Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

The story of Omar Silawi - journalist and Hamas terrorist

Over the past few days PTWatch managed to dig up a bunch of new terrorists that the PCHR considered "civilian" victims during the Gaza operation. (We have now identified 297 "civilian" terrorists.) Here's the story of one of them.

PCHR describes victim #458 as "‘Umar Abdul Hafez Mousa al-Silawi, Male, 35, Journalist in al-
Aqsa Satallite channel, civilian."

From Mada, a Palestinian Arab journalist advocacy group:

(Jan.3) - Aqsa TV cameraman Omar Abdel-Hafiz Silawi (28 years) was killed in Beit Lahiya city (GS) after Israeli forces shelled Dr. Ibrahim Makadmeh mosque. His colleague Ibrahim Muslim said that they were covering the Israeli bombing in that area throughout the day, in particular, Kamal Adwan field hospital and the nearby areas. Silawi was filming and transferred videos to the place where the TV was broadcasting, then he transferred his wife to the hospital to give birth, then returned to take his camera and went to the mosque, which is 100m away from the hospital, and when it was bombed, he was seriously injured. “When I saw him on a stretcher sometimes I was filming him and sometimes helping they race him to the hospital,” said his colleague. “I was crying. They tried to treat him but without results. Our comfort is that his wife gave birth safely to a son.”

A very sad story indeed. But only part of the story.

Here is how Hamas' Al Qassam website describes Omar al-Silawi:

The al-Qassam fighter/martyr Omar Sailawi was born in the Saudi Arabia on the twenty-ninth of the month of September 1981. Although he was born away from his homeland "Palestine", but he was carrying in his heart and love her passion. [He moved to Gaza later - EoZ]

Omar Sailawi joined the ranks of the Islamic Resistance Movement - Hamas - since his return to the homeland, after his commitment in a mosque in al-Bashir, has begun to receive at the hands of advocates of the movement many religious lessons and courses to become one of the sons of the Muslim Brotherhood Muslims.

The martyr Omar - may God have mercy on him - joined the ranks of the Mujahidin of al-Qassam Brigades in 2004, after selflessly giving in to the demand and urgency to the leadership of Hamas for the organization in the ranks of the mujahideen, so pleased Almighty God to join him, for after being noticed for his the honesty and sincerity.

During the struggle within the ranks of the Mujahidin-Qassam Brigades, the martyr Omar - may God have mercy on him - participated in many Jihad tasks tasks, including:

* Participated in the processing of many of the explosives and mines, which were aimed at Israeli jeeps and tanks.

* Participated in the excavation and processing of tunnels and trenches.

* Participated in repelling the invasions of Zionism, which was aimed at the eastern region of the Jabaliya camp.

* Fired several mortar shells and Qassam rockets at the Zionist settlements and sites.

Yes, this "journalist" was an active member of the Hamas terrorist Al Qassam Brigades, a fact that no journalist advocacy group admits and that PCHR cannot seem to mention - although Hamas happily claims him as an honored member and martyr.

Although it is clear that this is the same person as the "journalist" mentioned above - Hamas' bio also mentions his wife giving birth an hour after he was killed - Hamas does not mention that at all in his biography.

Today's PalArab news 6-16-09

PCHR looks at yesterday's story of a Hamas member who died in PA custody, and notes that the dead man did indeed have signs of torture on his body, so he is being added to the death count.

PCHR also reports that Hamas police fired on a PFLP demonstration in Gaza City on Saturday, injuring three civlians.

Here's Ma'an's English version of the report of an assassination attempt against Carter.

There are reports that the IDF has granted amnesty to 26 Al Aqsa Brigades members in the West Bank, now allowing them free movement.

Gazan group attempted to assassinate Carter?

Maariv is reporting that, according to Palestinian Arab sources, an al Qaeda-aligned Gaza group attempted to assassinate Jimmy Carter on his current visit to Gaza.

According to the report, Hamas police discovered two bombs on Carter's route near the Erez crossing. Maariv says they confirmed the story with members of Carter's delegation.

Hamas police denied the story.

Who counsels patience if your people are suffering?

