Terror finance trial plaintiffs: Arab Bank records show funds were transferred to Hamas
By YONAH JEREMY BOB, FRANK G. RUNYEON 08/15/2014 01:57
One of the lead plaintiffs’ lawyers said evidence would show that the bank required “all employees to donate 5 percent of their salaries” to the second intifada.
Peace flags are reflected on the Arab Bank window during anti-wardemonstration in Rome. Photo: REUTERS
Plaintiffs told the jury in the Arab Bank terror financing trial on Thursday that “you will see bank records in black and white that say ‘Hamas’” as proof the bank knew it was being used to fund terrorism.
One of the lead plaintiffs’ lawyers, Mark Werbner said that evidence would show that the bank required “all their employees to donate 5 percent of their salaries” to the second intifada.
The plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank, Jordan’s sovereign bank with branches in 30 countries, facilitated massive transfer of funds to Hamas leaders and institutions, as well as to the families of imprisoned Hamas members and suicide bombers, via Saudi Arabia and Hezbollah’s al-Shahid Foundation.
It is alleged that Arab Bank knew the transfered funds were not solely related to terrorists and terrorist groups, but used in attacks – a charge that the Jordanian institution denies.
Werbner added that the funds that passed through the bank “is the oxygen that feeds these kinds of organizations.”
Tab Turner, another plaintiff’s lawyer, said that the evidence would show “millions, literally millions” of dollars “flowed right down the middle of Madison Avenue.”
Turner also said that the applicable US anti-terrorism financing law on the issue says, “thou shalt not provide financial services to foreign terrorist organizations.”
He accused the bank of serving “as the paymaster” for an alleged terror-funding Saudi Arabia-related committee.
Aside from the accusations, the plaintiffs displayed photographs, bank records, bank letters and internal memoranda to prove their case while opening with a description of a March 28, 2001, terrorist attack connected to the case, and allegedly to the bank.
Werbner said that the bank had not made a mistake but that “it was a choice.”
He added that the bank assisted with terror financing because it was “the ideology of the bank,” which made public statements characterizing Israel as the enemy.
The plaintiffs outlined payments from the bank to 24 suicide bombers’ families, 145 operatives families and 11 living operatives, 92.5% of which were paid in cash.
They mentioned advertisements in newspapers asking for martyrs’ families to come to the bank to collect payment.
Shand Stephens, representing the bank, said, “our hearts go out to the victims,” but that “we’re not here with Hamas as a defendant,” distinguishing the bank as having no knowledge that funds were being wired through it to terrorists.
He added that the plaintiffs unfairly argued that “every neighbor knew every neighbor” and that the bank, which conducts millions of transactions a year, genuinely did not know that terrorists were the recipients of the funds.
Stephens, in trying to humanize the bank, noted that the brother of bank chairman Sabih al-Masri was killed in a terrorist attack – without making a direct link to the case.
Rather than the emotional underpinnings of the case, the defense lawyers highlighted that the technical workings of the bank’s compliance systems checked watch-lists for electronic fund transfers.
The case has massive diplomatic implications.
A critical issue, which brought the US State Department, Justice Department and Treasury Department to loggerheads over what official US policy should be, is an April 2013 sanctions order imposed by a New York federal court which significantly penalized the bank for refusing to disclose key documents that the plaintiffs said they need to prove their case.
The bank had refused to turn over certain documents, saying it could incur criminal sanctions from Jordan and Lebanon for violating bank secrecy laws, but a lower US court rejected this rationale.
Arab Bank maintained its claim that the transfers were made with no knowledge of wrongdoing at the time – despite the terrorism-connected persons the transfers were made to, including Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, arch-terrorist commanders (now deceased) Salah Shehada and Ahmed Jabari, and Hamas founder Ibrahim al-Muqadama.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told leaders of communities near Gaza on Thursday – even as a five-day cease-fire took hold – that Israel would not tolerate a drizzle of mortar or rocket attacks.
Amid mounting public criticism, especially in the South, that Operation Protective Edge might well end without removing for a long period the rocket and mortar threats from the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu met in his office with the heads of the Hof Ashkelon, Sha’ar Hanegev and Sdot Negev regional councils.
“The IDF launched Operation Protective Edge after Hamas returned to drizzle rocket fire on the southern communities,” the prime minister said. “Our policy is clear and consistent – even to a drizzle we respond forcefully.
We launched this campaign to strengthen the security of all Israeli citizens in general, and yours in particular.”
Netanyahu pointed out that the IDF struck some 160 terrorist targets after Hamas renewed the fighting last weekend and fired mortar shells at the communities near the Gaza border.
Residents of the communities most affected by the rocket and mortar fire were not the only ones to criticize Netanyahu, as members of his cabinet voiced displeasure over the past few days at being kept in the dark regarding the indirect cease-fire negotiations in Cairo.
On Thursday, the prime minster convened the eight-member security cabinet to brief it on the talks in Egypt and what seems to be an emerging agreement that will be based on the accord reached after 2012’s Operation Pillar of Defense, which called for an end to the rocket fire, the opening of border crossings under Egyptian and Israeli supervisions, and the funneling of money into Gaza through Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, to ensure that it does not go into Hamas’s coffers.
Israel’s negotiating team to the Cairo talks is expected to return there on Saturday night.
One Israeli official said that Israel has always expressed its interest in achieving the goals of Operation Protective Edge – restoring quiet and significantly reducing Hamas’s capabilities – through diplomatic means.
Israel was “realistic” about the cease-fire, especially considering that Hamas has violated 10 previous truces this time around, the official said.
“The troops are ready, and still around Gaza,” he said. “We know from past behavior that they [Hamas] might violate it.”
Meanwhile, Hamas said on Thursday that “some progress” has been achieved in Cairo toward a permanent cease-fire. Khalil al-Hayeh, a senior Hamas official who participated in the Egyptian-sponsored talks, said it would be possible to reach an agreement if Israel “stopped playing with words.”
“Our adversary is accustomed to playing with words and procrastination,” Hayeh said upon his return to the Gaza Strip. “But we won’t sign any agreement that does not meet the demands of our people.”
The Palestinian delegation to the Cairo talks held “strenuous” discussions over the past 13 days, he said.
He dismissed reports about differences among members of the delegation.
“Our delegation is unified behind the demands of the Palestinians,” Hayeh said. “We are determined to make the enemy pay the price.”
The Hamas official said the Palestinian delegation decided to give the talks another chance by agreeing to the extension of the 72-hour ceasefire that expired at midnight on Wednesday night.
“There is still a real chance to reach an agreement,” he added. “We will continue the dialogue.”
Hayeh referred to the airport that functioned in the southern Gaza Strip between 1998 and 2001, which Israel partially destroyed during the second intifada, saying it should be returned to operation. With regard to Hamas’s demand for a seaport, he said that previous agreements between Israel and the PA talked about the establishment of such a port.
He said that the Rafah border crossing was a Palestinian-Egyptian issue.
“We understood from the Egyptians that there will be an easing of restrictions at the terminal,” he added without elaborating.
While some of the Hamas negotiators returned to the Gaza Strip, others headed from Cairo to Qatar for consultations with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.
The Islamic Jihad negotiators headed to Beirut for consultations with the group’s leader, Ramadan Shalah.
One of the Hamas officials who traveled to Qatar, Izzat al-Risheq, also talked about progress on some issues at the Cairo talks. However, he said that many other issues remain unresolved.
Risheq said that Hamas “foiled” attempts during the talks to confiscate the weapons of the Palestinian groups in Gaza, in a reference to Israel’s demand for the Strip’s demilitarization.
