. Not surprisingly, the Arabs rejected that interpretation.

Meanwhile, most of the Palestinian Arab refugees suffered at the hands of their respective host countries.

In 1949, the UN appointed an Economic Survey Mission to the area, headed by Gordon Clapp, former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Its findings suggested that the UN create a set of development and public works projects meant to employ Arab refugees, increase their standard of living, improve the economies of the host Arab countries and thereby increase the chances for peace. As a result, the UN created in December, 1950 the UN Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, to implement these recommendations as well as to continue to provide direct aid to (Arab) refugees that had been done by other interim UN agencies.

In April, 1949, King Abdullah officially changed the name of his country to The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, clearly planning to annex the West Bank and to implement his initial plans for a Greater Syria. Sure enough, a year later Jordan did annex the West Bank and offered citizenship to all the Palestinian Arab refugees in Jordan, making it the only Arab nation ever to offer citizenship to Palestinian Arabs.

Back in 1947, right before the UN partition vote, King Abdullah secretly met with Golda Meir and they agreed to a peace treaty and probably agreed to divide up the Arab partition of Palestine between them. This agreement was effectively abrogated when the Arab Legion attacked the new state of Israel as soon as it announced independence. Now, King Abdullah was unilaterally implementing his own annexation of part of Western Palestine, although almost no nations recognized this as legal.

It is not clear how ordinary Palestinian Arabs felt about being in the middle of all this political activity. Time magazine in 1949 stated that most Arab refugees had an "aversion" to returning to their homes similar to Jewish attitudes to returning to Europe. But by the early 1950s, the UNRWA reported that most Palestinian Arabs did want to return to their homes. Both accounts may be right.

From the Arab perspective, the UN Resolution 194 gave them a huge incentive to make Palestinian Arab lives miserable. The language states "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." This meant that the refugees who didn't want to return to their homes would have to settle in other Arab countries, something that the Arab leaders did not want. (Again, Jordan was the exception, willing to take in the Palestinians as long as it gained land as part of the deal.) The Arab leaders therefore dragged their feet in implementing any of the UNRWA suggestions on building up large public works projects, as the only possible result would be that the refugees would get more comfortable in their new lands and want to stay.

Even though they signed agreements with the UNRWA on development and employment programs for the Palestinians, the Arab states continuously opposed those same programs as being a back door through which Palestinians would be resettled in their lands. For its part, the UNRWA intended exactly that, as it deemed the chances of Israel allowing all the refugees back to be exceedingly low.

Palestinian Arab refugees who had wanted to move and start new lives in other Arab lands were forced to stay in near-starvation conditions in refugee camps - and were told by their Arab hosts that Israel had the sole responsibility for their well-being, and that they can only move back to Israel. Given such circumstances, it is no wonder that most Palestinian Arabs would choose to move to Israel rather than stay in refugee camps indefinitely.

The Arab states continued to use the Palestinian refugees as pawns in their attempts to destroy Israel. Even after Jordan offered citizenship to 500,000 refugees and their children, the Arab nations continued to lobby for Israel to repatriate them to Israel. The Arabs would also tell the UN, year after year, that Jewish immigration to Israel needed to be stopped, under the pretense of refugee welfare.

The UNRWA continued to try to build its public works program through the early 1950s but it met with little success as the Arab nations continued to stonewall. It had other formidable obstacles as well - many Palestinian Arabs would lie to census takers and "borrow" children from friends to increase their ration cards, and the UN had a very difficult time determining the number of refugees truly in need. UNRWA recognized in 1951 the efforts of organized "troublemakers" to try to indoctrinate the refugees, at that time with only limited success. There was also a concerted anti-UN campaign in the Arab world designed to hurt UNRWA, both in the press and from a series of bombings, which the UN believed to be centrally managed. The bulk of its budget came from the United States.

The Arab opposition to an economic solution to the Palestinian refugee problem meant that the UNRWA morphed from its original goal of using economic means to eliminate the refugee problem into an almost-purely aid organization. To facilitate its mandate to provide relief to the refugees, the UNRWA was forced to create a working definition of "refugee" that is totally at odds with any legal definition. While no official document defined them this way, the UNRWA working definition is "Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948."