Five Palestinian Arab groups rejected Binyomin Netanyahu's peace proposal, and one word of their rejection stands out as proof that Palestinian Arab leaders don't give a damn about their people:

Five Palestinian factions exiled in Damascus said yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech the night before was “tantamount to a declaration of war on Palestinians’ national rights.”

In a statement sent to reporters in Damascus, the groups said that Netanyahu’s speech “ignored the Palestinian people’s right to an independent state with full sovereignty, the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they fled in 1948, and declared his government’s continued policy to expand settlements in the West Bank under the mask of ‘natural growth’.”

Netanyahu’s policy is “a sure-fire recipe for ... new threats to security, peace and stability,” the statement said. “It is tantamount to a declaration of war on Palestinians’ national rights.”

The groups said they would “patiently continue to struggle for their national rights against the Zionist Entity’s policy of aggression” until Palestinians were able to return to their homes and had an independent state “with Jerusalem as its capital.”

They said they would refuse to meet with “the Zionist enemy...”They further called on the “international community” to pressure Netanyahu to abide by international resolutions.

The five factions that signed the statement were the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Palestinian People’s Party, the Palestinian National Liberation Movement and the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front.

If the plight of Palestinian Arabs is so dire, wouldn't you think they would try to compromise and find a solution? What kind of leader asks his people to be patient - for decades, no less - and remain in a stateless limbo rather than work towards any sort of independence?

On the other hand, if their real goal is the destruction of Israel, prolonging the suffering of their people is a quite understandable tactic.

What is amazing is that no Arab would dare to point out the obvious fact that Palestinian Arabs remain pawns to this day who are not allowed to freely criticize those who keep them in their misery, who keep them in camps, and who keep them stateless.

On the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism

Jeffrey Goldberg quotes a Soviet-era joke from one of his readers:

A prominent scientist is being summoned to his institute's party secretary.

"Comrade professor", says the secretary gravely, "the Party has started a new anti-Zionist campaign. Our institute was ordered to purge all residual Zionist influences among intellectuals and scientists. So, you're fired."

The professor is shocked. "But I am a loyal party member!"' he protests. "I have never been a Zionist!"

The party secretary knits his eyebrows very tight. "Comrade professor, do not try to deceive the party!" he says. "We checked. You have a Zionist grandmother."

Saudi soldier uses helicopter to go shopping

From the Arab News:

AL-BUKAIRIYAH: Talk about running grocery store errands with panache! According to a report in yesterday’s Arabic daily Shams, a number of locals in this town in Qassim province are upset over a Saudi Army pilot’s decision to fly a helicopter to the grocery store, landing the aircraft on an empty lot nearby. Eyewitnesses told the paper that this is the third time the pilot has gone to the grocery store by whirlybird. Others also said the man buzzes a local girl’s college. The Saudi Army had no comment on the incidents.

In any normal army, a single incident like that would be enough to severely punish the pilot.

The Saudis have bought some $100 billion worth of high-tech military technology in the past 15 years. If their army is that lazy as to allow soldiers to use expensive helicopters as personal transport, how safe are their other weapons from just being stolen, or used in a coup?

Netanyahu, 2002

Yisrael Medad finds a speech by Binyomin Netanyahu to the Likud Central Committee in 2002 that is a bit at variance with his speech last night.

And, objectively speaking, his 2002 speech seems to be truer.

Excerpts of the differences:

We are promising Palestinian terror the greatest prize of all – the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Today most of the Israeli public realizes that a Palestinian state under Arafat would be a bastion of terror directed at the destruction of the State of Israel.

But what about a Palestinian state without Arafat, under different leadership, after the Tanzim and the Al-Aqsa Brigaes have seemingly undergone reforms and become transparent, more responsible, under a different command?

What will happen then? Okay – let’s talk about this latest illusion.

The question is whether in a future settlement, the Palestinians would indeed enjoy self-rule. I, for one, have no desire whatever to rule over even a single Palestinian.

The question is whether we can agree that they have sovereign authority, power that goes beyond self-rule, which every country has. This power would include:

the right to have full control over borders, through which they could import unlimited arms and solders. States control their own air space – a Palestinian state would have the right to shoot down any Israeli plane overflying it without permission. States have the right to make military alliances with other countries – a Palestinian state would have the right to make such alliances with Syria, Iraq, Libya, ets. States control the water sources underground – a Palestinian state would have the right to control the mountain aquifer which supplies about 30 percent of Israel’s water and most of our drinking water. Even those who support the establishment of a Palestinian state are unwilling under any circumstances to give this power to the Palestinians. But the moment we agree to give them a state, that is exactly what we would be giving them!