Ziad al-Nakhaleh, a senior member of Islamic Jihad who represented his group at the Cairo talks, said a permanent cease-fire agreement was imminent.
“We have made progress at the Cairo talks toward lifting the siege on the Gaza Strip,” he said. “We agreed that the border crossings would be opened.”
He said the two sides agreed that the issue of the airport and seaport would be discussed one month after the signing of a long-term ceasefire agreement. He, too, said that the Palestinians, backed by the Egyptians, rejected Israel’s demand to disarm the various groups in the Gaza Strip.
United Nations HQ in New York. Photo: wiki commons.
In further comments to The Algemeiner, Rabbi Cooper said Ban “refused to get involved with the travesty at UN Human Rights Council.”
***************
For a full 90 minutes on Wednesday, Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, directors of The Simon Wiesenthal Center, told United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon about the litany of abuses of international rules of warfare – 19 in total – by Hamas in Gaza.
Rabbi Cooper told The Algemeiner on Thursday, “Bottom line, the Jewish world will have to be more proactive on the international stage, not only to defend Israel, but ourselves as well. We will continue to interact with Ban Ki Moon to insure that this important leader will be more responsive.”
In a follow-up note to Ban after their meeting, the SWC rabbis summed up the argument they presented. They said that “we must frankly ask you how many times will the world allow itself to be held hostage by Hamas? This is the third time since 2005 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza that Hamas has brought death and destruction to the people of Gaza. Once again they are using the people of Gaza, the civilian infrastructure and UN facilities in its non-stop campaign to terrorize the Jewish state.”
During the 90 minute meeting, according to Rabbi Cooper, the SWC urged the UN to announce an official inquiry into the use of various UNRWA schools by Hamas to store and launch rockets for the benefit of the UN’s own reputation. SWC also called on the UN not to permit the UNRWA to supervise the billions in reconstruction funds expected for Gaza.
“The systematic hijacking of previous aid, cement, and building materials by Hamas to build an underground superhighway of terror is scandalous and a violation of the wishes of the donors who did not contribute funds for rockets or tunnels,” they said. “Those who failed to stop such theft and serial abuse of humanitarian aid, must be held accountable and should not have any involvement in supervising or dispersing of future funds.”
They also said that work shouldn’t begin until “the total disarming of Hamas and the destruction of all of the thousands of rockets and missiles Hamas still harbors.”
The Jewish human rights group that works to protect Jews against anti-Semitism also raised that core issue with Ban. “There has been an explosion of anti-Semitism and genocidal hatred against Israel from Europe to Australia,” they said. “Rather than denouncing this toxic situation Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, contributed to it by being so rabidly one-sided in her criticisms of Israel.”
“During her tenure there was no effort to investigate previous crimes against humanity by Hamas, including its own admission that 160 Palestinian children died building their terrorism tunnels. Her behavior demands a public censure from the Secretary General.”
They asked that “with a human rights disaster of epic proportions in Syria, with ethnic cleansing in Iraq, with a difficult situation in Ukraine and with continuing human rights outrages in North Korea,” the upcoming UN General Assembly “not be allowed to degenerate into an anti-Israel hate fest,” and noted that the UNGA will coincide with the Jewish High Holy Days.
“Anymore demonization of Israel emanating from the halls of the United Nations will only contribute to anti-Semitism globally,” they said.
To hammer home their point about Hamas violating human rights, although Israel is accused of doing so by the UN Human Rights Commission, the SWC rabbis left Ban with a detailed list they compiled of the 19 violations made by Hamas, with full notes and citations for Ban to reflect upon.
In further comments to The Algemeiner, Rabbi Cooper said Ban “refused to get involved with the travesty at UN Human Rights Council.”
Read the SWC’s list of Hamas’s 19 violations of the rules of war:
1) Hamas’ rocket attacks directed at Israel’s civilian population centers deliberately violates the basic principles of distinction (Additional Protocol I, arts. 48, 51(2), 52(1).) Any doubt about this is resolved by the fact that Hamas itself has boasted of its intention to hit population centres. It is well accepted in customary international law that intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities constitutes a war crime. (Rome Statute, art. 8(2)(b)(i))
2) Staging of Attacks From Residential Areas and Protected Sites: The Law of Armed Conflict not only prohibits targeting an enemy’s civilians; it also requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish their combatant forces from their own civilians, and not to base operations in or near civilian structures, especially protected sites such as schools, medical facilities and places of worship. As the customary law principle is reflected in Article 51(7) of Additional Protocol I: The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or shield, favor or impede military operations.
3) Use of Civilian Homes and Public Institutions as Bases of Operation – see (2) for citations.
4) Misuse of Medical Facilities and Ambulances – Any time Hamas uses an ambulance to transport its fighters it is violating the Law of Armed Conflict: Under Article 23(f) of the 1907 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which reflects customary international law, it is especially forbidden … [t]o make improper use of a flag of truce, … as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention. Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949)also provides that: … the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground … may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments…
5) Booby-trapping of Civilian Areas – see (2) for citations.
6) Blending in with Civilians and Use of Human Shields – As the ICRC rule states, lilt can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.
7) Exploitation of Children – Hamas has paramilitary summer camps for kids. There are reports, from this war and previous ones, of children fighting and being used for tunnel digging. violates the Law of Armed Conflict, including prohibitions against allowing children to take part in hostilities. As customary international law is reflected in this regard in Additional Protocol I, the parties to a conflict must take “all feasible measures” to ensure that children lido not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. (Additional Protocol I, art. 77(2))
8 ) Interference with Humanitarian Relief Efforts – While Israel kept its end of humanitarian truces. Hamas used them to shoot rockets into Israel, including the Kerem Shalom crossing where humanitarian goods are brought into Gaza. All of these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, which requires parties to allow the entry of humanitarian supplies and to guarantee their safety. Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires parties in an armed conflict to permit the free passage of [humanitarian] consignments and shall guarantee their protection. Article 60 of the same Convention protects the shipments from being diverted from their intended purpose, something Hamas has certainly done in the past and is reported to have done in this conflict as well.
9) Hostage-taking – The Fourth Geneva Conventions, article 34, says flatly “The taking of hostages is prohibited.” This is not an “arrest” as Israel-haters claim, and this is not a prisoner of war situation as Hamas has made clear – the purpose of Hamas’ hostage-taking falls under the definition on the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages: “Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage “) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking ‘) within the meaning of this Convention.
10) Using the uniform of the enemy – Additional Protocol I prohibits the use of enemy flags, military emblems, insignia or uniforms “while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations”. [3] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “making improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts when it results in death or serious personal injury. [4] According to some, this is considered perfidy, a war crime. (h/t Joshua)
11) Violence aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population – Rule 2 of ICRC’s Customary IHL is Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. II It quotes Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population”. Hamas rockets are aimed not only at killing civilians, but also at spreading terror among Israelis.
12)Targeting civilian objects, such as airports or nuclear power plants – Rule 7 of the Customary IHL says “Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects, quoting Articles 48 and 52(2)of Additional Protocol I.
13. Indiscriminate attacks – Besides targeting civilians and civilian objects, Rule 11 of the ICRC CIHL states flatly that “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. II By definition, every Qassam rocket attack and most of the other rocket and mortar attacks are by their very nature indiscriminate. See also Rule 71, “The use of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate is prohibited.
