Goldstone report inaccuracies, part 20

From the Summary of Legal Findings section of the Goldstone report:

1933. In addition to the above general findings, the Mission also considers that Israel has violated its specific obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, including the rights to peace and security, free movement, livelihood and health.

Goldstone sites the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women no less than eight times in the report.

What is this Convention? It describes itself this way:

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "discrimination against women" shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

As its very name implies, it is a component of international humanitarian law to stop discrimination against women. This means that in order to violate this convention, Israel would have had to treat Gaza women worse than it treated its men, simply because they are women.

Goldstone looks at Gaza, where the run by the Islamist Hamas movement, where sharia law is considered the major component of its legal system - and it sees Israel discriminating against women!

Obviously, Goldstone finds no discrimination against women by Israel at all in the report, and he doesn't bother to look for any from Hamas. He takes a very tortured view of a sub-paragraph of the Convention and stretches it way beyond its intent:

Article 12

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.

Paragraph 2, according to Goldstone, applies to Israel, not (for some reason) the Gaza government. It seems obvious that this convention applies to parties who actually control the territory in which women reside, but Goldstone apparently believes that Israel has this responsibility.

However one chooses to interpret the convention, Goldstone is wrong.

If this convention applies to enemy parties in wartime, then Hamas should be equally in violation of this law for every rocket sent to Sderot or Ashkelon that forced any pregnant woman or mother affected by rockets in Sderot, whose access to services and food was impaired because she had to run to a shelter, or whose sleep was disturbed by sirens. Needless to say, Goldstone does not say that Hamas violated any such humanitarian laws.

If the convention does not apply to opposing parties, than Hamas is the one responsible to ensure that women under its control continue to get access to medical services, prioritized above military needs. As far as I can tell, Hamas did no such thing. NGOs took over the bulk of humanitarian needs for Gaza during the conflict.

If one reads the convention as being specifically about discrimination against women, Goldstone does not come anywhere close to proving any discriminatory policy done by Israel against women. Nor does he try to, as it would be absurd. On the contrary, if Israel's war policy was to indiscriminately shoot at Gaza civilians, one would expect roughly half of the casualties to be female. Yet out of roughly 1400 deaths in Gaza, only about 15% were female. If anything, Israel discriminated against males aged between 18-35, who were most of the casualties.

---

The applicability of other legal conventions and covenants that Goldstone quotes are equally bizarre upon examination.

From reading other references in the report, Goldstone appears to be saying that Israel has the responsibility of providing food and medicine for its enemies. For example, earlier in the report he lists a number of conventions that he thinks Israel violated by destroying a flour mill:

941. The Mission finds that, as a result of its actions to destroy food and water supplies and infrastructure, Israel has violated article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and article 12 (2) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states:

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:

(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;

(b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.

Presumably Goldstone holds Israel to these standards because he considers Gaza to be "occupied" by Israel. Ironically, this text proves that Israel does not occupy Gaza, because it would be literally impossible for Israel to perform the part of the convention highlighted above - it simply does not control Gaza to the extent that this convention assumes a "state party" does. How, exactly, would Goldstone expect Israel to teach proper nutrition or modern agricultural techniques to Gazans?

When Goldstone says that Israel violates paragraph 1 above when it seemingly destroyed a flour mill, he must also allow that Israel is violating paragraph 2 by not teaching Gaza schoolchildren how to eat properly. Yet paragraph 2's clear inapplicability to Israel proves paragraph 1's inapplicability to Israel's relationship with Gaza as well. Goldstone is quoting international law provisions that cannot apply to Israel in Gaza and that were clearly not intended for warring parties to provide for each other.

Goldstone's other citation, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is even more of a stretch in this context. Article 1 of that covenant is simply a statement on the rights of people for self-determination. Citing that covenant to say that bombing a flour mill is illegal is bizarre, as every bullet in every war can be interpreted to violate that very same covenant.

