Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Egyptian police bribed by Gaza smugglers

Four Egyptian police officers stationed in the northern Sinai were arrested on suspicion of receiving bribes from Gazan smugglers, an Egyptian security source said on Tuesday. According to the source, the four officers are first lieutenants, and they were taken to north Sinai security department in Al-Arish city for questioning.

The four, according to the source, received a sum exceeding 100,000 Egyptian pounds ($17,800) each. The source highlighted that Egyptian Minister of Interior Habib Al-Aadily ordered suspending the four officers and withdrawing their weapons.

The bribes are nothing new.

This helps explain why Egypt regularly finds caches of weapons and explosives hidden in the Sinai but never seems to find them en route to Gaza from Rafah. The Rafah police are part of the problem.

Why did this Gaza baby die?

Ma'an reports:

The number of Palestinians to die as a result of the Israeli and Egyptian siege of Gaza reached 337 when an infant succumbed to illness on Monday.

The child, 12-month-old Muhammad Rami Ibrahim Nofal, was not issued a permit for medical treatment abroad, despite his serious heart condition. He died at a Khan Younis hospital while doctors waited for the permit that never came.

In a statement, the de facto Health Ministry said it had appealed to Egyptian authorities to open the Rafah border crossing for the movement of patients seeking treatment abroad.

Here's one of the stories where you have to read between the lines. Notice that nowhere in the story does it say that Israeli authorities were even contacted to treat the boy, and that Hamas only asked Egypt for help.

Some more details on the situation from IPS:

A Referral Abroad Department (RAD), comprising Gaza-based PA officials who
liaise with the West Bank's Ramallah government, was established by Hamas officials to coordinate the transfer of patients out of Gaza.
However, on Mar. 22, Hamas dismissed RAD's PA officials and replaced them with its own employees. The dismissal was based on Hamas accusations of nepotism and political favouritism by the PA in the issuance of the exit permits. Hamas also refused to cover the travel expenses of patients as the PA had previously done.
The Egyptian authorities, under pressure from Ramallah, then refused to allow those Gazan patients with Hamas documentation to cross over into Egypt.
Following the intervention of human rights organisations and Egyptian civil
rights groups, a compromise was reached Apr. 26 allowing a number of patients to
once again leave Gaza. The compromise involved Hamas reinstating the PA
officials, and the PA agreeing to establish a non-partisan medical committee to
approve the referrals abroad. Hamas has expressed reservations about the new
committee. Some patients who managed to cross the border with Hamas
documentation were, however, turned away at Egyptian hospitals because the
hospitals demanded PA references.

Since March, Hamas has been playing games with Gazans' lives, severely limiting the number of patients who go to Israel (the number plumetted from 325 in March to 90 in April.) Similarly, the PA has been telling Egypt not to accept patients with Hamas paperwork, causing more deaths.

Here is a clear case of people dying because of Palestinian Arab actions, that the world believes is because of the Israeli "siege."

An Arab serial killer is caught in Israel

From Ha'aretz:

Police revealed on Tuesday that the Israeli-American teen Dana Bennett was murdered by a serial killer.

Adwan Yahiya Farhan, 34, of the northern Arab village Wadi Hamam, has confessed to Bennett's killing, as well as three others.

The first murder attributed to Farhan took place in 1995. He allegedly murdered an acquaintance near the Jordan estuary, possibly following a homosexual relationship with him.

Farhan also confessed to having murdered his cellmate while being under arrest at Valleys Police, also in 1995. Up until now, police believed the victim committed suicide in his cell.

Farhan was imprisoned for the first time in 1999 and served four years after being convicted of sexual offenses.

His sentence commuted, he was released in 2002. In July 2003, he brutally murdered a 20-year-old Czech tourist in the northern Tzalmon River. Less than a month later, he kidnapped and murdered Dana Bennet.

In January 2004 he was sentenced for 20 months on charges of illegal possession of arms.