14) Proportionality in attack – ICRC’s Rule 14 states “Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. Rocket attacks against civilians have zero military advantage, so by definition they are disproportionate to their military advantage. See also Rule 18: “Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to assess whether the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
15)Advance Warning – Rule 20 of the ICRC CIHL states “Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. Given that Hamas has used the media and SMS calls to threaten Israelis, it is clear that they have the ability to warn before every rocket attack. Their failure to do so is a violation of IHL.
16) Protecting civilians – Rule 22 of the ICRC Customary IHL states, “The parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks. Hamas not only has failed to protect civilians in Gaza by building bomb shelters, they have deliberately put civilians in harm’s way.
17) Attacking medical units – Rule 28 states, Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. Hamas has shot mortars at the Israeli field hospital, set up for Gazans, near the Erez crossing.
18) Protection of Journalists – Hamas has threatened journalists, implicitly and explicitly, accusing some of being spies and sometimes not allowing them to leave Gaza, making them effectively hostages. Rule 34 states “Civilian journalists engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict must be respected and protected as long as they are not taking a direct part in hostilities.
19) Mistreating the dead. Rule 113 says, Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited. Hamas has shown off an alleged chip cut out from the (presumably) dead body of Shaul Orono.
The complete lack of Muslims voicing strong opposition both vocally and militarily tells us that even though they are butchering fellow Shiite Muslims (besides Kurds & Christians) it’s not really something they want to speak out against. We have seen no marches against ISIS but on the contrary an influx of ISIS flags at the anti-Israel marches. In Paris, one was draped on a statute, another hanging by a government building at The Hague. While silence is complicit, this seems far from silent. In fact the rise of ISIS seems to have emboldened Muslim communities in Europe in its quest for Sharia Law and independence of local government law. Along with more reports of demonic sermons, rabid Jew hate, preaching the need for Sharia and fights with outsiders in heavily Muslim populated areas. In places like Tower Hamlet London black ISIS flags flew guarded by Muslim youth. In Norway Muslims have recently demanded Sharia Law, if not threatening Jihad and suicide bombs. The most bold was recently in Paris, Muslims marched in a blatant disregard of the law by the President which ended in pitched street battles with police reminiscent of former Intifadas.
***********
ISIS or IS (Islamic State) has recently burst onto the scene in a spectacular and brutal fashion. The numerous horrors they are inflicting on people is mind-numbing. Not since the Middle Ages has there risen such an evil bloodthirsty group of zealots killing in the name of a God, the closest comparison must be The Holy Crusades under the banner of Christianity during the middle ages.
ISIS is an offshoot of AL Qaeda with a fanatical religious doctrine under strict Sharia law. Since its establishment in 2006 it’s been another one of the numerous terror groups operating in Iraq, but recently it cemented itself as the premier popular movement of radical Islam. ISIS recent notoriety is due in part to the Syrian Civil War and the gains (post the US pull out) in Iraq against the US trained Iraqi forces.
Since its meteoritic rise ISIS have consolidated different Jihadist factions under a black banner and the dream of a “Caliphate” To the surprise of many they have conquered vast amounts of land, millions of dollars, oil refineries and an immense arsenal of American made weapons (including Apache Helicopters that they don’t know how to fly, yet). While that is impressive in its own right and should make us take notice, what really sets them apart is their marketing and global recruitment.
Using Twitter and YouTube, they have recruited Muslims both young and old in vast numbers from all over the world. Posting gruesome videos & pictures of mass executions, crucifixions, beheadings along with a flair for depraved brutality like burying women and children alive, rape and forced slavery of non-Sunni-Muslim women, all while spouting the ideology of an Islamic Caliphate. Both the success and the brutality have shocked the world.
Now all of this frankly should incense and terrify us as human beings but it’s taken a long time to even register (recent small involvement by US/UK in a rescue operation) Most notable though is the deafening silence from the so called moderate Moslem countries and worldwide communities (who are so quick to rally & voice apposition to the death toll in Gaza in spectacular numbers), out of a population of 1.4 billion Arabs one would think a good amount would be very vocal in opposition of ISIS brutality, but yet mostly we hear nothing but silence and in some cases like in Jordan, Gaza & Lebanon we hear support in terms of marches and banners. Here in lies the problem and my analysis
What the ISIS movement has shown us is the following. One, it’s galvanized the so called fringe members, the crazies, the couch jihadist, the fanatical believers in Allah to its one black flag, hence the multitude of foreign fighters from the UK, France, Australia and so on. What is even more apparent though is it’s giving “normal westernized” young Moslems, (many are mostly unemployed, mostly uneducated) a theology that they can really get behind and identify with. In a lot of the interviews and clips posted by ISIS we see a recurring theme, English speaking Jihadist telling fellow Muslims to join the war, people to convert or die, an insistence that one must live under Sharia Law. Another common theme telling from the clips is the apparent grievances of world behavior to the Muslim people (much like the Germans post Versailles) along with a promise that ISIS is “coming soon to a town near you”, along with the rhetoric that ISIS flags will fly on top of the White House, and Sharia Law will dominate globally (one day)
Two; The complete lack of Muslims voicing strong opposition both vocally and militarily tells us that even though they are butchering fellow Shiite Muslims (besides Kurds & Christians) it’s not really something they want to speak out against. We have seen no marches against ISIS but on the contrary an influx of ISIS flags at the anti-Israel marches. In Paris, one was draped on a statute, another hanging by a government building at The Hague. While silence is complicit, this seems far from silent. In fact the rise of ISIS seems to have emboldened Muslim communities in Europe in its quest for Sharia Law and independence of local government law. Along with more reports of demonic sermons, rabid Jew hate, preaching the need for Sharia and fights with outsiders in heavily Muslim populated areas. In places like Tower Hamlet London black ISIS flags flew guarded by Muslim youth. In Norway Muslims have recently demanded Sharia Law, if not threatening Jihad and suicide bombs. The most bold was recently in Paris, Muslims marched in a blatant disregard of the law by the President which ended in pitched street battles with police reminiscent of former Intifadas.
Finally and probably most importantly we can now probably dispel with the myth of the “Moderate Muslim”. The truth is, what ISIS is preaching and doing is written clear as day in the Koran and to the layman Muslim man it’s no more fundamental then praying 5 times a day. In comparison it’s like asking a Christian to denounce Christ, a Jew to denounce Hashem. Off course you will have some push back from those who have lived in Western democracies, but the overwhelming majority not only don’t denounce ISIS openly (or internally) but seem rather excited to see where this movement can go. The entire concept of the moderate when it comes to Sharia law is a complete falsify and the quicker we learn this the better. Recently in a packed mosque the Mullah asked the question to a packed audience “do you think Sharia Law is extreme”, every single young Muslims answered “no”.
The ISIS ideology has taken route deeply, maybe not the mass killings but the dream of Sharia Law and a Caliphate from my research seems embedded, and with each gain and win for ISIS the dream of the Islamic state will only continue to grow stronger. The majority of the Muslim populations “the mob” could begin to ally themselves with ISIS and nothing is more powerful than the mob (Arab spring proved that). So while we say today they don’t have an air force come tomorrow who knows what can be, many countries in the Middle East like Qatar could side with them, it’s also important to note that Qatar just happened to finalize one of the largest arms deals with the US to the tune of $14 billion US.
Simply put if you are a devout Muslim you can’t pick and choose what you want to follow, and everything in the doctrine of ISIS is within the laws of the Koran and the prophet Mohammad “there will rise a pure Islamic Caliphate that will cover the whole world and spread the holy word of Allah and his prophet Mohammed” it is as simple at the constitution is to an American. A recent survey found that 80% of Muslims living in Holland are pro ISIS, For now, they are far from being close to a global threat, and as a fighting force hold no real threat against a real army, but it would be most wise to remember that Hitler started his movement in a Munich Beer Hall and everyone said the same thing about National Socialism.