---

Thus far in my readings of Goldstone, I have not ascribed any sort of malice to him. I certainly detect obvious bias and some very distressing blindness, but I felt that he was doing this report in good but misguided faith.

But it is hard to ignore these findings and continue to give him this benefit of the doubt. Goldstone is a lawyer, a judge, someone who should be expert in international law. His misrepresentations of international law shown here as well as in previous posts I have written are astonishing. Either he does not know the law, or he is purposefully misrepresenting it in ways that are designed to make Israel look as guilty as possible.

His citations listed here indicate the latter. He is twisting international law to apply solely to Israel. No international convention is too far afield for him to hang criticism of Israel on. The connections between these citations and the reality of Gaza are incredibly tenuous, but only someone with a level of legal expertise could even imagine them to begin with.

One cannot help but conclude that Goldstone's misuse of sources for international law is deliberate.

Read More

Kuwaiti bill to ban dealings with Israel

From al-Arabiya:

Five Islamist lawmakers in Kuwait introduced a bill on Thursday calling for a total ban on dealing with Israel and proposing up to 10 years in jail for violators.

All "dealing, establishing ties or contacts and opening representative offices of any type at any level with the Zionist entity, directly or indirectly" would be banned.

The bill would also prohibit government and private agencies, individuals and companies from striking agreements and protocols with Israel and from meeting with Israelis.

It stipulates a prison term of between three and 10 years and a fine not exceeding $17,500 for violators.

Parliament will later set a date to debate the bill, which must be passed by parliament and signed by the emir to become law. A similar one introduced two years ago never reached the floor for debate.

So if the bill passes and Mahmoud Abbas visits Kuwait, would he be arrested?

Read More

"Kuwaiti female MPs must wear hijab"

Four women were recently elected to be members of parliament in Kuwait.

Two of them do not cover their hair.

This brings up an interesting problem:

The controversy over whether the four female members of the National Assembly should wear the hijab is likely to be revived soon after the Ministry of Islamic Affairs ruled yesterday that wearing the hijab is an obligation for Muslim women. The fatwa, or religious edict, was issued by the Fatwa Authority on the basis of a parliamentary question by Salafist MP Mohammad Hayef about whether wearing the hijab by Muslim women is one of rules of sharia law.

The Fatwa Authority stated that Muslim women are obliged to wear the hijab in front of men not related to them. Hayef sent the question to the Fatwa Authority after the opening of the previous term of the National Assembly in June and after Islamist MPs exchanged accusations with two of the four women MPs not wearing the hijab and their supporters.

Islamist MPs insisted that the female MPs were obliged by the election law to wear the hijab. The election law states that women must abide by the rules of sharia while participating in elections as a candidate or voter. Two of the four women MPs wear the hijab.

Luckily, it appears that Kuwaiti law is not obligated to listen to the fatwa:

But MPs and observers later said that even though the Fatwa Authority has ruled to make wearing hijab an obligation, wearing the hijab for the women lawmakers will not be compulsory. This is because the only authority entrusted to interpret laws and constitutional articles is the constitutional court and the Fatwa Authority ruling can simply be used as a reference.

I have a feeling that the Islamist MPs will not take this sitting down.

Read More

Goldstone Report inaccuracies, part 19

The Goldstone Report talks about, and dismisses, Israeli accusations that Hamas used ambulances for military purposes. The entire section is very revealing as to the bias that the Commission had when investigating claims against Hamas. Here it is in its entirety:

2. Ambulances
470. The Government of Israel alleges that “Hamas made particular use of ambulances, which frequently served as an escape route out of a heated battle with IDF forces.”326 471. The Mission investigated cases in which ambulances were denied access to wounded Palestinians. Three cases in particular are described in chapter XI: the attempts of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) to evacuate the wounded from the al-Samouni neighbourhood south of Gaza City after the attack on the house of Ateya al-Samouni and after the shelling of the house of Wa’el al-Samouni; the attempt of an ambulance driver to rescue the daughters of Khalid
and Kawthar Abd Rabbo in Izbat Abd Rabbo; and the attempt of an ambulance driver to evacuate Rouhiyah al-Najjar after she had been hit by an Israeli sniper. In all three cases the Mission found, on the facts it gathered, that the Israeli armed forces must have known that there were no combatants among the people to be rescued or in the immediate vicinity.