In September 2005, a month after his release, he was jailed again for three and a half years after being convicted of armed robbery and fraud.

In December 2008, while in prison, he was charged of rape.

YNet adds that he apparently tried to kill his sister and that he had no motive for the killings.

A terror group, the "Freedom for Galilee Brigades," had claimed responsibility for Bennet's kidnapping (calling the waitress a "soldier") and pretended that they were holding her. They have a history of claiming terror attacks that never occurred.

Report: Mubarak's grandson was treated in Israel

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak lost his grandson last week, forcing him to cancel a trip to Washington.

The official reports said that Mohammed Mubarak was treated at a hospital in Paris, but Arab sources are now reporting that the boy was in fact treated at a hospital in Petah Tikva, and that Egypt tried to cover up that fact.

Arab eyewitnesses at the hospital reported increased security around one patient, as well as Egyptian security forces. They assumed it was a prominent patient from Egypt but put the pieces together after hearing about Mubarak's loss.

The report says that the body was transferred to Paris and then back to Egypt, and that Israel cooperated fully in secrecy in order to avoid embarrassing President Mubarak.

A spokesperson for Schneider Hospital in Petah Tikva denied the report.

Heat Wave - by The Who?

This morning I heard an awful cover of the classic Motown hit, "Heat Wave," by Martha and the Vandellas. I have no idea who made that travesty, but as I surfed YouTube I came across a version by The Who.

Even though I'm a Who fan, I assumed that it would be bad, as most 60's covers were. But it is actually a pretty good version:

It seems appropriate for the unofficial first day of summer....

The Legal Status of Jerusalem

This is an excerpt from a pamphlet that was written by Julius Stone, a hugely influential legal scholar and prolific author of standard texts in the field, along with comments added by one of his students after Stone's death:

SOVEREIGNTY IN JERUSALEM

The Partition Plan of 1947 envisaged an international Jerusalem, separated from both Israel and the then proposed Palestinian State. During the 1948 war, East Jerusalem (which includes the holy places of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the old city) came into Jordanian hands; and Jordan claimed sovereignty. In 1967, after Jordan launched an attack on West Jerusalem, the whole of Jerusalem came under Israeli rule; and Israel claimed sovereignty over a united Jerusalem. Professor Stone examines the legal principles which apply, and considers the analysis of Professor Elihu Lauterpacht, the distinguished editor of the authoritative “Oppenheim’s International Law”.

The agreements implementing the Oslo Accords provide that Jerusalem is one of the issues to be considered in the permanent status negotiations, and failure to reach agreement on the sharing of administration in Jerusalem was one of the reasons for the failure to conclude a permanent status agreement at Camp David II and at Taba in 2000. In the absence of such agreement, however, sovereignty over Jerusalem under international law remains as described by Stone.

The Effect of the Partition Plan

Elihu Lauterpacht concludes, correctly that the 1947 partition resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. Any binding force of it would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda, that is, from the agreement of the parties concerned to the proposed plan. Such an agreement, however, was frustrated ab initio by the Arab rejection, a rejection underlined by armed invasion of Palestine by the forces of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia, timed for the British withdrawal on May 14, 1948, and aimed at destroying Israel and at ending even the merely hortatory value of the plan…

The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control. At most, as Israel's Declaration of Independence expressed it, the General Assembly resolution was a recognition of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people in Palestine. The immediate recognition of Israel by the United States and other states was in no way predicated on its creation by the partition resolution, nor was its admission in 1949 to membership in the United Nations… As a mere resolution of the General Assembly, Resolution 181(11) lacked binding force ab initio. It would have acquired the force under the principle pacta sunt servanda if the parties at variance had accepted it. While the state of Israel did for her part express willingness to accept it, the other states concerned both rejected it and took up arms unlawfully against it. The Partition Resolution thus never became operative either in law or in fact, either as to the proposed Jerusalem corpus separatum or other territorial dispositions in Palestine.