Part 2. The Powder Keg that is Europe, Rise of Right Wing Politicians
More outrageous and depressing news from the Human Wrongs Rights Council. They never met a terrorist they couldn’t love. — AP)
My above title is intended to be a pun – the UN is no wonderland, the exact opposite in fact. And in parallel, the way the UN behaves towards Israel is so reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts’ words that it almost makes one want to chuckle.
Queen of Hearts: Now… are you ready for your sentence?
Alice: Sentence? But there has to be a verdict first…
Queen of Hearts: Sentence first! Verdict afterwards.
As most of you must have heard by now, the UN Human Wrongs Rights Council decision to investigate Israel’s “war crimes” committed during Operation Protective Edge. No matter that the operation is still ongoing, that the ceasefires have proven worthless and that truce talks are taking place at this moment in Cairo between all the sides.
Here is the statement from the UN Human Rights Council establishing a “commission of inquiry:”
…
to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014. William Schabas will serve as Chair of the three-person commission mandated by the Council at its last special session.
June 13? Operation Protective Edge began on July 8. So why is the UN choosing June 13?
The answer tells you all you need to know about how biased the UNHRC is.
Hamas kidnapped and murdered Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah on June 12.
Israel started searching for them in the Hebron area on June 13.
The commission is being given a framework where they are supposed to believe that the kidnapping and murder were not acts of aggression, but Israel’s response was.
While it is true that the next paragraph tries to stave off this criticism by saying “whether before, during or after,” the very mention of that date and not the day before shows that its mandate “to establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible, …all with a view to avoiding and ending impunity and ensuring that those responsible are held accountable, and on ways and means to protect civilians against any further assaults” is directed only at Israel and not Hamas.
Hamas has never been accused of “impunity.” That is a NGO keyword that only applies to Israel in the context of this conflict.
This is not a mistake. Diplomats are very careful with statements like this, and using the words “military operations conducted since 13 June 2014″ shows that the UNHRC does not consider the kidnapping and murder of the teens to be within the mandate of the commission – only the Israeli response.
Kidnapping and targeting civilians is a war crime, by the way, so the choice of June 13 is a very deliberate attempt not only to portray Israel as the initiator of the hostilities but to whitewash Hamas war crimes.
None of this should come as a surprise to those of us who know the character of the UN (bad) and the UN Human Wrongs Rights Council (evil, malicious). Let’s add to this stinking pile the composition of the hastily gathered panel tasked with investigating Israel’s already-determined war crimes, and you get a witch-hunt worthy of the worst of the Salem trials.
Israel dismissed the Monday appointment of the three members of a UN human rights’ investigative committee to review the recent military operation in Gaza, saying the identity of the three proved that the results of the probe were a foregone conclusion.
The committee will be headed by Canadian Prof. William Schabas, and was to include British-Lebanese rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin, best known for her recent engagement to actor George Clooney, and Doudou Dienne of Senegal, who has previously served as the UN’s watchdog on racism and on post-conflict Ivory Coast.
However, Alamuddin later released a statement saying that she was too busy with eight other cases and could not take on the UN position.
The biggest problem is with the chairman of the panel, William Schabas, a man known for his deep hostility towards Israel, and towards Binyamin Netanyahu in particular.
William Schabas, anti-Israel chair of the UN investigatory panel
Schabas, a professor of International Law at London’s Middlesex University, has called for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former president Shimon Peres to stand trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague for war crimes.
He also supported the 2010 Goldstone Report into Israel’s last ground offensive in Gaza, though he said in a later interview that the scale of destruction in Gaza did not compare to other atrocities in the world.
UN Watch, a Geneva-based watchdog with ties to Israel, slammed the appointment and called on Schabas to recuse himself.
“You can’t spend several years calling for the prosecution of someone, and then suddenly act as his judge,” UN Watch head Hillel Neuer said in a statement. “It’s absurd — and a violation of the minimal rules of due process applicable to UN fact-finding missions.”
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations predicted on Wednesday that Jerusalem will not cooperate with the so-called “Schabas committee” that has been appointed to investigate alleged war crimes committed during Operation Protective Edge.
…
The Foreign Ministry said that Schabas’s appointment to head the panel proved that Israel cannot expect justice from this body.
“The report has already been written and the only question is who signs it,” the Foreign Ministry said.
In an interview with Army Radio, the Israeli envoy, Ron Prosor, expressed doubt regarding the legitimacy of the panel due to what is perceived by Jerusalem officials as a committee with a clear anti-Israel bias.
“Forming an investigatory committee headed by Schabas is like inviting ISIS to organize religious tolerance week at the UN,” Prosor told Army Radio.
Ambassador Ron Prosor, Israel’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Tuesday said “the United Nations Human Rights Council set a new record for anti-Israel bias and proved once again, that it would be better named the ‘Human Wrongs Council’” because of its “complete travesty of justice” by inviting Professor William Schabas, “one of the most outspoken critics of Israel to serve as its judge and jury.”
It was not only Israel of course who objected to the anti-Israel opinions of the committee members:
Jewish organizations also condemned the creation of the commission and its appointments. The Anti-Defamation League called the panel “a farce” with the outcome “all-but preordained.”
“Here we go again,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “As if on cue, the United Nations Human Rights Council has appointed a so-called ‘independent’ panel to investigate Israel’s conduct in the recent conflict in Gaza, with the outcome all-but preordained. This farce began with an illegitimate Council resolution and will predictably end with an illegitimate panel investigation and report, entirely biased against Israel, which places the blame squarely on Israel for ‘war crimes’ and other violations of international law and pays no attention to the terrorism of Hamas.”
In his last full day in office, former Israeli President Shimon Peres also objected to the creation of the commission in a joint press conference with the UN Secretary-General, who he called out for allowing UN-run schools in Gaza to be used by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as rocket depots and launchpads.
“We have seen this theater of the absurd before,” Foxman said. “The inquiry will be stacked against Israel through the appointment of individuals with anti-Israel bona fides like Professor William Schabas. Israel, understandably, will refuse to cooperate. And, finally, a harsh, biased and fundamentally flawed report will be issued, providing fodder to those who have already found Israel guilty on all counts and handing Hamas a phony victory in the court of public opinion.”
“Schabas has made comments critical of Israel’s leadership in the past, and participated in the 2012 Russell Tribunal on Palestine, a conference in which Israel is put on trial, with its guilt on war crimes fully presumed,” Foxman said. “Diène has served as U.N. Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance from 2002 to 2008 and as the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Côte d’Ivoire from 2011 to 2014.”
B’nai B’rith International said “the commission itself illegitimate as it was born of a UNHRC resolution that stridently excoriated Israel in advance of the ‘inquiry’ it launched and didn’t so much as mention Hamas by name. It was specifically designed to scrutinize not years of cross-border terrorist attacks against Israelis, but rather Israel’s defensive response to them. Any suggestion that there is equivalence between terrorism and a state defending its civilians from that threat is both outrageous and unacceptable.”
Schabas tried to defend himself with the old “some of my best friends are Jews” routine, ludicrously saying that he was impartial, not anti-Israel.
The professor appointed to lead a United Nations inquiry into possible war crimes during the recent military campaign in the Gaza Strip defended his record to Israeli media Tuesday and said past statements that paint him as anti-Israel would have no bearing on his probe of the Gaza conflict.
Willam Schabas told Army Radio in an interview on Tuesday that he is not anti-Israel, has visited Israel in the past to give university presentations and is a member of the editorial board of a legal publication.