Why is this paragraph here? The section is meant to discuss possible Hamas war crimes, but before Goldstone even starts looking at any evidence, he puts in this utterly irrelevant paragraph about alleged Israeli war crimes, whose only tangential relevance is the word "ambulances." The entire section this is under is called "VIII. OBLIGATION ON PALESTINIAN ARMED GROUPS IN GAZA TO TAKE FEASIBLE PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT THE CIVILIAN POPULATION."

Before Goldstone even entertains the possibility of Hamas war crimes in context of ambulances, he feels compelled to throw in an unrelated dig at the IDF that he already covered at length elsewhere in the report. Is this supposed to be "unbiased?"

472. The Mission is aware of an interview reportedly given by an ambulance driver to an Australian newspaper, in which he describes how Palestinian combatants unsuccessfully tried to force him to evacuate them from a house in which they were apparently trapped. The same driver reportedly told the journalist that “Hamas made several attempts to hijack the ambulance fleet of al-Quds Hospital”. He also describes how the PRCS ambulance teams managed to avert this misuse of ambulances. According to this report, relied on by the Israeli Government, the attempts of Palestinian combatants to exploit ambulances as shield for military operations were not successful in the face of the courageous resistance of the PRCS staff members.327

For some reason, Goldstone doesn't refer to the actual article; the footnote refers to Israel's report. The paragraph vastly waters down the Sydney Morning Herald's article, using words like "reportedly" to dilute what was said:

Mohammed Shriteh, 30, is an ambulance driver registered with and trained by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.

His first day of work in the al-Quds neighbourhood was January 1, the sixth day of the war. "Mostly the war was not as fast or as chaotic as I expected," Mr Shriteh told the Herald. "We would co-ordinate with the Israelis before we pick up patients, because they have all our names, and our IDs, so they would not shoot at us."

Mr Shriteh said the more immediate threat was from Hamas, who would lure the ambulances into the heart of a battle to transport fighters to safety.

"After the first week, at night time, there was a call for a house in Jabaliya. I got to the house and there was lots of shooting and explosions all around," he said.

Because of the urgency of the call, Mr Shriteh said there was no time to arrange his movements with the IDF.

"I knew the Israelis were watching me because I could see the red laser beam in the ambulance and on me, on my body," he said.

Getting out of the ambulance and entering the house, he saw there were three Hamas fighters taking cover inside. One half of the building had already been destroyed.

"They were very scared, and very nervous … They dropped their weapons and ordered me to get them out, to put them in the ambulance and take them away. I refused, because if the IDF sees me doing this I am finished, I cannot pick up any more wounded people.

"And then one of the fighters picked up a gun and held it to my head, to force me. I still refused, and then they allowed me to leave."

Mr Shriteh says Hamas made several attempts to hijack the al-Quds Hospital's fleet of ambulances during the war.

"You hear when they are coming. People ring to tell you. So we had to get in all the ambulances and make the illusion of an emergency and only come back when they had gone."

While Mr. Shriteh's account shows that Hamas was unsuccessful in his case, he makes it clear that this was not an isolated incident and that Hamas tried (and, he implies, succeeded) on numerous occasions to use ambulances to transport its members.

473. This is consistent with the statements of representatives of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in Gaza who, in interviews with the Mission, denied that their ambulances were used at any time by Palestinian combatants. Finally, in a submission to the Mission, Magen David Adom stated that “there was no use of PRCS ambulances for the transport of weapons or ammunition … [and] there was no misuse of the emblem by PRCS.”328

There is a bit of sleight of hand going on here. Shriteh spoke of Hamas' attempts not only to commandeer PRCS ambulances but also hospital ambulances; MDA and PRCS are only speaking of PRCS ambulances. Other organizations also had ambulances in Gaza, such as Oxfam. It is probable that Hamas' own medical wing has ambulances as well.