The Corpus Separatum Concept

We venture to agree with the results of the careful examination of the corpus separatum proposal by E. Lauterpacht in his monograph Jerusalem and the Holy Places:

“(1) During the critical period of the changeover of power in Palestine from British to Israeli and Arab hands, the UN did nothing effectively to implement the idea of the internationalization of Jerusalem.

(2) In the five years 1948-1952 inclusive, the UN sought to develop the concept as a theoretical exercise in the face of a gradual realization that it was acceptable neither to Israel nor to Jordan and could never be enforced. Eventually the idea was allowed quietly to drop.

(3) In the meantime, both Israel and Jordan demonstrated that each was capable of ensuring the security of the Holy Places and maintaining access to and free worship at them - with the exception, on the part of Jordan, that the Jews were not allowed access to Jewish Holy places in the area of Jordanian control.

(4) The UN by its concern with the idea of territorial internationalization, as demonstrated from 1952 to the present date (1968) effectively acquiesced in the demise of the concept. The event of 1967 and 1968 have not led to its revival.

(5) Nonetheless there began to emerge, as long ago as 1950, the idea of functional internationalization of the Holy Places in contradistinction to the territorial internationalization of Jerusalem. This means that there should be an element of international government of the City, but only a measure of international interest in and concern with the Holy Places. This idea has been propounded by Israel and has been said to be acceptable to her. Jordan has not subscribed to it.”

Even if no notion of a corpus separatum had ever floated on the international seas, serious questions about the legal status of Jerusalem would have arisen after the 1967 War. Did it have the status of territory that came under belligerent occupation in the course of active hostilities, for which international law prescribes a detailed regime of powers granted to the occupying power or withheld it from in the interest of the ousted reversionary sovereign? Or was this status qualified in Israel's favour by virtue of the fact that the ousted power, in this case, Jordan, itself had occupied the city in the course of an unlawful aggression and therefore could not, under principle of ex iniuria non oritur ius, be regarded as an ousted reversioner? Or was Jerusalem, as we will see that a distinguished authority thought at the time, in the legal status of res nullius modo juridico? That is, was it a territory to which by reason of the copies of international instruments, and their lacunae, together with the above vice in the Jordanian title, no other state than Israel could have sovereign title? The consequence of this could be to make the legal status of Jerusalem that of subjection to Israel sovereignty.

Acquisition of Sovereignty

This analysis, based on the sovereignty vacuum, affords a common legal frame for the legal positions of both West and East Jerusalem after both the 1948-49 and the 1967 wars. In 1967, Israel's entry into Jerusalem was by way lawful self-defence, confirmed in the Security Council and General Assembly by the defeat of Soviet and Arab-sponsored resolutions demanding her withdrawal…

Lauterpacht has offered a cogent legal analysis leading to the conclusion that sovereignty over Jerusalem has already vested in Israel. His view is that when the partition proposals were immediately rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression, those proposals could not, both because of their inherent nature and because of the terms in which they were framed, operate as an effective legal re-disposition of the sovereign title. They might (he thinks) have been transformed by agreement of the parties concerned into a consensual root of title, but this never happened. And he points out that the idea that some kind of title remained in the United Nations is quite at odds, both with the absence of any evidence of vesting, and with complete United Nations silence on this aspect of the matter from 1950 to 1967?…

In these circumstances, that writer is led to the view that there was, following the British withdrawal and the abortion of the partition proposals, a lapse or vacancy or vacuum of sovereignty. In this situation of sovereignty vacuum, he thinks, sovereignty could be forthwith acquired by any state that was in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means. On the merely political and commonsense level, there is also ground for greater tolerance towards Israel's position, not only because of the historic centrality of Jerusalem to Judaism for 3,000 years, but also because in modern times Jews have always exceeded Arabs in Jerusalem. In 1844 there were 7,000 Jews to 5,000 Moslems; in 1910, 47,000 Jews to 9,800 Moslems; in 1931, 51,222 Jews to 19,894 Moslems; in 1948, 100,000 Jews to 40,000 Moslems, and in 1967 200,000 Jews to 54,902 Moslems.