…
Israel dismissed the probe as one-sided and said the appointment of Schabas — who has called for both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former president Shimon Peres to stand trial in the International Criminal Court in the Hague — proved the outcome of the report had been predetermined.
…
Asked about a comment made last year that he would most like to see Netanyahu stand trial in the Hague, Schabas said the comments were made in reference to the Goldstone Report, a UN Human Rights Council investigation that claimed Israel had committed war crimes during the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead by deliberately targeting civilians during fighting in the Gaza Strip.
“I didn’t prejudge him and I didn’t say he was guilty,” Schabas told Army Radio. “I was making a comment in the context of a discussion about the priorities of the International Criminal Court. I think probably every person in Israel has criticized the government in Israel at some point or other in their lives and the suggestion that I’ve delivered a verdict on this is wrong and unfair.”
He can wriggle all he likes, but his own words damn him:
Read the above words again and note his huge error. This from a supposed “expert” on the Middle East. He can’t even get his Prime Ministers right! Yair Lapid puts him right:
Finance Minister Yair Lapid, in an interview with Channel 2 later on Tuesday evening, pointed out that it was former prime minister Ehud Olmert who was in office during Operation Cast Lead and not Netanyahu.
Schabas’s obsession with Netanyahu reveals the extent of his animosity towards the Prime Minister, and by extension towards Israel. How on earth can anyone expect Israel to get a fair hearing at the hands of an ignorant oaf of a bigot like that?
The Israeli press watchdog site Mida has another video of Schabas in an interview with Israeli TV in which he refuses to call Hamas a terror organization and where he does not walk back his error about Netanyahu.
Mida comments:
So even given the opportunity, Schabas did not recant or walk back his statement. He would like to see Netanyahu tried based on the findgins of the Goldstone Report. There’s only one problem: the Prime Minister responsible for the “alleged crimes” of Operation Cast Lead is none other than Ehud Olmert. Netanyahu was head of the opposition at the time and had nothing to do with it. Thus, already at the beginning of the interview, Schabas revealed his severe bias: as far as he’s concerned, Netanyahu is guilty regardless of the facts.
…
This wouldn’t be the first time Schabas had shown such an attitude towards Netanyahu. Already in 2010, he wrote an article in a law journal that Netanyahu is the man most likely to threaten Israel’s existence. His evidence? Netanyahu’s statement that “we face three strategic challenges: Iran’s nuclear program, rockets fired at us and the Goldstone Report.” Not Hamas, not Hizballah and not Iran – the greatest danger to Israel is its own Prime Minister, who dares to defy the word of UN legists and argue for the innocence of his country. According to this logic, Emil Zola was a traitor and a criminal for daring to charge the French Courts with falsely convicting Alfred Dreyfuss.
And finally, as yet another reminder of the what the Human Wrongs Rights Council is all about, the Gatestone Institute has a very detailed article by Denis McEoin. Again, none of this will be new to most of my readers, but it always bears repeating (and sharing as widely as possible):
But expecting the UNHRC to carry out a fair, balanced or accurate investigation of anything involving the State of Israel is rather like asking the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] to carry out investigations into the persecution of Christians, Ahmadi Muslims, or Baha’is in Muslim countries.
Before the emergency session ended, Navi Pillay, the South African UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who has her own office in New York, but supervises the Geneva-based UNHRC, warned the world that Israel may have committed war crimes by not doing enough to protect civilians. Pillay, however, has a long track record of demonizing Israel; it was she who was behind the infamous and totally discredited Goldstone Report of 2009, which accused Israel of deliberately targeting Gazan civilians — a finding that the report’s author, Richard Goldstone, later retracted, although Pillay did not.
…
We are still living in 1984. The UNHRC works to defend and even promote countries that abuse those rights, and to condemn one of the most rights-observant countries in the world — Israel. When anyone tries to take the floor at the UNHRC and reveal the truth about abusive states, watch the abusers press their buzzers and demand that the truth-teller be stopped from speaking. How many times have the vigilant and dedicated human rights activists Anne Bayefsky of Human Rights Voices or Hillel Neuer of UN Watch been attacked for speaking truth?
Watch the indefatigable Hillel Neuer here:
There’s much more at the link. Read it all. The article concludes:
Most disturbingly, both the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, while pussy-footing with the world’s most ostentatious human rights violators, cannot get savage enough with one of the world’s most tolerant and free countries, Israel. Between its formation in 1947 and 1991, the UN General Assembly has adopted 300 resolutions against Israel. In the year 2006-7, it issued 22 such resolutions — but not one about the Sudanese genocide then continuing in Darfur. The year before, Israel had pulled out of Gaza entirely in an effort to make peace. Yet the General Assembly passes 19 resolutions per year against Israel and almost none on any other state.
No fewer than three UN entities exist that are dedicated to furtherance of the Palestinian cause (which is, in its simplest form, dedicated to destroying Israel). There are no UN entities to advance the Israeli cause, which has always been to make peace with its neighbors and to help its citizens — mainly Christians, Muslims and Jews — build good lives for themselves. Never in history has a human institution for goodwill and peace among men been so betrayed by those who seek to use it for their own ends.
What is Israel supposed to do in these circumstances? No matter how much care we take in avoiding civilian casualties, no matter how much aid we allow through, no matter how many enemy civilians we treat in our field hospitals, no matter how much fuel, water and electricity are provided to the enemy civilians – at Israeli taxpayers’ expense I would add – all we get is a cold shower of intense condemnation in the UN and the international media.
Why do we bother at all? If we’re going to be accused of genocide, maybe we should go out and commit genocide. Then the world will be able to tell the difference.
At the moment all I feel is profound depression and nausea at the utter unfairness and injustice of it all.
The US, Western response to the Gaza conflict is symptomatic of their inability to understand the Middle East.
Abdullah, Abdullah and Sisi Photo: REUTERS
[T]oday the US has no ally in the Middle East, having deserted or offended every Arab country in the region. Yet had the White House openly sided with Israel and Egypt, it would have sent Hamas the clear message that its aggression would not be tolerated.
**************
Arab countries are foundering, as a jihadi Islamic caliphate is strengthening its hold in the heart of the Middle East.
The West seems intent on venting its frustrations on Israel, which is defending itself against Hamas, another radical Islamist group; Egypt is also feeling the brunt of it. Yet only a few years ago, Cairo was leading the charge of pragmatic Arab states backed by the US, fighting extremist Shi’ites under Iranian leadership.
However, this was before Washington jettisoned Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and started direct talks with Tehran on Iran’s nuclear program, a move seen as a betrayal by Saudi Arabia.
Today, Egypt is trying to broker a peace between Israel and Hamas; President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called on his allies for advice and international support. First he went to see Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah in Jeddah, then Russian President Vladmir Putin in Sochi. He did not go to Washington, which has yet to accept the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood and the new regime.
Indeed, dialogue between Egypt and the US is tense and strained. Attempts by US Secretary of State John Kerry to further the Turkish-Qatar blueprint for a ceasefire in Gaza along the lines of Hamas demands angered Cairo, which had reduced its diplomatic representations in both countries because of their support for the Brotherhood.
The fact is that today the US has no ally in the Middle East, having deserted or offended every Arab country in the region. Yet had the White House openly sided with Israel and Egypt, it would have sent Hamas the clear message that its aggression would not be tolerated.
Absent this message, Hamas feels vindicated. Why should it content itself with what is on offer and accept a cease-fire, when it feels it holds all the cards? It is not concerned with the loss of human life, or the devastation brought on to its civilian population; after all, Israel is being blamed and increasingly isolated. Hamas can afford to wait.