474. While it is not possible to say that no attempts were ever made by any armed groups to use ambulances during the military operations, the Mission has substantial material from the investigations it conducted and the enquiries it made to convince it that, if any ambulances were used by Palestinian armed groups, it would have been the exception, not the rule.

When Hamas is accused of a war crime, Goldstone brushes it off as "an exception, not the rule." Nowhere in the report does Goldstone give Israel the same benefit of the doubt; on the contrary, the cherry-picked examples that Goldstone concentrates on specifically take the larger context out of the framing of the accusations. Potentially problematic Israeli actions are characterized as the rule and barely ever placed in the context of a complex military operation where thousands of decisions need to be made instantly; Hamas' crimes - when they are considered at all - are considered the "exception."

None of the ambulance drivers that were directly interviewed by the Mission reported any attempt by the armed groups to use the ambulances for any ulterior purpose.

Did Goldstone attempt to contact Mohammed Shriteh?

Moreover, of the ambulance staff members and their volunteer assistants that were killed or injured in the course of their duties, none was a member of any armed groups, so far as the Mission is aware.

Mr. Goldstone, allow me to introduce you to Anas Fadel Na’im: medic, nephew of Hamas' health minister, and al-Qassam Brigades member:


And another: Ra'afat Sami Ibrahim (Muharram), medic, whose Al Qassam Brigades obituary describes him as leaving his cell phone and personal belongings at the hospital right before he was killed, telling everyone that he would return as a "martyr."

Not to mention ‘Azmi Hisham ‘Azmi Abu Dalal, medic, Al Qassam member.

Or Ahmed Abdullah Salem Al-Khatib, nurse, and also PRC-Saladin Brigades field commander.

Or Ihab ‘Umar Khalil al-Madhoun, physician and al-Qassam member.

Or Issa Abdul Rahim Saleh, physician, who also shot rockets and planted bombs according to his al-Qassam obituary.

It appears that there were plenty of physicians and medics in Gaza who also happened to be members of armed groups. Yet Goldstone wasn't "aware" of any of them.

There are other facts that would make an objective observer question whether Hamas was using ambulances and military installations for combat purposes.

After the Gaza operation, while Goldstone's mission was underway, the Palestinian Ministry of Health charged Hamas with confiscating ambulances and medical equipment donated by Arab countries and converting them to military vehicles.

There were reports during the operation that Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar had escaped to Egypt in an ambulance.

Hamas had confiscated aid trucks, including medical aid meant for PRCS, both in 2008 and immediately after the operation.

Hamas even converted medicine bottles into Molotov cocktails.

Putting these facts together, all of which were reported in English-language media, should make one skeptical about Hamas' separation of medical and military tasks. Yet Goldstone simply waves away any of these concerns by implying that if the mission is not aware of them, there is no reason to believe them.

The overwhelming impression one gets is that Goldstone tried very hard to find any Israeli "war crimes" he could, but he wouldn't go out of his way to find anything wrong with what Hamas was doing. The mission, supposedly sent to do fact-finding, seems to have only taken the information that fell into its lap and didn't make any effort to do any independent investigation that would go beneath the surface.

Beyond that, this section shows that circumstantial and hearsay evidence was given great weight by Goldstone when it was against Israel and it was summarily dismissed, or ignored altogether, when it was against Hamas.

UPDATE: Mahmoud Abbas also accused Hamas leaders of using ambulances to escape to Egypt.

Read More

Saudi sex braggart sentenced

Remember Mazen Abdul Jawad, the Saudi who went on Lebanese TV to brag about his sexual exploits and who got into hot water in his home country as a result?