When the UNRWA initially included children of refugees as being refugees themselves, it was no doubt for practical reasons as it ensured that they could continue their relief efforts. Over time, though, as no other definition surfaced, the UNRWA's working definition has taken on its own life and paradoxically it has ensured that the Palestinian "refugee" problem would only increase over time, as opposed to every other refugee problem in history.

The agency continued to try to provide jobs to Palestinian Arabs, and not surprisingly, the UNRWA hired many Arabs itself. This had the effect over time of turning the UNRWA from its original purpose of helping solve the refugee problem to one that more recently only helps perpetuate it, and the early warnings that it gave about the dangers of an entire people at the mercy of welfare has come true under its own watch. The Palestinian Arabs throughout the 1950s changed from a proud, independent people who wanted more than anything else to honorably raise their families into a defeated and despised people who were utterly dependent on outside, Western help just to eat.

Israel showed far more flexibility on the refugees than it is given credit for nowadays. Its first proposal, in mid-1949, was to act like Jordan intended - to annex Gaza and take responsibility for all 200,000 Gaza refugees, making them all citizens of Israel. This was rejected outright by the Arab nations.

Israel then proposed, in August 1949, to accept 100,000 Arab refugees (increasing its Arab population to 250,000) as long as this acceptance was part of a comprehensive solution to the refugee plight, including Arab resettlement of the remainder. This was also considered unacceptable to the Arabs. All Arab counterproposals involved either Israel accepting practically all refugees or Israel compensating the Arab nations with land in exchange for some responsibility for refugees.

There was a stark contrast between how Israel handled refugees from 1948 within its borders and how Arab nations handled their refugees. Israel ended up with some 48,000 refugees under UNRWA care within Israel's borders after the 1948 war (17,000 Jews and 31,000 displaced Arabs) by 1952 Israel agreed with UNRWA that its services would no longer be needed and the remaining refugees would be taken care of by Israel alone. The UN described Israel's feelings of taking handouts for its citizens, Jewish and Arab, as "repugnant."

Beyond that, Israel also allowed some 30,000 additional Arabs to come into Israel and become citizens as well, mostly in the interests of family unification. These 30,000 also became citizens and integrated into Israeli society. Israeli officials pointed out that if the Arab world would have accepted the same proportion of Arab refugees to their own population, there would have been no refugee problem at all.

Unfortunately for the Palestinian Arabs, such a solution was not forthcoming. Even many of the Jordanian refugees were kept in camps. Not only that, but continuous Arab incitement against Israel started raising up a rootless population indoctrinated in hate for the Jewish state, far beyond any antipathy the Palestinian Arabs felt towards Zionists before 1948.

Palestinian Arabs started terror attacks against Israel from neighboring states shortly after the war ended. The "Fedayeen" were actively supported by Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, although primarily trained by Egypt. Effectively, these Palestinian Arabs were encouraged to engage in a crime and terror campaign against Israel - the first raids were more aimed at stealing equipment than at murder, but by 1952 it had morphed into a full-blown terror campaign. More than 400 Israelis were killed and 900 injured during these terror operations from 1949-1956. The Egyptians did not deny their involvement behind these attacks, they even boasted about it in their media although the raids were in clear violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

Iranians learning Hebrew, Israelis learning Farsi

From YNet:

The "intelligence war" between Iran and Israel is gaining momentum, as both countries' intelligence services are increasing efforts to recruit Hebrew and Farsi speakers to their ranks.

The Iranian regime needs Hebrew speakers to work as translators, intelligence agents and as part of its propaganda machine against Israel. The main source of Hebrew speakers is Palestinian students studying abroad or Palestinian terrorists sent for military training in Iran and Lebanon.

One of the most prominent centers for Hebrew studies is located at Iran's embassy in Beirut, where Hizbullah members learn Hebrew at the Islamic Culture and Education Center.

The embassy owns a vast library of Hebrew newspapers and books, including even children's' books. It was there that Hizbullah had trained, with the aid of Palestinians, a large group of fighters who were placed in charge of tapping Israeli communication systems, in a bid to collect intelligence on the "Zionist enemy" before and during the Second Lebanon War.
According to the Shin Bet, Israeli Arab students studying out of the country are an attractive target for Hizbullah, because it is easier for the organization to recruit and train them abroad.

Only recently a young Israeli Arab woman who was studying dentistry in Jordan was arrested at the Allenby Bridge border crossing on suspicion of collaborating with Hizbullah. The woman admitted in her investigation she was contacted by the group's agents in Amman and was offered to serve as its agent in Israel.