It must be understood that sovereignty has its own power. Even if an agreement limiting certain sovereign rights were signed, within a short time, this Palestinian state would demand to have all these rights and would realize them, whether we agreed or not.

The world would not stand in the way of allowing the Palestinian state to appropriate all this authority, which would give it the power to destroy the State of Israel, but it would stand in our way if we tried to prevent it from realizing these rights.

Already today, under Arafat’s limited regime, the Palestinian are in wholesale violation of the restrictions they committed to in the Oslo agreements. ...

And when we enter Area A to fight against terror, as is our right according to the agreements, the entire world is scandalized (Look what happened in Jenin!). Now imagine what would happen if there were a state there, that we agreed to, a state whose borders the entire world recognized.

If we agreed to such a state, we would be shackling the Israeli army in iron chains of our own making, thus creating a danger to our very existence.

In any future agreement, if and when we get that far, I see self-rule in which the Palestinians will have the freedom to rule themselves. But to establish a state, with everything that that concept entails, with all the powers I have enumerated, which would endanger Israel’s existence – that no.

Not under Arafat or under any other leadership. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The Palestinians can have full rights – with the exception of one: the right to destroy the State of Israel!

Self-rule – yes! A state – no!

We are told that a Palestinian state is the vision of the future. Okay, our nation also has a vision for the future: “And the wolf will lie down with the lamb” and when that vision is realized in the Middle East, we will be willing to discuss the subject once again.

...
Dear friends, let me say this once again loud and clear: There will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan.

If we leave here tonight without making a decision on this matter, if we waffle or waver, not only will we not stop the rushing train of the Palestinian state, we will be stoking its fires and increasing its speed.

Because such an outcome would have only one interpretation: that the Likud has backed off from its own positions and given in to the dictate of the establishment a Palestinian state.

That must not happen.

From here, we must send out a message loud and clear to the entire world.

We must vote as one in favor of the proposal opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state.

We must not be frightened if the international community does not see eye to eye with us on these matters. Did the international community foresee the danger of the Holocaust? And when it finally opened its eyes, did it do anything to stop it? Did it as much as lift a finger?

Did it see the danger posed to our survival from the atomic reactor in Iraq? And when it did, did it not condemn us when Menachem Begin’s Likud government bombed that destructive facility from the air?

On matters vital to our survival, we have always taken resolute steps, and we have always spoken clearly, even when many others in the world did not agree with us.

Because, ultimately, the historical accounts are clear: Yes to a Palestinian state means no to a Jewish one. And yes to a Jewish state means no to a Palestinian one.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Arab (repost)

The biggest problem that the Arab world and others seem to have with Netanyahu's speech yesterday was his insistence on Israel being recognized as a Jewish state.

One reaction came from Jimmy Carter, who called this a "hurdle" to peace.

So it is time to repost an article from 2007 where we ask why calling a state Jewish is such a problem, but calling it Arab or Muslim is not.

If you define "Jewish" in purely religious terms, that would mean that any state that defines itself as "Islamic" is, by definition, equally guilty of this discrimination. If you define "Jewish" in ethnic or national terms, then any state that defines itself as "Arab" would be equally guilty of the racism that Israel is being accused of.

Time to check out the official hypocrisy of Israel's critics, and note the deafening silence towards this supposed Arab and Islamic racism:

Jordan's constitution:

Article 1
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent sovereign Arab State. It is indivisible and inalienable and no part of it may be ceded. The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab Nation, and its system of government is parliamentary with a hereditary monarchy.
Article 2
Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language.

Egypt's constitution:

Art.1*: The Arab Republic of Egypt is a Socialist Democratic State based on the alliance of the working forces of the people. The Egyptian people are part of the Arab Nation and work for the realization of its comprehensive unity.
Art.2*: Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

Libya's constitution:

Article 1 [Principles]
Libya is an Arab, democratic, and free republic in which sovereignty is vested in the people. The Libyan people are part of the Arab nation. Their goal is total Arab unity. The Libyan territory is a part of Africa. The name of the country is the Libyan Arab Republic.