Turns out that he received a pretty harsh sentence from the Saudi court system:

The Summary Court here sentenced Wednesday the 32-year-old Saudi sex braggart Mazen Abdul Jawad to five years imprisonment and 1,000 lashes to be executed in installments for boasting about his sexual exploits on the LBC weekly program “Bold Red Line” in mid-July.

Judge Sheikh Muhammad Amin Mirdad also confiscated the car Abdul Jawad is seen in the program using to cruise the streets looking for girls. The mobile phone Abdul Jawad said he used to hit on women using Bluetooth was also taken by the state. Once he has completed his prison time, Abdul Jawad will be forbidden from traveling abroad for five years.

Abdul Jawad’s lawyer, Sulaiman Al-Jumaie, described the verdict as “hasty and made under public pressure.” In a statement sent to Arab News, the lawyer said the case is not yet closed and that he would appeal the verdict within 10 days.

Three other men, who also appeared in the TV segment but did not make any statements, were determined by the judge to be accomplices and sentenced to two years and 300 lashes each. All four men will also be subjected to court-ordered counseling.

Saudi Arabia is a safer place nowadays, as the only way to get some quick sex there is to "marry" a girl for a couple of hours or days for money, which is of course much more moral.

Read More

Jordanian sheep spontaneously combust

According to the Arab News:

Jordanian authorities were on Wednesday conducting an investigation to try to explain an unusual phenomenon whereby the heat of a plot of land rose dramatically to more than 400 degrees Celsius.

The drastic overheating occurred in an area of about 2,000 square meters in the Balqa province, about 15 km west of Amman, according to Balqa Gov. Abdul Jalil Sleimat.

“The phenomenon was discovered by accident when sheep entered the plot while grazing,” he said.

Sleimat quoted the shepherd attending the herd as saying that the sheep caught fire and “completely burned and disappeared”.

He said any material thrown into the area burned quickly and flames came out.

The authorities have deployed police in the area, which was also sealed off with phosphoric tape. The area’s people were evacuated to ensure their safety, Sleimat said.

The government has also set up an ad hoc panel involving several departments and academic institutions to study the phenomenon.

As good a reason as any to link to this:

Jordan now believes that it was from methane gas.

Read More

Goldstone plays pretend to the Jewish press

From the Forward:

Goldstone’s findings themselves have, meanwhile, been left largely unexamined. The 36 specific incidents he focuses on in his report paint a disturbing picture of an Israeli army purposefully targeting unarmed civilians. But the facts of the report are built mostly on testimonies of Palestinian eyewitnesses, which have received little scrutiny or verification. Critics also call attention to parts of the commission’s work that they say was sloppily done, without sufficient cross-examination and double checking of information. Alternative interpretations of the incidents described are not considered, let alone fully explored.

Tellingly, in an interview with the Forward on October 2, Goldstone himself acknowledged the tentative nature of his findings.

“Ours wasn’t an investigation, it was a fact-finding mission,” he said, sitting in his Midtown Manhattan office at Fordham University Law School, where he is currently visiting faculty. “We made that clear.”

Goldstone defended the report’s reliance on eyewitness accounts, noting his mission had cross-checked those accounts against each other and sought corroboration from photos, satellite photos, contemporaneous reports, forensic evidence and the mission’s own inspections of the sites in question.

For all that gathered information, though, he said, “We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”

Goldstone emphasized that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional.

Nevertheless, the report itself is replete with bold and declarative legal conclusions seemingly at odds with the cautious and conditional explanations of its author. The report repeatedly refers, without qualification, to specific violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention committed by Israel and other breaches of international law. Citing particular cases, the report determines unequivocally that Israel “violated the prohibition under customary international law” against targeting civilians. These violations, it declares, “constitute a grave breach” of the convention.

It is this rush to judgment based on what critics believe to be unsubstantiated allegations that has angered some who have delved into the details.