Meanwhile, in Israel, the Mossad has recently published an ad in the newspaper inviting Farsi speakers to apply for "an interesting, challenging position," which apparently includes listening in on Iranian transmissions and translating materials published in Iran.

For the rest of us, we have to survive using automated translation tools. Although the only Farsi-English tool I've seen is very poor.

Olmert crosses another Israeli "red line"

In diplomacy, one of the worst things you can do is abandon your principles, even for a second. Once you allow even a theoretical exception to a previously iron-clad rule, there is no going back.

There was a time when Israel referred to the territories, consistently, as "disputed" and not "occupied." There is a major difference between the two in international law and Israel was on unpopular but strong legal ground to maintain that position - and the US supported it. Sharon's and Olmert's rush to abandon the territories and evacuate all Jews has fatally undermined that policy, and one hardly hears the word "disputed" anymore from Israeli officials. As a result, Israel's attempts to hold on to large settlement blocs while giving up most of the territory has no legal basis whatsoever, and relies entirely on nonexistent Palestinian Arab and "good faith."

There was a time when Israel could tell the world unambiguously that Jerusalem was its undivided, eternal capital. Then Ehud Barak, now considered one of the more hawkish members of Olmert's government, offered to share Jerusalem with Yasir Arafat. It may have been under very a specific context but that is irrelevant now - the issue of Jerusalem is considered "negotiable" forever.

One after another, red lines have fallen. Paradoxically, these falling red lines have worked against any chances of peace, as they strengthen the resolve of Israel's enemies towards the next set of red lines.

The latest red line was Olmert's seemingly symbolic allowance of 41 Iraqis who consider themselves Palestinian (appears that they have never lived there themselves) to immigrate into the West Bank. This "goodwill gesture" crosses yet another red line in longstanding Israeli policy, and rather than promoting peace, it gives the PalArab "right of return" legitimacy - it strengthens the Arab "red line" on not allowing Palestinian Arabs, even after many generations, to ever integrate into any other society:

The minister of information of the caretaker government, Riyad Maliki, on Monday stated that he views the return of the 41 Palestinian refugees from Iraq as a first step in the return of all of the Palestinian refugees in Iraq to the West Bank.

Speaking from Cairo to Ma'an, he stated that the Palestinian government is to pursue the issue and to make the necessary consultations with the Israeli government to persuade it to let all of the 18,000 Palestinian refugees in Iraq return.

The minister was glad to announce that he "succeeded in returning part of them," adding that the government is doing everything in its power to relocate all of the refugees to the West Bank.

Ironically, not only does this hurt Israel immeasurably, but it also hurts the millions of so-called Palestinians who live in Arab countries as their chances of ever becoming citizens have just dropped even further: the Arab governments can continue to wash their hands of any responsibility for the events of 1948, now that Israel has symbolically taken that same responsibility.

A goodwill gesture has no legal or political benefits, and its only possible wishful reciprocal benefits evaporate almost immediately. But the negative repercussions from such gestures can last forever.

A wise leader would know this.

Freedom of the press, PalArab style (VI)

On Monday, Hamas tried to show its best face to foreign journalists:

'Gaza today is better,' Ismail Haniyeh, still calling himself Palestinian prime minister, told dozens of foreign reporters who joined a bus tour of the coastal enclave that took in a prison, a church, border posts and security installations.

'But the strangling siege ... has affected Gaza very much,' he added, two days before U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice embarks on a new round of peace diplomacy in Israel and the West Bank. 'I hope on your visit you have seen the suffering and will convey to the world the reality of the suffering.'
...
A Hamas official, acting as tour guide, drove home the point the party wished to make: 'You can see now Gaza is more calm,' he said as the buses drove through Gaza. 'Everywhere in Gaza is under control. Everyone bids you welcome. You can go anywhere.'
Journalists were shown round a prison which once housed Hamas political prisoners and now, Hamas officials said, houses only common criminals who in turn spoke well of their treatment.

One said he was serving six months for drug offences but he expected remission for learning to recite from the Koran.