There is no support for Israel in the UN or EU, which should have been the natural ally of the Jewish state in its battle against terror. Hamas can only rejoice when its sees Great Britain proclaiming that should the fighting start anew, it would declare an embargo on weapons for Israel – with no consideration as to which side started the fighting.
Hamas could never have dreamed of such fantastic international success, that the West would abandon Israel and let anti-Semitism go on the rampage.
Hamas is a radical Islamic movement founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, with the express purpose of destroying Israel and establishing on the ruins of the Jewish state an Islamic state, which will go on fighting until it has restored a caliphate in the entire Middle East.
Fighting the Jews and Israel is one of the basic tenets of the Brotherhood, which has woken up dormant enmity towards the Jewish people in Islam and transformed it into a virulent ideology – manifesting itself through incitement and pogroms against the Jews before World War II, and sending volunteers to fight against Israel in 1948. Unfortunately, the West has yet to realize that Hamas today is using the Palestinian problem and spouting fake nationalistic slogans in order to further its aims. It has worked well enough, and many Palestinians voted for the movement in the 2005 elections.
Yet Hamas does not speak of creating an independent Palestinian state – which would be an indirect way of recognizing Israel. It instead keeps harping on the message that it is fighting “occupation,” a word encompassing Tel Aviv and the whole of Israel.
Moreover, it did not hesitate to get rid of Fatah representatives in Gaza after the elections. Hundreds were pushed to their death from high-rise buildings, as terrorists shot hundreds more in the knees to ensure they would be crippled for life. No one has heard the families of the victims protesting or asking for compensation, and no Western humanitarian organization has taken up cudgels in their defense.
Egypt is the last rampart of the Arab world against the barbaric Islamic state taking shape. Iraq and Syria can no longer function and provide security and services to their citizens, and their armies are in disarray. It does not seem they can hold much longer against the new caliphate, unless they get outside help.
Only Egypt is still standing but its allies, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states – though they strongly oppose the Brotherhood – do not have the military capacity to stop the caliphate. What they can do, what they are doing, is put their considerable resources at the disposal of Cairo to further its economic renewal and allow it to buy weapons.
Indeed, Riyadh is bankrolling the $3 billion arms deal being negotiated between Cairo and Moscow; the deal, stretching over several years, was probably the main topic discussed at Sochi. At the same time, Egypt is working on its cooperation with Russia, including on the development of its nuclear energy program.
It is well-known that for Sisi, getting Egypt on the path to economic recovery is the main challenge.
However, to put the country back on track, the terror threat must be eliminated; that threat mainly stems from the area encompassing Gaza to the Sinai Peninsula, but of late radical Islamists have been massing on Egypt’s border with Libya. An attack on a border post killed 23 soldiers; electric poles are being brought down to disrupt the supply of electricity. Egypt has brought more troops to the area, and is getting ready for more attacks.
There is no reaction from the West. Israel and Egypt are the only two countries in the Middle East which can stop radical Islam, yet Europe is busy condemning Israel and denying it support in international forums, while letting violent protests against the Jewish state turn into attacks against local Jews. The US, for its part, is still withdrawing its military assistance to Egypt, while maintaining a dialogue with its enemies.
In the probably unlikely event that the IS gains control of Indonesia’s capital, Jakarta, Bali may well fall as a non-Islamist state with help from its Islamic residents. The IS is metastasizing, and wherever it goes death and destruction follow. — DM)
FILE – Members of the militant Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) shout slogan during a demontration in Jakarta, Indonesia.
JAKARTA: As the jihadist insurgency in Syria and Iraq intensifies, so too does its appeal to hardline Islamists in the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation. In Jakarta, the Indonesian government has moved swiftly to crack down on the possibility of a revived terrorist threat.
On the streets of Jakarta and across pockets of Java, small groups of hardline extremists have openly pledged their allegiance to the Islamic State extremist group. Thousands more have mimicked their cries on social networking sites.
From maximum-security prison, hardline preacher Abu Bakar Ba’asyir also pledged an oath to the newly declared Islamic caliphate, photos of which have circulated online.
The Indonesian government has moved to swiftly crack down on the developments, earlier this month officially banning the group and the spread of its teachings.
The government says the hardline group formerly known as the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIS) contradicts Indonesia’s pluralist state ideologyPancasila, and that it will block websites displaying its content.
Sri Yunanto, from Indonesia’s national counterterrorism agency, told a panel discussion on Wednesday that it is stepping up efforts to curb the threat of Indonesian fighters returning from Syria, what he described as the jihadi “alumni.” “We have to be prepared, when the issue of ISIS in the Middle East is over and then they come back into Indonesia. We have experience with Afghan fighters, Moro Fighters, we don’t want ISIS alumni in Indonesia and Iran to be like them,” said Yunanto.
Key individuals behind major terrorist attacks in Indonesia, such as the 2002 Bali bombings, received direct training with MILF, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines, and in Afghanistan in the late 80s and early 90s.
Over the past decade Indonesia has successfully dismantled hardline groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah, and most senior hardliners have either been killed or incarcerated.
For would-be Indonesian jihadis, the Syrian conflict represents an appealing training ground, one where they can gain weapons and bomb-making skills and develop contacts with a well-funded terrorist group.
Taufik Andrie, the executive director of the Institute of International Peace Building, says that in Indonesia’s current terrorism landscape, it is the splinter or “freelance” jihadists that pose the biggest threat.
“Mostly Indonesian jihadis are driven by individual motivations, not necessarily by group’s or leaders’ comments. They have enough information from the internet, from Facebook and Twitter and that’s enough for them to decide… Freelance jihadi, individuals, it is just a matter of money,” said Andrie.
The government believes that up to 30 Indonesians have joined the Islamic State in Syria, but analysts say the figure could be as high as 200.
Porous borders and poor coordination between agencies and ministries has allowed some individuals to buy tickets to Turkey and then cross the border into Syria undetected.
Even though the numbers of Indonesian fighters joining the conflict in Syria are small, Todd Elliott, a Jakarta-based terrorism analyst from Concorde Consulting, said returned jihadis pose a significant security risk in the long term.
“I don’t think there is an immediate threat of jihadists returning and immediately using any skills they have to launch a terrorist attack, but the fact that they have skills and they’re available and they can pass them on to younger jihadists and other groups, that’s where the risk lies,” said Elliott.
Indonesian authorities have threatened to revoke the citizenship of individuals who continue to support the Islamic State and say they will better monitor their citizens traveling to the Middle East in the near future.
No change in policy on weapons deliveries to Israel,US says
By MICHAEL WILNER, HERB KEINON 08/14/2014 21:46
Without issuing full denial of report that White House ordered halt of delivery of Hellfire missiles, administration officials say claims were a mischaracterization of inter-agency procedure, unchanged policy.
US President Barack Obama.
Photo: REUTERSWASHINGTON — The Obama administration denied on Thursday that it was surprised by the processing of a munitions delivery by the Pentagon to Israel during its operation in Gaza last month.
Without issuing a full-throated denial of a report that the White House issued a halt on the delivery of Hellfire missiles, administration officials said the claims, first surfacing in the Wall Street Journal, were a mischaracterization of inter-agency procedure, and of a policy unchanged.
Related:
Report: US halted weapons transfer to Israel during Gaza offensive
Politicians weigh in on ‘crisis in US-Israel relations’
“Let me be clear: there has been no change in policy, period,” State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said. “Given the crisis in Gaza, it is natural that agencies take additional care with deliveries as part of an inter-agency process.”