When speaking to a Jewish newspaper, Goldstone is claiming that the report does not any legal validity. Yet the report itself has many sections entitled "Legal Findings" that have flat statements like this one:

810. In reviewing the above incidents the Mission found in every case that the Israeli armed forces had carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians. The only exception is theshelling o f the Abu Halima family home, where the Mission does not have sufficient information on the military situation prevailing at the time to reach a conclusion.

As far as I could tell, nowhere in the report itself does it say that these "legal findings" are not meant to be interpreted as anything other than legal findings. And one can be sure that regular readers of the report are not making these fine distinctions that Goldstone now claims were clear.

Similarly, Goldstone says to the Forward that "Ours wasn’t an investigation, it was a fact-finding mission." Yet the report itself does refer to its own gathering of facts as an "investigation:"

21. The Mission conducted field visits, including investigations of incident sites, in the Gaza Strip. This allowed the Mission to observe first-hand the situation on the ground, and speak to many witnesses and other relevant persons.

36. On the basis of its own investigations and the statements by United Nations officials, the Mission excludes that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat activities from United Nations facilities that were used as shelters during the military operations.

48. Based on its investigation of incidents involving the use of certain weapons such as white phosphorous and flechette missiles, the Mission, while accepting that white phosphorous is not at this stage proscribed under international law, finds that the Israeli armed forces were systematically reckless in determining its use in built-up areas.

And even though the mission was officially termed "fact-finding," the mandate itself calls it an investigation:

131. On 3 April 2009, the President of the Human Rights Council established the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict with the mandate “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”

A legal scholar must be very attuned to the exact meaning of his words. The report, and the mandate, specifically refers to its own mission as an "investigation" numerous times. Saying that it really isn't weeks afterwards is meaningless and more than a little deceptive.

---

The Forward article also gives me my 15 nanoseconds of fame, unfortunately without a link:

But critics have also questioned whether the clear cut version of the attack that appears in the report is the whole story. According to Halevi’s research, as well as the investigative work of an anonymous blogger called “Elder of Ziyon” — both of whom crosschecked websites for Islamic Jihad and Hamas — among the 15 dead were six men who they contend were members of the Al Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s paramilitary wing.

If you want to know what I told the reporter, see here. Last night I also sent him more info on my research into terrorists that the PCHR categorized as civilians.)

Read More

"Glorious"

Islamic Jihad's website Saraya.ps has an article on the ninth anniversary of the beginning of the second Intifada. The exact words the article uses are "the ninth anniversary of the glorious Al-Aqsa Intifada in Palestine."

Think about this for a minute. The intifada resulted in the deaths of over 5000 Palestinian Arabs. As a direct result of the uprising, Israel built a wall to protect her citizens and that made the lives of Palestinian Arabs more difficult. The political goals of moderate Palestinian Arabs were set back by years. Yasir Arafat turned from a respected international figure into a joke, hiding terrorists in his compound. The Palestinian Arabs themselves suffered a huge split between Gaza and the West Bank and between Hamas and Fatah.

By the standards of any normal observer, the second intifada was anything but "glorious."

In order to comprehend the mentality of Palestinian Arabs, it is critical to understand the reasons they think that the intifada was a victory.

The answer is quite simple, and disheartening for those who think that there is any realistic chance for peace.

From the start, Palestinian Arabs never showed any real interest in building their own state, but rather in destroying the Jewish state. The majority of them happily accepted Jordanian sovereignty in 1949 and their nationalism has always been one based on the negation of Jewish nationalism in Palestine.

In other words, victory to them is not what helps Palestinian Arabs, but rather than what hurts Israelis.

Once this simple fact is understood, all the seemingly counterproductive decisions and celebrations that Palestinian Arabs make are easy to understand. The Intifada was bad for Israelis, of course - over a thousand murdered, and restrictions on Israeli movement; armed guards at supermarkets, people nervous about taking buses, and a much more difficult life in general for all Israelis.

Since it hurt Israelis, it must be - by their definition - a glorious victory.

This explains why terror attacks are greeted with glee by so many Palestinian Arabs. That is not an anomalous way of thinking - it is mainstream, as we have seen from polls since the 1990s. If Israelis are hurt, then it must be good for Palestinian Arabs.

There is one other factor that acts as a multiplier effect, that makes every counterproductive decision appear to be a victory. The honor/shame culture is a large part of this psyche.

To Arabs, honor is indistinguishable from importance, and when Palestinian Arabs do something relevant that is noticed by the world, it is a badge of honor. This is why terror and the intifada is so celebrated. Not only were Israelis hurt and killed, but also Palestinian Arabs made world headlines. Headlines translates into relevance, which equals importance, which equals honor. Nothing hurts PalArabs more than the thought that they are irrelevant. Like second graders, they need to act up once in a while to get attention, and negative attention is better than nothing at all.

This is not only why the intifada is celebrated but also why the Palestinian Arabs are rioting now, while Israel did nothing to change the status quo. The current mini-outbreak was instigated by the Islamists but it is being continued by the mainstream of PalArabs, encouraged by their leaders from Fatah, the PA, Hamas and the other terror organizations. They do not see a downside.

Is it any wonder that peace is so elusive? One cannot make peace with people whose goals are so diametrically opposed to real peace.

Read More

Hamas: Gaza's Madoffs

From Bloomberg:

Investment opportunities are rare in the Gaza Strip. So when Nabila Ghabin saw one last year, she pawned her car and jewelry and put $12,000 into a network of tunnels that brought in supplies smuggled from Egypt.

She was one of about 4,000 Gazans who gave cash to middlemen and tunnel operators in 2008 as Israel blocked the overland passage of goods. Then Israeli warplanes bombed the tunnels before and during the Dec. 27 to Jan. 18 Gaza offensive and the investments collapsed.

Now investors, who lost as much as $500 million, want their money back from Hamas, which runs Gaza. Hamas Economics Minister Ziad Zaza says about 200 people were taken into custody in connection with the tunnel investments; most have been released. Hamas is offering a partial repayment of 16.5 cents on the dollar using money recovered from Ihab al-Kurd, the biggest tunnel operator.

The imbroglio over the 800 to 1,000 tunnels has deepened Hamas’s decline in public opinion in Gaza and highlights the Wild West nature of the underground economy that supports this jammed enclave of 1.4 million people.

“When you compare the U.S. economy with ours and see how dependent we have become on the tunnels, I assure you that our scandal is much worse than Madoff,” said Omar Shaban, director of Pal-Think, an economic research institute in Gaza City, speaking of New York financier Bernard Madoff’s $65-billion Ponzi scheme.

Top Hamas leader Ismail Haniya has not commented publicly on the losses to tunnel investors.

“There is no transparency, no public records, no regulators, none of the mechanisms that would let you trace what happened to all the money that people invested in the tunnels,” said Samir Abdullah, the Palestinian Authority’s former planning minister. “The smugglers provide essential revenue for Hamas.”

Hamas, classified by the U.S. and the European Union as a terrorist organization, isn’t offering enough to cover losses, said Ghabin, 43, whose husband is blind and who has five children. She blames Hamas for encouraging the investments.

“The imam told us that we wouldn’t regret joining this blessed business,” she said in her apartment in an unfinished 12-story high-rise overlooking the Mediterranean as her husband played the lute. “This happened in mosques all over Gaza.”

“You can feel the frustration because thousands of families lost their money and they hold Hamas responsible,” Pal-Think’s Shaban said.

Ghabin said her imam in Gaza City recommended that worshippers invest in the tunnels, saying he was acting under instructions from the Hamas Ministry of Religious Affairs. Her daughter was pitched by an imam at the al-Bureij refugee camp, where she lives. Officials at the ministry declined to comment.

h/t EBoZ

Read More

Israeli to buy 50% of Al Jazeera?