But at the same time, Hamas was seizing newspapers that it didn't think were pro-Hamas enough:

Hamas militiamen on Monday prevented the distribution of three Fatah-affiliated newspapers in the Gaza Strip and briefly detained the local agents of the dailies.
This is the first time that the newspapers, published in the West Bank, were prevented from distribution in the Gaza Strip.
Palestinian journalists said thousands of copies from the three newspapers were seized by Hamas's paramilitary Executive Force on the Palestinian side of the Erez border crossing. The newspapers were taken aboard a truck to a Hamas security installation nearby in the town of Beit Hanan.
According to the journalists, six Palestinians working for the newspapers were detained by Hamas for questioning. Two of them, Hatem Kishawi and Samir Jaber, work for the Fatah-controlled Al-Ayyam, which serves as a mouthpiece for the Palestinian Authority. The other four work for the PA-funded Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda and Al-Quds, a pro-Fatah newspaper owned by a family from east Jerusalem.
Islam Shahwan, spokesman for the Executive Force, announced that the move was aimed at sending a warning to the newspapers to stop inciting against his force and Hamas. "They are publishing many lies about Hamas and the Executive Force," he charged. "In addition, they are ignoring the achievements of the Executive Force in imposing law and order in the Gaza Strip."
The three newspapers have been highly critical of Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip and have openly supported Fatah in its power struggle with the Islamist movement.
Some Hamas leaders recently called for banning the distribution of the newspapers in the Gaza Strip because of their anti-Hamas stance and in response to the PA's ongoing crackdown on Hamas figures and institutions in the West Bank.
Hamas's capture of the Gaza Strip has forced most Palestinian journalists and editors there to toe the line and refrain from criticizing the Islamist movement.
Gaza-based news Web sites that were once critical of Hamas have begun publishing stories that reflect negatively on Fatah.

Then again, why shouldn't Hamas try to control the news? Hezbollah managed quite well last summer.

The most '60s song

I was just on hold waiting for some technical support and I heard Red Rubber Ball by The Cyrkle. It made me wonder what song is most emblematic of the '60s - the song that when you hear it you are instantly transported back to that era, not necessarily the most popular song of that time. And maybe not even a song you like - for example,the awful Convoy might be very representative of the '70s.

My vote would go to Incense and Peppermints by Strawberry Alarm Clock.

At the risk of looking like a blogger just trolling for comments...what do you think?

The IDF's miserable hasbara failure

Here's the text of a letter sent to the IDF by Omedia:

To: Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, IDF Chief of Staff

From: The Omedia Editorial Board

Subject: Information Failure – A Danger to Israel

July 15, 2007

Dear Sir,

Countless words have been written on the importance of Israel's information policy. The State Comptroller's report of 2002 proclaimed the need for a new media doctrine and noted the dangers inherent in the IDF's fixed mindset. In recent years information has become one of the primary arenas on the new battlefield, an arena that can strengthen or weaken Israel's legitimacy around the world.

Despite the tumultuous warnings it seems nothing has been learned – neither from the Intifada nor even the Second Lebanon War. Omedia's monitoring of military information policy consistently reveals a severe failure in the IDF Spokesperson's approach to the information field, both in managing data and failing to implement lessons learned so far.

A representative study we conducted (attached in an appendix to this letter) yielded the following findings:

The IDF Spokesperson is not utilizing the Internet as an essential information tool: It has no information infrastructure, has no ready material on its various activities, is negligent in supplying data concerning the Intifada and the recent war and translation into English is of poor quality. The IDF Spokesperson's website is updated with laconic messages, no more, and is far from meeting media standards, even compared to websites run by Palestinian terror organizations – both in terms of information provided and update frequency.

There is no professional response to journalistic queries: The slow response to information requests from the IDF Spokesman's Unit is detrimental to military interests. As part of this failing, the IDF does not provide data, tables, and figures concerning the conflict. The result: the system lacks credibility.

There is no IDF website in Arabic: This is tantamount to ignoring a major audience in the battle. In contrast, note the success of the Foreign Ministry's Arabic and Persian websites.

Here are a numbers of recent examples, conveying the scope of this failure:

1. Having been unable to find any data or photo (posted by the IDF) concerning Bil'in on the Internet, we approached the IDF Spokesperson for background material: documentation, photos, numbers, data – whatever the unit could provide in writing on the Palestinian village. Our goal was to try and counter accusations the IDF has been using "deliberate violence." The IDF took 11 days to answer our questions. The reply included a few poor-quality photos unworthy of publication. The IDF provided us with little information on the matter, contenting itself with a short, laconic table concerning the dates of the protests, the number of protestors and a three-word note whether IDF forces were injured or not. The IDF admitted it did not think of sending documentation teams and professional photographers to capture the protestors injuring soldiers. The IDF Spokesperson only sent in unskilled NCOs.