Article 2 [State Religion, Language]
Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official Language. The state protects religious freedom in accordance with established customs.

Morocco's constitution:

Preamble
The Kingdom of Morocco, a Muslim Sovereign State whose official language is Arabic, constitutes a part of the Great Arab Maghreb.
Article 6 [State Religion]
Islam is the religion of the State which guarantees to all freedom of worship.

Yemen's constitution:

Article (1) The Republic of Yemen is an Arab, Islamic and independent sovereign state whose integrity is inviolable, and no part of which may be ceded. The people of Yemen are part of the Arab and Islamic nation.

Article (2) Islam is the religion of the state, and Arabic is its official language.

Article (3) Islamic Shari'ah is the source of all legislation.

Syria's constitution:

Article 1 [Arab Nation, Socialist Republic]

(1) The Syrian Arab Republic is a democratic, popular, socialist, and sovereign state. No part of its territory can be ceded. Syria is a member of the Union of the Arab Republics.
(2) The Syrian Arab region is a part of the Arab homeland.
(3) The people in the Syrian Arab region are a part of the Arab nation. They work and struggle to achieve the Arab nation's comprehensive unity.

Article 3 [Islam]

(1) The religion of the President of the Republic has to be Islam.
(2) Islamic jurisprudence is a main source of legislation.

Saudi Arabia's constitution:

Article 1
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.

Kuwait's constitution:

Article 1

Kuwait is an independent sovereign Arab State. Neither its sovereignty nor any part of its territory may be relinquished.

The people of Kuwait is a part of the Arab Nation.

Article 2

The religion of the State is Islam, and the Islamic Sharia shall be a main source of legislation.

Algeria's constitution:

Article 1 [Democracy, Republic]
Algeria is a People's Democratic Republic. It is one and indivisible.

Article 2 [State Religion]
Islam is the religion of the State.

Bahrain's constitution:

Article 1 [Sovereignty, Constitutional Monarchy]
a. The Kingdom of Bahrain is a fully sovereign, independent Islamic Arab State whose population is part of the Arab nation and whose territory is part of the great Arab homeland. Its sovereignty may not be assigned or any of its territory abandoned.
Article 2 [State Religion, Shari'a, Official Language]
The religion of the State is Islam. The Islamic Shari'a is a principal source for legislation. The official language is Arabic.

Oman's constitution:

Article 1 [Sovereignty]
The Sultanate of Oman is an independent, Arab, Islamic, fully sovereign state with Muscat as its capital.

Article 2 [Religion]
The religion of the State is Islam and the Islamic Shariah is the basis of legislation.

Tunisia's constitution:

Article 1 [State]
Tunisia is a free State, independent and sovereign; its religion is the Islam, its language is Arabic, and its form is the Republic.

Article 2 [Arab Nation, Treaties]

(1) The Tunisian Republic constitutes part of the Great Arab Maghreb, towards whose unity it works within the framework of common interests.

Mauritania's constitution:

Preamble:...Conscious of the necessity of strengthening its ties with brother peoples, the Mauritanian people, a Muslim, African, and Arab people, proclaims that it will work for the achievement of the unity of the Greater Maghreb of the Arab Nation and of Africa and for the consolidation of peace in the world.

Title I General Provisions, Fundamental Principles

Article 1 [State Integrity, Equal Protection]

(1) Mauritania is an indivisible, democratic, and social Islamic Republic.

Iran's constitution:

Article 1 [Form of Government]
The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Koranic justice,...
Article 2 [Foundational Principles]
The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:
1) the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands; 2) Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3) the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4) the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5) continuous leadership and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam; 6) the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to: a) continuous leadership of the holy persons, possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis of the Koran and the Sunnah, upon all of whom be peace;
b) sciences and arts and the most advanced results of human experience, together with the effort to advance them further;
c) negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.

"Palestine"'s constitution:

ARTICLE 1

Palestine is part of the large Arab World, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab Nation. Arab Unity is an objective which the Palestinian People shall work to achieve.

ARTICLE 4

1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
2. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation.

So why, exactly, is a Jewish state (whose record of equal rights far surpasses those of any of the Arab nations) morally worse than the large number of Arab and Islamic states?