Arabic media are reporting that Israeli media mogul Haim Saban is negotiating with the government of Qatar to purchase 50% of the Al Jazeera channel.

Negotiations are reportedly going through and Egyptian intermediary.

Similar rumors occurred in 2006. According to the article, Saban withdrew from the 2006 offer in the wake of a Price Waterhouse audit of the channel, but is now offering double what he offered then.

It seems equally likely that someone wants to make Al Jazeera or Qatar look bad in the Arab world.

Read More

"Honor killing" novel dropped due to fear of Muslims

From Reuters:

A German publisher said Tuesday it had canceled the printing of a murder mystery about an honor killing because it contained passages insulting Islam and may have prompted Islamist retaliation.
Droste publishers dropped the book by author Gabriele Brinkmann entitled "To Whom Honor is Due" after she refused to change several passages, including one where a fictional character is portrayed making abusive remarks about the Koran.

"After the Mohammad cartoons, one knows that one can't publish sentences or drawings that defame Islam without expecting a security risk," said Felix Droste, head of Droste publishers.

In 2006, violent protests broke out in several Islamic countries after cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in a Danish newspaper sparked outrage among Muslims.

The publisher's decision has prompted criticism that it is bowing to Islamist intimidation and curtailing freedom of speech. The firm has also received threats from far-right groups against its employees for being "friends of Islamists."

German newspapers ran headlines: "Publisher self censors" and "Fear of Islamist attacks."

The atmosphere of fear that Islamists have instilled in the West is so pervasive that they don't even have to threaten violence any more - scared Westerners will do the censoring pre-emptively.

Read More

Niqab controversy in Egypt

A fascinating article in The Daily News Egypt about dueling clerics and women covering their faces:

Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar Mohamed Sayed Tantawy says he plans to ban the full face veil (niqab) at Al-Azhar schools, educational institutions and universities.

According to a statement he made in Al-Ahram Sunday, he was upset to see many preparatory school students (aged 11-12) wearing the niqab inside the classroom.

In an interview with a local news channel on Sunday, Tantawy said that “the niqab is not obligatory and there is no need for those young girls to wear it inside the classroom.”

Commenting on Tantawy’s statement, Sheikh Mahmoud Ashour, member of the Islamic research Center said that the Sheikh’s decision is not a fatwa, but a move aimed at preserving security among students.

“Muslim women are allowed to show their faces and hands,” Ashour said.

Allowing the niqab in academic institutions can cause problems, he added, since anyone can use it as a disguise to enter the university, even terrorists.

Muslim Brotherhood MP Hamdy Hassan couldn’t disagree more. He told Daily News Egypt Monday that he denounces Tantawy’s anti-niqab statement.

According to Dar El-Iftaa, the official authority charged with issuing religious edicts, the niqab is not obligatory but is “allowed and accepted according to the interpretations of some Islamic scholars.”

In a related note, on Monday the Minister of Higher Education Hani Helal banned the niqab inside Cairo University dorms.

However neither Ain Shames University nor Helwan University issued similar decrees.

In 2007 Helwan University was the subject of a huge controversy when university security guards prohibited the entry of some female students wearing the niqab into the university dorms, even though they agreed to reveal their face to the female security guards for an identity check.

In the same year, Minister of Religious Endowments Hamdy Zaqzuq dismissed an employee from a meeting for refusing to remove her niqab.

Zaqzuq publicly maintains his denouncement of the niqab stressing that “it is a tradition, not an Islamic practice.”

In 2004 the American University in Cairo (AUC) caused a similar stir after a decree prohibiting the entry of students wearing the niqab into the university campus.

A year later some of these students won a court case against the university allowing them to enter provided they show their face to security guards to check their identity.

As a reaction, the university issued a new internal regulation prohibiting the niqab.

Tantawi has been in hot water before, for shaking hands with Shimon Peres. But before you think of him as some sort of moderate, keep in mind that he also supports terror attacks against Israeli civilians.

Read More