2. An Omedia representative approached the IDF requesting information on Qassam strikes inside Israel – how many rockets landed within Israel, how many injuries they caused, how many civilian structures were damaged, etc. It took seven days of work and dozens of phone calls to receive a partial and ineffective list. Despite years of rocket attacks the IDF website has never – including now – posted any information about it.

3. Our representative approached the IDF Spokesperson to request an up-to-date photo of the Head of the Intelligence Directorate for an article to be written in cooperation with a foreign newspaper. A soldier of the unit referred us to Google, and noted that the IDF has no picture available. Needless to say that no picture worthy of publishing was found on the IDF Spokesperson's website.

4. A recently published report by Amnesty International lodges harsh criticism of IDF soldiers. No official response by the IDF was found on the Internet, so the organization's remarks are perceived as unvarnished "truth." Was the IDF unready for the publication of the report? And if it was, why is there no available information on the matter?

5. Tables and data concerning thwarted terror attacks in recent years, the numbers of injured, casualties, the identity of the Palestinian terrorists – does not exist on the IDF website. The website is only up-to-date as of 2005. Following a request to the IDF Spokesperson, a few details were updated, and months later, nothing has essentially changed.

6. The IDF website has no historical material on the start of the second Intifada. No tables or presentations, no summaries or messages.

Conclusions

1. It seems the IDF Spokesperson's Unit must be swiftly converted to a new technological age, providing information rather than merely responding, serving as an "independent news agency" rather than providing only short, laconic messages and demonstrating an ability to stand up to the information deluge produced by the enemy and cope with a situation that places the very legitimacy of the State of Israel's existence at risk.

2. A new IDF Spokesperson's website will soon be posted. But it is not enough to make it look enticing – there must be a comprehensive information revolution in the IDF Spokesperson's unit.

Omedia intends to continue reporting on this matter and providing follow-ups.

Furthermore, on all the above issues, the IDF provided explanations but did not remedy the faults in practice.

Sincerely,

The Omedia Editorial Board

cc:

State Comptroller Judge Micha Lindenstrauss
The Winograd Commission
Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai
The Military Aide to the Prime Minister
IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Miri Regev
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni

This is right on the money. I don't want to be the one who keeps track of Qassam rockets - the IDF should be. The silence on Bil'in, the Amnesty report and other failures show that the IDF is woefully incompetent at publicizing its side of the story. Even last year I found myself posting - and editing - IDF videos to YouTube because they would only work with certain browsers and most people couldn't view them.

The IDF should not rely on amateur bloggers, sympathetic columnists and Google to provide hasbara. I hope that Omedia keeps pressuring the IDF on this issue.

The extremism and bigotry of PA "moderates"

One never hears the word "extremist" associated with the Fatah-led PA West Bank government. That word is relegated to Israeli settlers and groups like Islamic Jihad. In the Western media, the PA is uniformly considered "moderate."

There has been a lot of press lately about (possibly illegal) PA "prime minister" Fayyad taking the word "resistance" out of the PA cabinet platform:

Radical groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad Sunday accused moderate Prime Minister Salam Fayyad of abandoning Palestinian "resistance" by omitting mention of it from his cabinet program.

The Fayyad government "has abandoned the mother of all principles of the Palestinian people, accepted and recognized by everybody," the groups said in a statement.

Fayyad, a respected economist and former employee of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, was appointed to head the Palestinian cabinet after the Islamist Hamas overran the Gaza Strip in a bloody takeover June 15.

The cabinet program, which was published over the weekend, does not contain the term "resistance," used by the Palestinians to describe armed struggle against Israeli occupation.

The term was included in the program of the previous Palestinian cabinet headed by Hamas premier Ismail Haniya.

The text says that among the top priorities of the government will be "working to put an end to the occupation, and to create an independent state, with Jerusalem as its capital, on all lands occupied in 1967."

The two groups railed against the omission of the term.

"This condemnable position shows the true face of this government and of its members, who have abandoned the resistance, the blood and the suffering of the wounded and prisoners."

The statement said the cabinet took such action "with the aim of satisfying the Zionist enemy and the biggest devil in the world, America, and to receive dollars."