For those who disagree with this analysis, the question remains - who has a better legal right to Jerusalem than Israel? It cannot be Jordan (who gave up its own legal claim,) it cannot be the UN for the reasons given above and it cannot be a nonexistent Palestinian Arab state or entity which didn't even exist when Israel captured it.

(The rest of the booklet includes analyses of the legality of Israel's control of the West Bank, settlements, the Palestinian Arab "right of return," and other issues.)

"Zionist Pig" stories never get old

One more time, Ma'an shows how ridiculously biased it is:

A herd of settler-owned wild boars were released onto Palestinian farmlands in western Salfit on Monday morning, damaging crops there.

The chair of the Palestinian Agricultural Trade Union, Khalil Omran, said, "The boars broke into the fields at the Al-Najara and Al-Jaheer areas of western Salfit. They caused the destruction of wheat and barley fields and damaged fruit trees.”

“One of the attacked fields was planted with peach trees. All were broken and caused a big loss for the field’s owner, farmer Abo Ayman Oada,” Omran added.

Omran reiterated his call that something be done about the wild boars that cause losses to farmers' livelihood each year, in addition to fears over the H1N1 flu virus, which some believe is carried by pigs.

The fact that Jews in Judea and Samaria have the same problem with wild pigs does not mean that Ma'an will ever acknowledge the absurdity of religious Jews raising boars who have no use other than to terrorize poor Arabs.

PalArab news roundup 5/25

About 70 Christian gravestones were desecrated in the West Bank over the weekend in two separate cemeteries. The village, Jafna, is one of the very few remaining areas in the West Bank with a Christian majority.

The PA leadership has a new list of demands before they will even deign to negotiate with Israel: An end to all construction in "settlements" including Jerusalem, dismantling all security roadblocks, and the removal of outposts "as required in the roadmap." Of course, the roadmap has some prerequisites from the Palestinian Arab side that have to be adhered to before any settlement restrictions, a fact that the PA likes to ignore.

Reacting to criticism in the Palestinian Arab media, Hamas has denied that they are enforcing any sort of restrictions of firing Qassam rockets from the various terror groups in Gaza.

Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt is essentially calling Der Spiegel a Zionist front for having the audacity of publishing results of an investigation that shows that Hezbollah was behind the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Der Spiegel has published more details about the incident.

Saudi Arabia will soon require all women who appear as hosts on TV programs to wear an abaya/robe. Up until now, just covering their hair was considered OK.

Some symbols are worth dying for

Let's pretend that somehow, a terrorist group manages to place a series of impossible-to-defuse remote-controlled bombs at the Mall of America. Their demands are simple - if the United States wants to save the lives of the shoppers at the mall, we must concede a tiny island to the terrorists, irrevocably. The United Nations would ensure that this island becomes part of the terrorist state, legally, under international law.

The island just has one major feature - the Statue of Liberty.

Logically, this is a no-brainer. What good is a hunk of copper compared to hundreds of human lives?

Yet most patriotic Americans would be loathe to submit to such a plan. Of course, we would try to do everything possible to avoid either losing Lady Liberty or human lives, but it is inconceivable that we would give up the Statue without a fight.

Symbolism might be pooh-poohed by "progressive" thinkers as meaningless primitivism, but it is important in the coherence of any group of people. The flag, the anthems and the symbols are part of what gives a people their collective identity.

For Jews, there is no more important symbol than Jerusalem. The very idea of compromising on the holy city, the singular object of nearly two thousand years of longing, is anathema. Yet the Jews aren't the people who are saying this explicitly - we have ceded the emotional attachment to Jerusalem to the Arabs.