Today's PalArab news roundup 6-15-09

Palestinian Arab negotiator Saeb Erekat continued his rejectionism by criticizing Binyomin Netanyahu's peace speech, saying it didn't address "outstanding historical grievances of 1948." Which pretty much tells you everything you need to know - Palestinian Arabs aren't interested in peace, but in grudges. (See more here.)

Hamas, meanwhile, accused Netanyahu of "racism" by demanding that Israel be known as a Jewish state. No word on the "racism" of the many Arab states that officially declare they are Muslim in their constitutions - including "Palestine."

A Hamas detainee died in PA custody. Hamas accused the PA of torturing him to death; the PA is claiming that he jumped out of a window and died. It is entirely possible that both are correct - that he jumped out of the window to escape torture.

The PA found explosives in the home of a Hamas member in Hebron.

A Palestinian Arab woman was given a 20-year prison sentence for "treason" for "collaborating" with Israel. Trials for "collaboration" seem to be more common that those for murder, rape or theft, based on reports in Palestinian Arab media.

A man was killed in a drive-by shooting in Gaza. The 2009 PalArab self-death count is now at 104 (I am not yet counting the prisoner who died.)

Let's hear Abbas' peace speech

First we heard what Barack Obama had to say about peace in the Middle East. Then we heard Binyomin Netanyahu's vision of peace.

But we have no idea what the Palestinian Arab vision of peace is.

We certainly know that it is utterly incompatible with Israel's:

A top Palestinian official dismissed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy speech as “a zero” on Sunday.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, the secretary of the Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee, said the speech was empty of any content and pointless.

He explained that the speech would impede any progress toward a balanced peace settlement. He said Netanyahu is "a swindler, a fraud, and a liar who makes up tricks [about] achievement of this peace."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said that he would not resume negotiations with Israel until all construction in the settlements is stopped.

Meanwhile, chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said those who know the Israeli mentality should not be surprised to hear such a speech. He called on the Arab world to take the right stance toward the speech by freezing the Arab Peace Initiative.

All we hear is rejectionism.

It is obvious that the Americans and Israelis should be giving deep thought about peace, its parameters, its limitations and its potential.

So wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the Palestinian Arabs to describe their own, detailed vision of what a peace agreement would look like? Why wouldn't Abbas give a specific plan of how he envisions a peace agreement to work?

The reason is as simple as it is unpalatable to well-meaning Westerners. Palestinian Arab leaders have never wanted real peace with Israel. Their statements have made it abundantly clear that they regard any peace agreement as a temporary step in their quest to claim the entire area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

It is time to call their bluff. If they are going to criticize Netanyahu's plan, let them come up with their own plan that they consider realistic. Let us hear Abbas make a public policy statement at a university in the West Bank. If he refuses, perhaps the West will start to realize that he is not serious about peace. If his plan includes flooding Israel with millions of Arabs, if it includes the banning of Jews from visiting holy sites the Old City of Jerusalem and Hebron and Bethlehem and Shechem, if it demands Israel's removing 100% of settlements, if it includes giving PalArabs the rights to fire missiles at Israeli civilian airliners - then the Western world might start to wake up to the fact that a peace process is stillborn without a peace partner who is willing to make compromises.

Abbas has already made clear that he feels no pressure to make any concessions as long as Obama is in office. He is happy to wait as long as it takes. Which means the last thing he wants to do is to make a public statement that could paint himself in a corner.

President Obama can go a long way towards the cause of real peace by demanding that Abbas put forth his plan, not in soundbites but in real detail, a plan that culminates in full relations between Israel and a Palestinian Arab state.

Because his plan would invariably show that he is not the "moderate" he is made out to be.

Jimmy Carter's "truth" versus reality

In Ha'aretz, Jimmy Carter repeats one of his more obvious lies about Gaza:

To me, the most grievous circumstance is the maltreatment of the people in Gaza, who are literally starving and have no hope at this time.

So I must remind my readers that I have been following the news from Gaza very closely, in both Arabic as well as English, and have yet to see a single person who starved to death.

But I have seen pictures like these from Gaza - published the same day as Carter's interview:

Notice the despondency, the distended stomachs, the flies that they are too weak to swat away, the sense of being treated like animals in a huge open-air prison that Israel created, that Carter is referring to.