Certainly, compared to what Islamic Jihad is saying, the PA position is more moderate. But is it truly moderate?

Fayyad is unquestionably the most reasonable Palestinian Arab ever to gain a position of power, even if large numbers of PalArabs do not accept his unelected position. Even so, his platform is the non-starter of evicting some 475,000 Jews from Israel and the West Bank (this number includes Jews in the Jerusalem area that Israel never counts in its census of "settlers.") For some reason, the forced transfer of nearly a half-million Jews is not considered an "extremist" position by the international community.

The equally "moderate" Mustafa Barghouti, who has fought passionately against Fatah corruption, has this to say:

Dr. Mustafa Al-Barghuothi the general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative faction confirmed today that the Israeli allegations of the peace initiative are simply deceiving. Adding, it is just another way of by passing the final status of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

The Palestinian official said that no Palestinian will accept the creation of a Palestinian state, without sovereignty over Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. He also reiterated the hazards of creating a Palestinian temporary state, without the dismantling of all illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in addition to the Israeli withdrawal of all the lands it occupied in 1967. The new Israeli peace plan according to Al-Barghuothi is meant to disrupt the idea of an independent Palestinian state turning it to cantons, following example of the South African apartheid regime.

Al-Barghuothi pointed out that Bush was convening an international meeting and not an international peace conference, highlighting the most serious campaign statements made by Bush and Olmert in an attempt to separate the Palestinian state on the final issue. This will mean converting a fully sovereign Palestinian state into a state within temporary boarders.[sic]

Fayyad's statement is a platform, but Barghouti's statement is far stronger - he self-righteously declares that "no Palestinian" would accept a state without these maximal demands being fulfilled. This does not leave any room for compromise, and it is the exact opposite of moderate. (I would love to see a poll of real PalArabs that asks them this question.)

The gap between the most liberal PalArabs and the real world is huge, and the most moderate of them explicitly advocate a racist state that they do not want to set up until the area is ethnically cleansed of all vestiges of Jews - exactly how Jordan treated the area in 1948-49. Except in 1948, there were some 17,000 Jews expelled from Arab areas, and today's "moderates" want to see 475,000 of them forcibly evicted - a number not too much lower than the entire number of Palestinian Arab refugees in 1948.

Why does the free world choose to ignore the explicit and admitted racism and bigotry of these so-called "moderates"? Why does Israel itself choose to prop up people who will tell anyone willing to listen that their red-line demands are not "only" the settlers, but also most of the Jews living in the Jerusalem area?

UPDATE:

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has said Palestinians have a legitimate right to resist Israeli occupation, even if the phrase does not appear in his new government program.

"We are certainly an occupied people and resistance is a legitimate right for the Palestinian people as an occupied people," Fayyad told reporters in Cairo, where he is leading the Palestinian delegation to an Arab League meeting on Monday.

Gaza - the new Riviera?

The Hamas tourism industry has its job cut out for it:

If you think of the Gaza Strip as a volatile, violent battleground run by fanatic Islamist militants bent on destroying Israel, Hamas wants you to think again.
Think: "Safe, clean and green."

One month after seizing the Gaza Strip in a military rout that shattered brittle Palestinian unity, Hamas is embarking on a radical marketing campaign to promote what it calls "the new face of Gaza."

They call it the "Gaza Riviera."

Lime-green Hamas banners flutter over Gaza City with a message in English for aid workers and journalists worried about being kidnapped: "No more threat for our foreign visitors and guests."

I wonder what Gilad Shalit has to say about that.

Bearded gunmen in blue-gray camouflage uniforms who helped seize control of Gaza now rush to settle routine neighborhood squabbles and family disputes.

Once-deserted Mediterranean beaches now are filled with dozens of families holding picnics to escape the summer heat until long after midnight.

Monday, Hamas is planning to take journalists on a special tour, from the packed beaches to the bullet-scarred security compounds its Islamist fighters overran last month when they ousted Fatah forces loyal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"This is our new Riviera," boasted Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar. "This is the most secure period in the history of Gaza."

Let's just ignore the time periods from 1967-1989 and 1993-2000, shall we?