We have recently seen some reactions to Bibi Netanyahu's statement that Jerusalem will remain undivided and under Israeli rule:

The Palestinians warn that Israel's "continued construction and appropriation of land" in east Jerusalem may be grounds for another uprising.

France accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday of prejudicing the outcome of the Middle East peace process by declaring that Jerusalem would forever be Israel's undivided capital.

"Jerusalem is a final status issue. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements on all final status issues," a State Department spokesman said when asked to respond to Netanyahu's proclamation that Jerusalem would always remain under Israeli sovereignty.

For years, the world has stood by, mute, when Palestinian Arabs make absurd claims such as the idea that a Palestinian Arab state is impossible without Jerusalem, and their threats of violence if they don't get their way. It is far past time to take a page from their playbook.

If Netanyahu is serious, this is the time to push back. He should declare in no uncertain terms that Jerusalem is a red line, and that if anyone tries to take it away - Arabs, the UN, the EU or the US - they should expect a fight. It should be clear that Jews are willing, and eager, to die for the heart and soul of their nation.

The past decade of allowing the thought of Jerusalem being up for negotiation was an aberration and a travesty, and now is the time to repair the damage. The argument for Jerusalem is not logical and Jews should not be put in a position of defending their love of the city logically any more than anyone should have to justify love, loss, and millennia of longing. The fact is that it is simply inconceivable that any representative of Jews in any capacity can bargain away our capital. No other people gave a damn about rebuilding Jerusalem for over 1800 years.

The idea that Muslims have a significant claim on the city is historically laughable and provably recent. Their supposed ties to the city are derivative of the deep Jewish historical and religious ties; a claim based on jealousy rather than anything real.

It is well past time for Israeli politicians to start speaking in this language. If we are to learn anything from the Palestinian Arabs, it is that the world will not try to reason with people who are not open to reason.

And the Jewish ties to Jerusalem are not open to reason.

Report: Vast majority of Hamas "police" terrorists

From YNet (h/t t34zakat):

An independent research company revealed Sunday that 90% of the Palestinian "security personnel" killed in Gaza during the IDF offensive there in January were members of terror organizations.

The IDF says 709 gunmen were killed in the fighting, of which Hamas has claimed 343 were innocent police officers.

But the independent Israeli 'Orient Research Group', hired by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to investigate the identities of those killed, has released a report challenging Hamas' claim.

The report says 286 of the 343 "police officers" killed were members of terror organizations, the vast majority of them belonging to Hamas' military wings.

It also states that the official list of names provided by Hamas includes one traffic officer, who was a member of the Izz a-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and 27 members of various forces trained to battle Israel.

"The statement that Israel attacked innocent policemen was apparently rushed and made without an investigation by the organizations into the identities of the slain policemen," the report says, adding that the organizations did not wait until the publication of the IDF's report on the matter, "which relies on intelligence regarding the targets that were struck".

The report also refers to the claim that the first Air Force strike of the Gaza offensive hit a ceremony attended by members of a Hamas traffic police training course.

It says almost 88% of those present were terror operatives, many of them belonging to the al-Qassam Brigades. Altogether they numbered 78 of the 89 Hamas reported dead.

The report also goes into detail regarding the names published in Hamas' report. For example Mohammad al-Dasuki, said to have served as a "naval police officer", was also a member of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) and was suspected to have been involved in a terror attack against American security guards in Gaza in October 2003.

Another victim mentioned, Khamza al-Khaledi, who was listed as a "captain of police", was also active in an al-Qaeda affiliated terror organization.

"The claims against the IDF, by which it had killed 'traffic officers' and 'innocent' officers fulfilling civilian roles, are incorrect," the report says. "The vast majority of the Palestinian 'officers' were active in the military wings of Palestinian terror organizations and warriors who underwent military training."