Today's PalArab news

Ma'an reports of another smuggling tunnel death (this one an electrocution) .

Also, a missing man was found dead in Beit Hanoun and a 60-year old man was found hanged in the West Bank, but so far we do not know if either was the victim of foul play.

PalArabs killed a few wild pigs in the West Bank, certain that they were sent by Israeli settlers - to spread swine flu. (Ma'an is still reluctant to say that explicitly but the implication is clear.)

There were a couple of non-fatal stabbings in the West Bank, one a teenager who stabbed a food vendor. Ma'an adds the reason why Palestinian Arab youth like to act violently - they are clearly bored:

Ramadan Awad sent a message to Palestinian parents and child centers, insisting on the necessity of filling children’s leisure time during the summer holiday with programs aimed at improving their talents and teaching them voluntary skills.

In Palestinian Arab culture, apparently, too much leisure time is an invitation to acting on inherently violent tendencies, according to Ma'an.

"Proof" of that Mossad/Al Qaeda connection

Iran's PressTV reports:

An American al-Qaeda member and militant spokesman told on an internet video, of his descent from a Jewish background.

On Saturday, the American-born al-Qaeda operative, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, said he had "Jews in his ancestry, the last of whom was his grandfather," confirming the genealogy for the first time, CNN reported.

He made the remarks in a video posted on Saturday on the website of al-Qaeda's media wing al-Sahab. He has appeared in such postings before voicing threats of terrorist attacks on the United States.

Why does Iran's media consider this newsworthy? Because it knows that its readers will make this natural "logical"leap:

He is a mossad agent
that is why al-Q never atatcked Israel.

its the jews! get the jews! - presstv user

Mad Iranian
Just as I have always suspected.

connect2raza
HAHAHA THIS MOTHERFCUKER THREATENS TO ATTACK AMERICA THIS ASSEHOLE IS A MOSSAD CIA AGENT THE AMERICANS ND ISRAELIS R PLANNING ANOTHER INSIDE JOB IN AMERICA JUST LIKE 9/11 IN ORDER TO GET A PRETEXT TO ATTCK IRAN OR PAKISTAN AMERICANS WAKE UP UR COUNTRY AMERICA IS RULED BY THE ZIONIST JEWS WHO R THE GODFATHERS OF ISRAEL.

For some reason, PressTV didn't bother to quote this paragraph from CNN:

"Let me here tell you something about myself and my biography, in which there is a benefit and a lesson," Gadahn says, as he elicits support from his fellow Muslims for "our weapons, funds and Jihad against the Jews and their allies everywhere."

The evil Zionists keep choking off Gaza

...with a brand new fuel pipeline:

On, June 11, 2009, an Israeli construction team finished its work on a new pipeline for the transfer of fuel and natural gas from Israel to the Gaza Strip. The decision to build the pipeline was made in accordance with decisions made by the Israeli Government, following security assessments and as a result of the coordination between the Civil Administration and the Palestinian side. The construction was performed by both Israeli and Palestinian construction crews.

Reuters adds its spin:

Israel says that since its December-January offensive against Islamist militants in Gaza it has opened the border to larger amounts of food and medicine.
Gazans have also imported some supplies, including fuel, through smuggling tunnels that run under the border between the coastal territory and Egypt.

Indeed - to Gazans, explosives and weapons smuggled under Rafah are simply considered "supplies."

Reuters now doesn't even bother mentioning weapons smuggling into Gaza - the very reason there is a blockade to begin with!

Osama Bin Laden ready for peace agreement!

As a followup to my previous post about how Joe Klein ecstatically latches onto a Hamas leader's use of the word "Israelis" instead of "Zionists" as proof of his moderation, I just found this transcript of an Osama bin Laden videotape from 2004:

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced.

Bin Laden used the word "Israelis," not "Zionists"! This must mean that he has become more amenable to reaching a peace agreement with the US and Israel, and that he is signalling to the West his willingness to be flexible!

Not only that, it proves that Bin Laden is more moderate than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who still only uses the word "Zionists" to describe Israelis.