Using a mix of military force and political persuasion, Hamas has succeeded in creating a sense of safety in the Gaza Strip. But many Palestinians don't believe this quiet will last long.
Sitting on a southern Gaza Strip beach, Ahmed Yousef, the Hamas leader behind the "safe, clean and green" slogan, said his group has no plans to impose strict Islamic rule on the 1.5 million residents.
"If we succeed here, the people in the West Bank will keep looking to this model," Yousef said. "We don't want to promote the way of the Taliban."

Another article about the new beach culture in Gaza adds a telling detail:

Still, there is enough business for at least one boutique hotel, designed to resemble a Moroccan villa. The Al Deira hotel offers spectacular sunset views and wireless Internet service on the grand terrace, but no meaningful mini-bar in the rooms, because alcohol is banned.

I guess Hamas' definition of "strict Islamic rule" is a little different from most Westerners'.

But I wish them luck. I can't wait to see thousands of Hamas sympathizers from the ISM, UK professors and MPs and other "progressive" groups change their vacation plans to go to the new Riviera in Gaza. Seeing them frolicking in the waves, covered in their burqas, will do wonders for the Hamas tourism industry. After all, we know that they are ideologically aligned with Hamas' misogynistic, repressive, pro-gun, anti-gay and anti-alcohol agenda, and that their support for Hamas has nothing to do with anti-semitism.

(H/T: Zionist Spy)

Google News seems to have removed "The People's Voice"

The last time this happened it was short-lived, but the "People's Voice" hate site seems to have been de-listed by Google News since our last posting highlighting yet another anti-semitic article published there.

A tiny victory, that I don't expect to last, but thanks to those who complained to Google and especially to joem at discarded lies who publicized the issue.

Breathtaking stupidity by the US

Ha'aretz published an editorial saying that "everybody wins" with the US decision to sell $20 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia and to increase defense aid to Israel to maintain Israel's military edge.

While Ha'aretz is perhaps right in the sense that Israel could not have successfully opposed the Saudi deal, this is hardly a "win."

Events over the past twelve months in Israel show how the next Arab/Israeli war is likely to play out, and by any reasonable measure this "evenhanded" arms sale is only a "win" for US defense contractors.

The Hamas coup in Gaza shows the fragility not only of the pseudo-moderate Fatah but also the strength of the fundamentalists, not only in the territories but throughout the Arab world. Saudi Arabia's royalty may be cozy with the US today but her citizens are most assuredly not. The House of Saud maintains order with repression (and a bit of bribery), and it encourages terror against other nations implicitly by continuously exporting Wahhabi-fundamentalism to mosques and schools worldwide.

The putative reason for arming the regime is to act as a counterbalance against Iran, but the lazy Saudis can't even maintain their own society without importing workers - they have no fighting ability to speak of, no matter how many high-tech weapons they have. It is also far from clear that in the case of a larger conflict between Iran and the West whose side their soldiers would be on.

It is very possible that the arms Saudi Arabia are receiving will only be used by terrorists.

The reason Hezbollah is thought to have "won" last summer's war is because the goal was not to defeat Israel but to hurt her, with rockets. This is the nature of an asymmetric conflict, where the nation who cares about its civilians is at an automatic disadvantage and international law only ends up hurting the nations that care about collateral damage. It is simply impossible to defend a nation against$20 billion of weapons in the hands of jihadists next door. There is no such thing as a "qualitative" advantage in an asymmetric war.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will never use these weapons in any way that the US intends. But it is, unfortunately, likely that the weapons will be used.

This weekend's Gaza honor killing

It is so nice to see that Gaza has turned into such a calm place since Hamas took over. It used to be that most of the people killed were young jihadists, now they are mostly young women, and everyone knows that their lives aren't worth much:

The corpse of a Palestinian woman in her twenties was found in the Al Bureij area of the central Gaza Strip with numerous knife gashes on Saturday.

Palestinian medical sources stated that the corpse was delivered to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs hospital for examination.

As we saw last week, the "examination" will concentrate on determining the victim's lack of virginity, at which time everyone will be satisfied that justice was served.

Our PalArab self-death count for the year climbs up to 493.

UPDATE:

An officer in the Palestinian intelligence services was killed Monday in the southern Gaza Strip city of Rafah. Eyewitnesses and medical sources said Ismail Mashoukhi, 35, appeared to have been tortured.

494.

UPDATE 2: 23-year old man murdered near Qalqiya. 495.
UPDATE 3: A 38-year old assassinated near Gaza City. 496.