It adds, "The enlistment of al-Qassam Brigades operatives to official security positions allows the Hamas government to pay their wages with the government budget, thus increasing Hamas' manpower and permitting the investment of private funds in other needs such as weaponry."

I can't find this group online, and would love to see the detailed report. It does dovetail with our own research, where we had already identified some 62% of Hamas policemen as being members of terror groups.

An email correspondent has sent me the legal justification for the IDF targeting the Hamas policemen, from Yoram Dinstein's "The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict," where he writes:

Can police officers and other law enforcement agents be subsumed under the heading of armed forces (who are legitimately subject to attack)? The answer to the question depends on whether the policemen have officially incorporated into the armed forces or (despite the absence of official incorporation) have taken part in hostilities. If integrated into the armed forces, policemen - like all combatants - 'may be attacked at any time simply because they have that particular status'.

My correspondent asked Dinstein in an email

1) In the case of Hamas police would it be enough to constitute that all police could be targeted? and 2) where is the line of 'taking part in hostilities'?"

to which Dinstein replied

1. In a non-State entity the difference between police and other armed groups is hardly perceptible. This is true not only of Hamas. In the Palestinian Authority, the "police" is the army.

2. In any event, direct participation in hostilities (the alternative) includes also training prior to combat engagement.
- (email Dated: 27/01/2009)

And we have definitely seen pictures like these from Hamas "security forces":

Members of the Hamas-led Government Executive security force participate in war games as some 1200 new members participate in a graduation ceremony on March 25, 2007 in Rafah, Gaza Strip. The executive Force was created by the Hamas-led Government to support the police with Gaza Strip security.

So are these people practicing "war games" considered civilians because they are supporting the police? Is there a reason why the "police" wear camouflage?

The legal basis for attacking the Hamas "police" seems to get clearer and clearer.

More proof of my bigotry

I just saw an article that included this:

Whether it’s a tsunami in southeast Asia or a volcano in Latin America, an earthquake or a flood, there are always people in Syria – and other parts of the Arab world – who swear it’s part of an international conspiracy. Perhaps the most shocking was when a university professor in Amman, Jordan, said with a straight face: “The tsunami that hit Aceh was part of an American conspiracy to get rid of poor people, because they don’t have the money to be consumers of American products.” I know too many people in the Arab world who subscribe to such logic.

Indeed, people often dismiss events unfolding before their eyes on the TV news as “part of the international Zionist conspiracy”. And the culprits don’t even have to be western. The latest conspiracy theory is that the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be working with the West on behalf of Israel. “Why else would he mention during the most vulnerable times in East-West diplomacy that Iran will defy everyone and embrace nuclear power? Or say things about the Holocaust that will be held against him?” the respected father of an Arab friend asked me.

Of course, it was written by an Arab woman who grew up in Saudi Arabia, who is also anti-Israel. It is also important because no matter how many Arabic articles I read, they don't approach the level of ignorance and bigotry that average Arabs seem to have (based on anecdotes like these.)

British Foreign Secretary: "Hamas and Hezbollah not like Al Qaeda"

The British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, David Miliband, has come out with his own initiative of outreach to the Muslim world ahead of President Obama's similar public initiative, and it is a prime example of wishful thinking as a substitute for reality.

He started off with a major policy speech at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies last Thursday. The speech looks very similar to what an Obama foreign policy may look like, with serious engagement with the Muslim world even when some countries do not share Western ideas of morality:

Respect is never enough alone. It is only ever a precondition. A change in tone must lead to a change in substance. Broadening coalitions will require a more active effort to reach out, a greater effort for reconciliation with those who do not share our values or adhere to our world view, but who have more in common with us than those who preach that we are the enemy.

That is why Britain, with Embassies in 38 Muslim majority countries, maintains diplomatic engagement with countries with whom we have major disagreements on human rights, nuclear proliferation or conflict, like Iran, Sudan or Uzbekistan. In each case, we seek to influence through engagement and dialogue, and to do so on the full range of challenges we have in common: climate change; Millennium Development Goals and the economic crisis for instance.

Where it is harder to draw the line and determine who we can and should work with, is in relation to those political movements that are not in government. And conflict situations are the most difficult of all. Every case is different. In some cases our troops are at risk and we will not jeopardise their security. And the commitment to politics and violence are shifting and blurred. There are no easy cases.

...as long as those values we hold in common are respected in the course of the election, then its outcome is legitimate.

I know that at this stage many people will be leaping out of their seats to ask “what about Hamas?”

Let me address that by first reminding you that in 2000 we and many of our EU partners shunned the Austrian government not because of the way it had come to power but because of the far-right views and policies it espoused. When it comes to Hamas, no one disputes that they won the most seats. We are not claiming that their election was “illegitimate”. We are saying the failure to embrace a political process towards a two-state solution makes normal political relations impossible.

Also, elections are not the end of the matter. Democracy requires the ballot box but is not reducible to it. It also requires a thriving civil society. So, in places where power is closely guarded we must continue our efforts to promote reform from the bottom-up - training journalists and judges, or funding civil society groups working to protect women or minority rights. At the same time, we will use our influence to defend the institutions that protect freedoms and uphold justice for all and to stand up for individual rights. The accountability of power is the way to reinforce authority and legitimacy.

At first glance, this looks liberal but realistic, reflecting the difficulty of differentiating between terrorists and groups who can be partners for peace. It is a defensible position.

The problem is that Miliband granted an interview to London-based Al-Hayat over the weekend, where he shows his biases are towards accepting Hamas and Hezbollah:

British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs David Miliband said that both Hizbullah and Hamas could be seen among groups that have a patriotic aim.

In an interview with the daily pan-Arab al-Hayat on Sunday Miliband said "our stance has always been up to the assassination of Lebanon's ex-premier Rafik Hariri in 2005 was to dialogue with Hizbullah MPs. However, this stopped following the Hariri assassination."

He added that the military wing of the party continues to be regarded as a terrorist organization in the United Kingdom."But we agreed to resume our dialogue with Hizbullah MPs partially because they have a cabinet minister in Lebanon and the fact that the Lebanese government is committed to the Arab peace process," Miliband said.

In the Arabic interview, Miliband says that one of the mistakes that the West has made in dealing with the Muslim world was to not distinguish between groups like Al Qaeda and groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, who have national aims. He admits that Hamas' constitution has some problematic elements but insists that this does not necessarily reflect Hamas' reality.

It is worthwhile to remind the minister that Hamas' charter is virtually indistinguishable from what Al-Qaeda says:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

What this means is that Hamas holds that Andalusia, Spain is indeed Muslim land and must be reconquered by force - exactly what Al Qaeda says. Hamas holds that all Muslim nations should coalesce into a single Islamic 'Ummah - exactly what al-Qaeda says. Hamas does not distinguish between Islam as a religion or as a political movement - just like al-Qaeda. And as far as I can tell, every Islamic movement that descended from the Muslim Brotherhood, including Hezbollah, shares these exact sentiments.

If there is a philosophical difference between Al Qaeda and Hamas, I would love to see some real evidence of it, not the hopeful interpretation of Hamas' PR department's English-language statements.

NGO claims they found depleted uranium in Gaza

A tiny NGO is claiming they have evidence that Israel used depleted uranium in Gaza - and lots more. Here's their full press release

In the Gaza Strip between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, the Israeli army conducted a ground and air offensive nicknamed « Operation Cast Lead ».

During the first few days a Norwegian doctor doing humanitarian service in the hospital at Shifa, Dr Mads Gilbert, denounced the presence of radioactive matter, possibly Depleted Uranium, in the bodies of victims. On 4 January 2009, after investigation, ACDN (Action of Citizens for the total Dismantling of Nukes) alerted the press and public opinion with a media release: "In Gaza, the genocide with Depleted Uranium has begun, using GBU-39 bombs provided by the USA".

So even from this press release we already have a good idea that the ACDN has no credibility. First of all, Dr. Mads Gilbert has said that the 9/11 attackers were justified and he is an apologist for Hamas. Secondly, the ACDN put out a press release accusing Israel of some very specific things on January 4th when they had no access to Gaza altogether and were pretty much reading Hamas propaganda as their major source. Since they called it a "genocide" that early, it is clear that they are far from objective and indeed that they have a specific agenda which is hardly fact-based.

This helps us understand the second part of the press release:

This accusation has now emerged with greater strength after several months of investigation carried out in close liaison with the people concerned and with the help of Jean-François Fechino, a consultant on diffuse pollution and an expert accredited to the UN Environment (UNEP). ACDN has just produced a 33-page report concluding that the presence of dozens of tonnes of Depleted Uranium (perhaps as much as 75 tonnes) in the soil and subsoil of Gaza is highly probable.

In April 2009, a four-person mission including Jean-François Fechino went to Gaza under the auspices of the Arab Commission for Human Rights. The samples of earth and dust that they brought back from Gaza were then analysed by a specialist laboratory, which found in them elements of Depleted Uranium (which is radioactive, carcinogenic, teratogenic), particles of Cesium (which is radioactive and carcinogenic), asbestos dust (which is carcinogenic), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs, which are fine particles which endanger health, especially the health of children, asthmatics and old people), phosphates (from oxidation of white phosphorus), tungsten (which is carcinogenic), copper, aluminium oxide (which is carcinogenic), and Thorium Oxide (ThO2, which is radioactive)...

The detailed results will soon be made public. Journalists or other persons wishing to learn more are invited to contact ACDN or visit its Website www.acdn.net.

I of course emailed them immediately to get a copy of their report. I'm anxiously awaiting their reply showing their methods of estimating that the IDF dropped 150,000 pounds of depleted uranium on Gaza - a hundred pounds per fatality. Not to mention - copper! And asbestos!

The shocking AIPAC connection to Free Gaza

I just got this email from the Free Gaza mailing list:

Dear Friends,

It is with deep regret and sadness that we have to announce a separation within the Free Gaza Movement.

Free Gaza Movement was formed in the fall of 2006 by five individuals....A year later, a non-profit called the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees (AIPAC) was created in California as a means of accepting U.S. tax-deductible donations on behalf of Free Gaza.

With volunteers from AIPAC, and others, we were responsible for the first, successful voyage to Gaza in August 2008.

For the last, several months, we attempted to negotiate an affiliate and funding agreement with AIPAC. Unfortunately, this has not been successful, and we have decided to separate. AIPAC has decided to call itself "The Free Gaza Movement." They have reserved the new URL "http://www.freegazamovement.org/" for themselves, and have set up a new email address, "friendstogaza@gmail.com," for their use. Our web address is the original "http://www.freegaza.org/," and our existing email address is "friendofgaza@gmail.com." Please make a note of these distinctions. Also, please note that we do not have a funding agreement with AIPAC. Any donations made to California since September 2008 have not and will not be sent to us in order to run boat missions out of Cyprus.

AIPAC? Does that sound like a coincidence to you?

And isn't it a shame when moonbats can't get along with each other?

What "peace" means to Egyptians

A new poll in Egypt, reported by Firas Press, explains exactly what Arabs mean when they say they want to see "peace" in the region.

The poll was titled "What are your dreams?" and was conducted by the "National Center for Social and Criminal Research in collaboration with the Center for Information and Decision Support Council of Ministers."

According to the poll, 71% of Egyptians dream of peace in the region.

The same poll found that 58% dream of the destruction of Israel.

Which means, of course, that the Arab concept of peace is what most people would call "war." But it's OK as long as the victims of the war are those undesirable Jews.

You know - Egypt's "peace partners."