During Operation Protective Edge, the Pentagon said that the delivery was standard, and part of the United States’ commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge, both through their maintaining broad defensive and offensive capabilities.
Harf said that the “additional care” taken by the administration does not represent a “permanent change in process.”
At the initial revelation of the July sales, media outlets in the Middle East slammed the administration for the timing of the deliveries, in the heat of the crisis.
But Harf also pushed back strongly at the notion that the US reviewed its process due to media pressures. “This has nothing to do with publicity,” she said.
Earlier Thursday, Israeli officials reaffirmed the oft-repeated mantra Thursday that under the Obama administration US-Israel security ties have never been better, even as the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House is holding up the sale of precision Hellfire missiles to Jerusalem.
According to the piece, the Obama administration has tightened its control of arms transfers to Israel, requiring White House and State Department approval for even routine munitions requests by Israel.
“Instead of being handled as a military-to-military matter, each case is now subject to review—slowing the approval process and signaling to Israel that military assistance once taken for granted is now under closer scrutiny,” the story said.
The report came out on the same day that the Hurriyet Daily News reported that the US cleared a potential $320 million advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) sale to Turkey “amid increasing security risks in the region.”
The decision for White House and State Department oversight over arms requests by Israel is the seeming culmination of a series of very public disagreements between the two allies over the Gaza conflict, with Israel unhappy with the way the US tried to bring Qatar and Turkey into cease-fire negotiations last month, and Washington upset at what it considered the often “heavy-handed” way Israel fought the war and caused civilian casualties.
The Wall Street Journal piece was just the latest in a series of stories over the last few weeks reporting of a “new low” in relations between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.
Other incidents in recent weeks that added fuel to the sense of a crisis in the ties were the following
* Netanyahu allegedly telling US envoy Dan Shapiro earlier in the month, after Hamas violated a cease-fire and killed three IDF soldiers in Rafah, that the US should never “second guess” him on Hamas.
* The leak of an alleged transcript of an Obama-Netanyahu conversation where an angry Obama demanded that Israel agree to a cease-fire
* The White House calling the shelling of a UN facility that lead to innocent deaths as “disgraceful.”
* Israeli anger at a US cease-fire proposal that would have given an enhanced Turkish and Qatari role, followed by US anger that Israel allegedly leaked the draft proposal and was disrespectful in its criticism of US Secretary of State John Kerry.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the phone conversation between Netanyahu and Obama on Wednesday was also “combative,” a characterization denied in Jerusalem.
The paper said that the Gaza conflict has convinced many administration officials that Netanyahu and his national security team were “both reckless and untrustworthy.” Israeli officials were quoted as saying that the Obama administration was weak and naive, and that they were trying to bypass the White House in favor of allies in Congress and elsewhere in the administration.
A senior Obama administration official was quoted as saying “We have many, many friends around the world. The United States is their strongest friend. The notion that they are playing the United States, or that they’re manipulating us publicly, completely miscalculates their place in the world.”
Israeli officials denied the allegations that it was going around the White House to secure arms deliveries. Regarding the Hellfires, the officials said that “we’ve made a request, and we believe the request will be fulfilled.”
At a press conference earlier this month with the foreign press, Netanyahu said that the US has been “terrific” during the current crisis.
Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon’s office, meanwhile, would not commenting on the report, saying only that there was a conversation on Wednesday between Ya’alon and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that went well.
In a statement released on Thursday, Ya’alon’s office quoted him as saying “we very much appreciate our relations with the United States. The relations between our security establishments are very good.”
He said that relationships like that between the US and Israel are made even more important because of the challenges posed by extremists in the region, which he listed as Hamas, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Iran.
Obama and Netanayhu have worked together – some say have had to “deal with each other” – longer than any other US president and Israeli prime minister in history. Charges that the Netanyahu’s famously rocky relationship with Obama is harming the vital Israel-US relationship has been a common theme of his opponents and critics both in Israel and the US over the last six years.
Finance Minister Yair Lapid responded to the Wall Street Journal report by saying it represented a “worrisome trend, and we cannot let it continue.
“The relationship with the US,,” he said, was a “strategic asset that must not be harmed. Sometimes we simply have to know how to say thank you.”
Former president Shimon Peres, during a meeting with visiting New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, also related to the report, saying that he was “full of thanks and appreciation to the US, as are all Israel’s citizens, for firmly standing beside Israel for the 66 years of its existence.”
Meanwhile, a Fox News poll on Wednesday found that 38% of the American public does not think Obama has been supportive enough of Israel. Another 33% think his support has been “about right,” and 18% believe he has been “too supportive.” Eleven percent said they did not know.
It may be necessary to negotiate — directly or through intermediaries — with Hamas, just as one “negotiates” with kidnappers, hostage takers or extortionists. But to “recognize” their “legitimacy,” as Jimmy Carter and Bishop Tutu would do, is to recognize the legitimacy of anti-Semitism. Carter, Tutu and other Hamas cheerleaders may be willing to do that, but no reasonable person who hates bigotry should legitimate Hamas’ anti-Semitism or its express goal of destroying Israel and killing its Jewish inhabitants.
****************
Criticizing specific Israeli policies is certainly not anti-Semitic. Indeed many Israelis are critical of some of their nation’s policies. But support for Hamas is anti-Semitic, because Hamas’ policies and actions are based, at their core, on Jew-hatred. Yet many prominent individuals, some out of ignorance, many more with full knowledge of what they are doing, are overtly supporting Hamas. Some have even praised it. Others, like Italy’s most famous philosopher, Gianni Vattimo, are trying to raise money and provide material support to this anti-Semitic terrorist organization. Still others refuse to condemn it, while condemning Israel in the strongest terms.
Here is some of what the Hamas Charter, which remains its governing principles, says about Jews:
The enemies have been scheming for a long time. [Their] wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe…They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions…They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations…[T]hey stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate…They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II…. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it: “…
Most of these references to “the enemies” precede the establishment of Israel. The charter plainly means “the Jews” and it invokes the usual tropes of anti-Semitism and Jew hatred. Indeed, it expressly calls for the murder of Jews, citing Islamic sources for its genocidal goal:
Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!
This should not be surprising news. Hamas is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an outgrowth of the German Nazi Party. The brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, a close ally of Adolf Hitler. It worked hand in hand with Hitler during World War II, establishing the Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar division, which committed war crimes against Jewish communities. It then helped to rescue Nazi war criminals following the defeat of Nazism and the disclosure of the Holocaust.
Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, inspects Bosnian volunteers of the Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar division in 1943.
Nor is the charter and the origin of Hamas merely past history. Current Hamas leaders frequently invoke the “blood libel,” accusing “the Jews” of killing Christian children and using their blood for the baking of matzo. They regard Jewish places of worship and Jewish schools, anywhere in the world, as appropriate targets for their terrorist attacks.
Some of those who support Hamas, such as Jimmy Carter and Mary Robinson, claim that they support its political goals, but not its anti-Semitic policies. (We must recognize “its legitimacy as a political actor”.) Others, such as the Turkish Foreign Minister and the leaders of Qatar, support its military goals. (We support the Palestinian Resistance Movement Hamas “because it embraces the Palestinian cause and struggles for its people.”) These distinctions hold no water, since Hamas’ anti-Jewish policies are central to its political and military actions. Some supporters of Hitler made the same argument, claiming that the Nazi Party and its leaders espoused good economic, educational and political policies. No reasonable person today accepts that excuse, and no reasonable person should accept the excuses offered by supporters of Hamas who claim to be able to slice the bologna so thin.