Not that Ahmadinejad is completely fanatical. After all, he has used the word "Israel" on occasion and not "The Zionist entity":

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."
"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."
"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

Yes, it appears that every radical Muslim who calls for the destruction of Israel is really just posturing, and really is playing to their own audience but in fact want peace. And it takes the finely attuned ears of the Joe Kleins of the world to correctly interpret their rhetoric and make the rest of us understand that the words and actions don't matter - just the hopes of those who interpret them over-optimistically.

A case study in replacing facts with wishful thinking

There are many people, including many Jews, who wish no harm to Israel and really want peace. Their problem is that they will ignore facts that make peace unlikely and will vastly exaggerate any shreds of hope they come across that support their hopes.

Clearly, the number one obstacle of the many obstacles to real peace is Hamas. Hamas is an unrepentant terror organization, that separated itself from the PA, that controls a good portion of the hoped-for Palestinian Arab state, that not only will not but cannot recognize Israel by its very existence. Their words and actions have been consistent, explicit and undeniable in their desire to destroy Israel and murder all Jews who want self-determination in the Middle East. To say that Hamas' existence is antithetical to any real chance of peace would be an understatement.

Yet, Joe Klein finds a way to ignore terror bombings, Qassam rockets, calls to genocide against Jews, daily incitement to hate and terror - and grasp a silver lining in his interview with Khaled Meshal:

Halfway through my interview with Khaled Mashaal, about an hour after Barack Obama's Cairo speech, I realized that the leader of Hamas was calling the Israeli people, and their leaders, Israelis. That seemed new. The usual term of art used by Islamic militants is "Zionists" or worse. A few days later in Iran, for example, I watched Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say in a debate, "I don't like to call them Israelis. Their leaders are so unclean that they could wash themselves in the cleanest waters and still be dirty."

A Hamas leader used a word that Klein had never heard! Could this indicate a sea-change in Hamas' attitudes? Is this the beginning of a new era where Hamas embraces peace? Please? Pretty please?

Um...no:

I asked Mashaal if his language implied that he accepted, de facto, a Jewish state called Israel. "Don't conclude this," he said. "These are the names they call themselves ... Once the Palestinians are enabled to have a sovereign state, then they can be asked whom they recognize."

But Klein noticed it, and, dammit, if he is as smart as he thinks he is, then it must be more significant than even his interview subject would admit:

And yet, calling Israelis by the name they call themselves seemed a different sort of body language. The meaning of this new tone can be debated. Part of it may be attributable to the terrible military defeat Hamas suffered in Gaza, a recognition, finally, that Israel is simply not going away. Or Mashaal may be trying to present a more sympathetic face to contrast with Benjamin Netanyahu's recalcitrant Likud government in Israel. Whatever the reason, it certainly seems time to reassess the West's unwillingness to deal with Hamas.

So Klein noticed something that he thought was new. He had zero evidence that it had any meaning. The interview subject explicitly denied that it meant anything. Yet he goes on not only to ascribe meaning to it, he uses his own personal fantasy as a reason that the United States should change its policy towards Hamas!

Klein is hardly the only person to do this. In fact, most Western politicians and journalists do this routinely, although not usually so obviously. They "know" that peace will cause a domino effect of goodwill through the Arab world, they "know" that Israel must make concessions that would inevitably be followed by Palestinian Arab concessions as well, they "know" that Hamas will inevitably be part of the solution - so they will fine-tune their ears and eyes to find moderation among terrorists even as they routinely find extremism among the Israelis who truly want real peace.

But Klein's attempt at sleigh-of-hand in the paragraph above shows in detail what others do more subtly, day in and day out, when looking at Israel and her Arab neighbors.

Followup: Bin Laden is a moderate!

Dem Jews, dem Jews, dem - "Zionists"

A couple of days ago the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, President Obama's old mentor, made a statement that made headlines by highlighting his anti-semitism:

In an exclusive interview at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference, Wright told the Daily Press that he has not spoken to his former church member since Obama became president, and he implied that the White House won't allow Obama to talk to him.

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me," Wright said. "I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...

He has since "apologized," and his apology proves the point - by saying that he likes some Jews:

MARK THOMPSON: Of course people are keying in, Dr. Wright, on the statements you made regarding Jews.

REV. WRIGHT: Well let me say…I misspoke. Let me just say, Zionists.

And I quote Jews when I say that… I quoted Jews before the Society of Christian Ethics. I quote Mark Ellis a Jewish rabbi…and I quote Ilan Poppe [sic], a Jewish historian who wrote the book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine…and when I quote Jewish authors… persons who are Zionists call them “self-hating Jews” …. I am not talking about all Jews, all people of the Jewish faith. I’m talking about Zionists.

In fact Mark Ellis’ book is entitled Judaism Is Not Israel, and he talks about in his book the ethnic cleansing – Mark Ellis, a Jewish rabbi, the guy who wrote The Jewish Liberation Theology of the Palestinians and refers to Ilan Poppe’s book which details the ethnic cleansing that started in 1947 and 1948 and continues to 2009.

I’m talking about fact, historical fact. I’m not talking about emotionally charged words or the fact that like Jimmy Carter’s book, because he used the word that Jews themselves use – “apartheid”– and he gets labeled as anti-Semitic. Now they can jump on that one phrase if they want to, but they can’t undo history, and they can’t undo the facts of Jewish historians and Jewish theologians who write about what’s going on. .

MARK THOMPSON: …I want everybody to be clear that when you say… “them Jews won’t let him talk to me” you were specifically referring to Zionists.

REV. WRIGHT: Exactly.

This ridiculous and offensive non-apology, where he embraces self-hating and publicity-seeking Jews who are beyond the pale, is still being called an "apology" in the press.

This is exactly like how Arabs will never say they hate Jews in English but the truth comes out in Arabic. Wright's real feelings about Jews are clear, and he is resorting to the same "anti-Zionist" fig leaf that we've seen become fashionable in the past decade or two.

The "improbability" of victory (Barry Rubin)

A sober observation by Barry Rubin:

President Barack Obama says the most shocking things and then is protected by the media. He also says profoundly revealing things that are allowed to pass by.

Here's one I can't get out of my head. In the commemoration of the anniversary of the D-Day landings in France, Obama remarked on "the sheer improbability of this victory."

To me, this screams out something profoundly important about Obama. He doesn't believe in victory. Either he assumes that the battle is not worth fighting given the cost or that it won't be won any way.

Defeat radical Islamists? Force Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons? Win the ideological battle with anti-American forces by confronting their arguments with a strong defense of the United States.

And wasn't that, in a sense, what happened in his Cairo speech: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, as the expression goes.

So, yes, Obama is amazed that the Allies won in Normandy in June 1944.

Here's the implication of that: suppose he had been around in the late 1930s ,given his world view. He would have assumed the "improbability" of victory over Germany and taken the appropriate action in that case of avoiding any confrontation.

Referring to the "improbability of this victory" is revealing of a defeatist attitude.

This makes him the perfect person to preside over the abandonment of America's superpower status and world leadership.

Perhaps he believes in "Yes we can!" domestically, but internationally he believes, "No, we can't."

Unfortunately, the enemies of America, democracy, and liberty have the opposite standpoint. They believe in the certainty of their victory.

As bad as this is, Rubin might not be going far enough.

The impression I get from some liberals is not so much the inadvisability of any sort of war - it is the immorality of winning a war.

Winning a war implies that you are going to impose your own vision on someone else by force. This ends up sounding like what imperialists and colonialists do, and there is little more evil than coloniaism. It seems impossible for the West to wage and win a moral war according to this thinking. The best you can do is to repel an attack to maintain the status quo - to go even a little beyond that is, simply, evil, according to this thinking.

Does Obama subscribe to such a worldview?

Open thread question

I have a number of valued pro-Israel liberal readers and this question just popped in my mind for them:

Is there any substantive difference between Obama's viewpoints on the Middle East and Jimmy Carter's?

Reference material: Carter: U.S. must 'find a way' to include Hamas in peace process

Hamas attacks and confiscates Gaza charity

Palestine Press Agency reports that Hamas attacked and took over a charity in Beit Hanoun.

Quoting the Mezan Center for Human Rights, it says that medical aid given by international organizations to the charity (possibly called the Society for the Rehabilitation of Disabled People) were meant to be distributed to some 2000 needy Gazans. Hamas gunmen took over the aid and its distribution.

Since Hamas took over Gaza, it has been methodically taking over institutions - medical, political, educational and charitable - and installing its own people to run them, with ideology being more important than competence.