The same is true for those who argue that Hamas is preferable to ISIS or other Jihadist groups that might replace it. A similar argument was made by fascists who claimed that their parties were preferable to the Communists. The reality is that Hamas is an anti-Semitic organization, based on a Jew-hating philosophy, with the goal of destroying the nation state of the Jewish people and killing its Jewish inhabitants. It is evil personified. There is no excuse or justification for supporting Hamas, and anyone who does is supporting anti-Semitism.
Some Hamas supporters — such as those who chant “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas” — proudly acknowledge this reality. Others, such as Cornell West, who according to the American Spectator “headlined a high profile pro-Hamas demonstration,” deny it. But all are complicit, even if they are themselves Jewish or have Jewish friends. Supporting an organization that at its core is anti-Jewish and whose charter calls for the killing of all Jews is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent. And those politicians, academics, entertainers and others who support Hamas — and there are many — must be called out and condemned, as Roger Waters of Pink Floyd has been. So must those, like Navi Pillay, the head of the United Nation’s Human Right Council, who see a moral equivalence between this anti-Semitic terrorist group and the democratic nation state of the Jewish people. She demanded that Israel share its Iron Dome system with Hamas, without condemning Hamas for using Palestinian civilians as its own Iron Dome.
Among the worst offenders is Bishop Desmond Tutu, who has a long history of anti-Semitism. He, like Carter, has urged recognition of Hamas, whose leaders he compares to Nelson Mandela. Among Tutu’s alleged “Mandelas” with whom he has collaborated is Ahmad Abu Halabiya who has said the following:
“Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them . . . and those Americans who are like them, and those who stand by them.”
I’m quite certain the real Nelson Mandela never made any comparable statement. Yet Bishop Tutu, who refused to sit on the same stage as Tony Blair, has worked hand in hand with murderous Hamas leaders such as Halabiya.
It may be necessary to negotiate — directly or through intermediaries — with Hamas, just as one “negotiates” with kidnappers, hostage takers or extortionists. But to “recognize” their “legitimacy,” as Jimmy Carter and Bishop Tutu would do, is to recognize the legitimacy of anti-Semitism. Carter, Tutu and other Hamas cheerleaders may be willing to do that, but no reasonable person who hates bigotry should legitimate Hamas’ anti-Semitism or its express goal of destroying Israel and killing its Jewish inhabitants.
Israeli soldiers stand next to a hole in the ground they suspect is connected to a tunnel, outside the Gaza Strip, Aug. 10, 2014. (photo by REUTERS/Amir Cohen)
Hamas officials tell Al-Monitor that while Israel inflicted a blow to the tunnel network along the border, their main strategic tunnels are still operational.
**********
Hamas’ military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, demonstrated resilience against the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip in the latest war, and their officials say they still have the military capabilities to continue the fight.
The most important phase began during the second week of the war, on July 17, with the ground invasion that resulted in losses for both sides.
The progress of clashes in Gaza and the fierce fighting that ensued between al-Qassam fighters and the Israeli army showed that Hamas possessed a significant fighting capability on the ground. Once battles erupted on the outskirts of the Shajaiya, al-Tuffah, Khuza’a, and Beit Hanoun neighborhoods, the Israelis suffered a number of casualties, with soldiers and officers of elite brigades wounded or killed, armored vehicles destroyed and positions of special forces targeted with rockets, explosives and snipers.
The tunnels were a main strength that Hamas employed against the Israeli army, despite the latter’s preparation for this challenge, and its announcement that targeting those tunnels was one of the objectives of the ongoing war. Israel destroyed a large number of tunnels up until the end of the ground offensive on Aug. 5, particularly those located along the border.
Abu al-Laith, a Hamas military commander, told local reporters that the movement was ready to continue its confrontation with Israel, with thousands of men willing to fight. He said that the al-Qassam Brigades had retained a weapons stockpile in case truce negotiations failed, because “we have prepared ourselves for a long battle, and we can target Israeli cities that were spared during the war, as well as breach the Israeli border again. We possess more rockets than the enemy thinks we do, and we have used only 10% of our available force.”
Al-Qassam field commander Abu Jihad told Al-Monitor, “Israel’s allegations that it destroyed the tunnel network are inaccurate and aimed at local consumption to reassure Israelis that the war was progressing well. To determine the truth, all they have to do is embark on a wide-scale ground offensive in Gaza, for we have prepared a wide array of tunnels 5-25 meters [16-82 feet] deep, which allow our fighters to move about the battleground undetected. It is true that Israel destroyed a number of those tunnels, but the strategic ones are undamaged and have retained their full logistical capacity, in as far as available water supply, food, weapons, ventilation systems and electricity.”
It is interesting to note that, in this war, unlike the previous wars in 2008 and 2012, the al-Qassam Brigades did not divulge the names and numbers of its dead, nor did they allude to them in any way, except through unofficial activist posts and pictures on Facebook. It is well known, however, that they number in the dozens, with medical sources in Gaza confirming to Al-Monitor that corpses in uniform were brought to hospitals.
Al-Monitor also learned from Gaza security sources that rescue workers were still removing the bodies of fighters and those who died when Israel targeted their homes in various areas of Gaza, without any mention of the approximate number of martyrs. Some fighters who went on patrol have yet to return home, because it was only logical that dozens would fall in this confrontation where Israel targeted homes.
Though the exact number of al-Qassam deaths remains unknown, Palestinian estimates indicate that the total number of active fighters ranges between 20,000-30,000, which includes brigades, battalions and units, in similar fashion to regular armies.
Another aspect of Hamas’ military capability relies on its use of rockets, which, in this war, reached all the way to Haifa, northern Israel. In this regard, Hamas official Abu Ali told Al-Monitor, “The al-Qassam Brigades started this war right where it left off in the last war. Shelling Sderot, Ashkelon and Ashdod is now a thing of the past; for this time around, the brigades targeted Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, which means that they possess rockets with a range that surprised Israel. Despite the use of the Iron Dome, Israel failed to prevent the paralysis and chaos spreading to more than half of its territory and all of its 5 million inhabitants.”
Abu Ali noted, however, that Hamas faces challenges in producing new rockets due to the siege and destruction of the tunnels on Egypt’s border.
“The al-Qassam Brigades face challenges to manufacture new rockets, because materials used to make and develop them are barred from entering the Gaza Strip, while Israel continues to demand that the whole of Gaza be demilitarized. In this regard, Hamas became aware of the disturbing possibility that Israel would win the game of attrition against its fighters, by extending the confrontation and causing a shortage in available rockets. But the al-Qassam Brigades anticipated this eventuality and began reducing the daily number of rockets fired, while continuing to threaten Israel’s home front.”
But the new development in this war was al-Qassam’s infiltration behind Israeli lines, and its commando unit attack on Ashkelon’s shore positions, 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) north of Gaza’s borders. These operations were unprecedented and proved that Hamas troops had undergone advanced training and used new intelligence measures and tactics premised on the element of surprise against the Israelis.
In response to Israeli measures to counter such operations, Abu Ali said, “Israel’s targeting of border tunnels, its deployment of gunboats along the Gaza coast and its use of surveillance airships and satellites might hinder such operations in the future, if a cease-fire agreement is not reached.”
But Hamas still has tricks up its sleeves, despite their military challenges, Abu Ali said.
“The brigades did not reveal their full weapons and military capabilities; some of which became known as battles against Israel progressed. The longer the fighting extends, the more new weapon systems will be used. As such, the al-Qassam Brigades have made the Israeli army aware that the continuation of the war will be met with further surprises.”
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments