WarSclerotic

It’s 2003 Again
Aug 25 2014 @ 1:39pm by Jonah Shepp

Image by TexasEagle

(More boots on the ground in Iraq will only result in more bodies in the ground in America. Once again, we’re being sold on the dire need to go to war.-LS)

What else can one possibly take away from this Noah Rothman exegesis of Peggy Noonan’s and Charles Krauthammer’s cases for expanding the new Iraq war to Syria? Here’s the crux of the argument:

The mission Krauthammer describes does not appear to require a significant American ground force, though it would be one which would only be effective in Iraq. The Islamic State’s stronghold in Syria will require an entirely different strategy, one far more robust and which may require putting American service personnel in harm’s way. But rolling back the Islamic State in Iraq is an acceptable short-term goal, and the American people should be informed that this is the mission in which their military is presently engaged. Those opposed to going to war to rid the world of ISIS worry that achieving that objective will require more commitment than most are willing to admit. And it is possible that the American national interests at stake in this region, while appreciable, are not threatened to the degree that would merit a return of tens of thousands of American troops to Iraq. At least, not yet.

These are worthwhile debates to have, and Americans need to have an honest discussion about this threat. It is a discussion that must be led by their president. It seems, however, that some conservatives are beginning to observe that those who object to a military solution to the Islamic State threat rest their argument on the claim that it heralds a new occupation of Iraq. This is a straw man argument. The vast majority of Americans of every political stripe do not want to reoccupy that country, and this is not on the table. Destroying ISIS, however, is.

Right, because we all remember what happened the last time right-wing hawks sold the American public on a war that they alleged would have no long-term consequences. After the past decade, I suppose I shouldn’t be all that surprised that the cheerleaders for this new war are demanding that their opponents make a probative case against intervention, while the neo-neocons’ contention that a light-touch war with no “significant” ground force is presented as obviously true. (By the by, how many soldiers constitute “significant”? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? No one wants to say…) For more of the same, see Elliott Abrams here. Brian Fishman wishes advocates of an all-out, two-front war on ISIS would stop bullshitting the public already about what that would entail:

No one has offered a plausible strategy to defeat ISIL that does not include a major U.S. commitment on the ground and the renewal of functional governance on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border. And no one will, because none exists.

Retired general’s dire warning: ‘We should go to DEFCON 1 …. We may even see a 9/11/14′ Bizpac Review, Don Noel, August 24, 2014

Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney thinks the United States should “go to DEFCON 1, our highest state of readiness and be prepared as we lead up to 9/11.”

McInerney made the comment Saturday in an appearance with Uma Pemmaraju  on Fox News Channel’s “America’s News HQ.”

“We may even see a 9/11/14,” he added.

“There’s a narrative gap,” McInerney said in response to Pemmaraju’s questions about border security and domestic threats from Islamic State. “The president thinks everything’s OK. Al-Qaida’s dead. He killed Osama bin Laden, but he’s three years behind in the narrative.”

Photo Credit: article.wn.com

The Air Force veteran called an “unchecked” Islamic State “an existential threat to the United States.”

“I’m not talking about two or three years from now,” he said. “I’m talking very, very soon.”

Check out the interview here:

US, EU condemn ‘outside interference’ in Libya

US says UAE aircraft bombed Islamists in Libya over the past week using bases in Egypt

The United Arab Emirates has secretly sent warplanes on bombing raids against Islamist militias in Libya over the past week, using bases in Egypt, US officials said Monday.

The two attacks carried out over seven days mark a dramatic expansion of the conflict as the United States and its European allies denounced “outside interference” in Libya.

“Those responsible for violence, which undermines Libya’s democratic transition and national security, must be held accountable,” officials from France, Germany, Italy, the UK and the US said in a joint statement.

“We welcome discussions on the political and security situation in Libya to be held by the United Nations Security Council in the coming days, including consequences for those who undermine Libya’s peace and stability,” the statement read.

The strikes signaled a step toward direct action by regional Arab states that previously have fought proxy wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq in a struggle for power and influence.

The bombing raids were first reported by The New York Times and Islamist forces in Libya also had alleged strikes had taken place.

“The UAE carried out those strikes,” one of the officials told AFP on condition of anonymity.

Asked about the account, the senior US official said “the report is accurate.”

The United States did not take part or provide any assistance in the bombing raids, the two officials said.

The first airstrikes took place a week ago, focusing on targets in Tripoli held by the militias, including a small weapons depot, according to the Times. Six people were killed in the bombing.

A second round was conducted south of the city early Saturday targeting rocket launchers, military vehicles and a warehouse, according to the newspaper.

Those strikes may have represented a bid to prevent the capture of the Tripoli airport, but the militia forces eventually prevailed and seized control of it despite the air attacks.

The UAE — which has spent billions on US-manufactured warplanes and other advanced weaponry — provided the military aircraft, aerial refueling planes and aviation crews to bomb Libya, while Cairo offered access to its air bases, the paper said.

But it remained unclear whether and to what degree Egypt and the UAE had informed the Americans in advance of the airstrikes.

When pressed on the issue, US officials could not confirm that Egypt and the Emirates had left Washington totally in the dark about the air attacks.

Neither the UAE nor Egypt publicly acknowledged any role in the air strikes.

Common danger

Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates view Islamist militants in the region as a serious threat and have forged cooperation against what they see as a common danger.

The Islamist groups that emerged after the Arab Spring uprisings in turn have enjoyed support from Qatar and Turkey.

The bombing raids came amid a Western diplomatic push for a negotiated settlement to quell the violence in Libya, where the government’s authority has unraveled in the face of the Islamist-linked militias.

Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the United States issued a joint statement condemning an “escalation of fighting and violence” in Libya and urged a democratic, peaceful transition.

The Western powers expressed particular concern over violence “against residential areas, public facilities, and critical infrastructure, by both land attacks and air strikes.”

Without mentioning any air strikes by the UAE and Egypt, the statement said “outside interference in Libya exacerbates current divisions and undermines Libya’s democratic transition.”

The governments welcomed upcoming discussions at the UN Security Council on Libya and said “we encourage the international community to support Libya’s elected institutions.”

The air strikes also underscored how Washington’s old allies are more willing to act on their own, without backing from the Americans.

Saudi and UAE leaders in particular have expressed concern that Washington can no longer be counted on, citing US diplomatic overtures to Iran and a cautious approach to the Syrian conflict.

The strikes in and around Tripoli demonstrated the UAE’s readiness to employ its air power, as the Emirates have built up one of the region’s most proficient air forces with American gear and training. UAE pilots flew combat missions in the NATO-led air war in Libya in 2011.

Over the past decade, the Emirates have purchased dozens of US F-16 fighter jets, as well as transport aircraft, precision-guided bombs and advanced missiles for their warplanes.

About 5,000 American troops are based in the Emirates, most of them airmen stationed at Al-Dhafra Air Base.

(with AFP)

via Khaled Meshaal rock firm against truce. Hamas-Gaza fires upgraded rocket to maximize casualties.

Debka

Battered by Hamas’ escalating rocket and mortar assaults, Israelis are again tossed on the uncertain waters of an imminent ceasefire which never materializes. This illusion is propagated again by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Egyptian President Abdel-Fatteh El-Sisi. Washington has also been enlisted to the effort by drafting a resolution for the UN Security Council. It was tabled at the request of the White House with quiet backing from Netanyahu for the purpose of blocking the European measure, which is backed by Qatar, one of the Hamas’ few supporters and host to its political leader Khaled Meshaal.
Why is President Barack Obama standing behind Egypt and Israel this time?
His reasoning is complicated. Netanyahu and El-Sisi, who speak regularly and discreetly by phone, have been persuaded by their intelligence services that Meshaal is an impediment – not just to a temporary ceasefire, but to any sort of accommodation for ending the Gaza conflict. They are convinced that all the Palestinian factions, including Hamas-Gaza, would go for an end to the war, in the hope of a Gaza deal leading to a settlement between Israel and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
Those intelligence analysts cling to the hypothesis that Hamas-Gaza really wants to end the war, and this assumption dominates top-level thinking in Jerusalem and Cairo, in the face of all Hamas’ actions to the contrary in 50 days of escalating Hamas warfare up until Tuesday, Aug. 26.

This dichotomy leaves Israelis increasingly confused and uncertain about how to conduct their lives, especially in the areas closest to the Gaza Strip, which have been largely depopulated by non-stop Hamas short-range rocket and mortar fire.
The theory found a champion this week in an unexpected quarter: Khaled al-Batsh, one of the top men of Islamic Jihad, the pro-Iranian Palestinian terrorist movement which is Hamas’ most active partner in the offensive against Israel.

He suddenly announced he was in favor of a truce.

Lest he be suspected of overnight conversion to peace-lover, DEBKAfile’s intelligence services turns to another hidden aspect of the Gaza conflict for an explanation: The Palestinian group’s patrons, Iran and Hizballah, are working hard to paint their ally Syrian President Bashar Assad as the only force in the Middle East capable of fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – IS. If their proposition is accepted, they will reciprocate by bringing about a halt in the Gaza hostilities. They would also be able to show themselves in the light of the real forces of peace and moderation in the region.
The US-Egyptian-Israeli line therefore hinged on the presumption that a deal introducing Tehran to the Gaza equation would be beneficial, because Meshaal, who relies heavily on Iranian support, would not be able to spurn an Iranian demand to stop the fighting in Gaza.

But this math has not panned out.  Meshaal showed his nerves were strong enough to withstand the potion mixed for him in Washington, Jerusalem, Cairo, Ramallah. He not only stuck to his guns against ending the Gaza conflict, he outmaneuvered them all by enlisting Hamas’ secretive military chief Muhammed Deif to this end. The object of an Israeli targeted assassination on Aug. 19, Meshaal said that Deif had survived the attack and they were in close contact.

Whether he spoke the truth or not cannot be determined at this point. But by bandying Deif’s name and claiming he too was flat against a ceasefire, Meshaal set a clear course for the war to continue, irrespective of efforts to bring about a truce in the fighting. Deif’s word in the movement is law, which no Hamas member would dare defy.

So, at this point, all the schemes and machinations for ending the Gaza crisis by diplomacy are in deadlock, DEBKAfile’s intelligence and military sources report.

The two options remaining to the leaders of Egypt and Israel are: 1) Unable to break Khaled Meshaal’s will, they must find a way to persuade Hamas-Gaza that it is in their best interests to defy, or even sack, him. 2)  To apply military pressure that is beyond Hamas’ capacity to resist – i.e., effective IDF ground action – to stop the fighting by sheer force.

Of course, if the Hamas political chief were to surprise everyone by caving in and accepting a truce, that would be a third option. But there are no signs of this happening. His movement continued meanwhile to signal its true intentions in no uncertain terms Tuesday, Aug. 26, Day 50 of the Gaza conflict, by unveiling a new 340mm rocket with an extra large warhead which crashed down on a private home in Ashkelon, injuring 59 people – the largest number of casualties by any single rocket so far. Two houses were leveled and dozens more damaged.
And so Hamas Gaza graphically belied the hypothesis of its intentions which guide – or misguide – Washington, Jerusalem and Cairo.

Nothing to Do with Islam, Part 2, Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, August 25, 2014

To read Part I, click here.

We in the West correctly find such views “extreme,” or “savage” and “barbaric,” but they are not “fringe” anomalies conjured out of textual misreadings by an extremist cult. They derive from the history and sacred texts of Islam, the clear meaning of which is illustrated on page after page of Muslim history. And they are being acted upon today across the Muslim world, as evidenced by the nearly 24,000 violent attacks perpetrated by Muslim terrorists since 9/11. Contrary to Obama, ISIL does speak for a religion. It’s called Islam.

Groups like ISIL or al Qaeda do not embrace “extreme religious views,” or “twist the overall message of religious texts,” as the New York Post has it. They act on a venerable tradition within Islam, one based on writings some Muslims have construed differently because of inconsistencies among various texts. But that doesn’t change the fact that the jihadists have within the faith long-established precedents for their actions, a tradition with millions of Muslim adherents worldwide, including the leaders of Turkey and Qatar who finance the vicious terrorist group Hamas, and the Mullahcracy in Iran, the world’s foremost supporter of Islamic terrorism.

****************

In his comments on the jihad being waged by the Islamic State in northern Iraq (ISIL), President Obama recycled yet again the shopworn false knowledge about Islam that continues to compromise our response to Muslim violence: “So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day.”

Over at the New York Post, a columnist rightly took the president to task by saying, “You can’t divorce the Islamic State from religion.” Unfortunately, the column is full of numerous misstatements that perpetuate the illusion that there is some peaceful, tolerant version of Islam that has been distorted and twisted by “extremists” or “fundamentalists.”

According to the writer, adherents of any faith can misread sacred texts literally in order to justify violence: “The problem isn’t just literalist interpretations of the Koran: The New Testament, the Jewish Torah and many other religious books contain explicit calls for disproportionate punishments and killing of nonbelievers.” Forget the false assumption that we are supposed to read all sacred texts allegorically rather than literally. I’d like to see the verses from the New Testament that explicitly instruct Christians to kill non-believers rather than try to convert them. On the contrary, Jesus preached, “Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5.38), and “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5.43).

Concerning other interactions with non-believers, Jesus instructed his disciples, “And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town” (Matthew 10.14).  Because there are no explicit commands to kill non-believers in the New Testament, over the ages Christians who have justified violence with scripture have had to engage in tortuous interpretations and misreadings that over time have not been able to gain traction among all the faithful. That’s why despite widespread persecution across the world today, there is no major Christian terrorist movement.

Compare, in contrast, the Koran’s explicit calls to violence against non-believers, such as Koran 4.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan.” This is consistent with the famous command in 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah.” If someone wants to argue that “fight” is intended metaphorically in these verses, and has been “twisted” by a “literal” reading to serve some fringe interpretation, consider 4.74: “Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of Allah––whether he is slain or gets victory––Soon shall we give him a reward.” Obviously in this verse and numerous others “fight” means physical battle in which people are “slain.” Contrary to Christian scripture, in traditional Islamic doctrine non-believers who are invited to convert and refuse the call are not left alone, but killed or, if they are Jews or Christians, sometimes allowed to live in humiliating submission under a treaty that Muslims can break at any time for any reason.

As for the Torah, the list of verses allegedly commanding death for non-believers that crop up on anti-Biblical and atheist websites has nothing to do with gentiles. A favorite is Deuteronomy 17, which commands death for those who, “transgressing his covenant,” have “gone and served other gods and worshipped them.” But this is clearly a reference not to gentiles, but to Hebrews who have betrayed the covenant between God and the Jewish people by violating the first Commandment. So too with numerous other verses produced to prove that the Hebrew God ordered the Hebrews to kill gentiles. On the contrary, all these verses describe capital punishment for crimes committed by Jews, such as apostasy, witchcraft, adultery, fornication, and the like. Nowhere is there a verse commanding, like Koran 9.29, wholesale warfare against all gentiles who refuse to become Jews.

As for the orders given to Hebrew kings in the Old Testament to destroy another town or tribe, these are specific to that particular time, place, and people, and reflect the brutal warfare universal at that time. They are history, not theology. We may find such draconian punishments or collective violence distasteful, but they certainly do not comprise the sort of theology of violence against all non-believers that is found throughout the Koran and Islamic doctrine.

Obama is half-right that killing innocents, more specifically women and children, is forbidden in Islam. But there are conflicting traditions of interpretation about this prohibition going back centuries. The most famous Muslim philosopher, the 12^th century Ibn Rushd, known in the west as Averroës, discusses this controversy in his treatise Bidayat al-Mudjtahid. In contrast to the prohibition against killing women and children, Averroës writes, some interpreters quote Mohammed’s famous statement, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say, ‘There is no God but Allah,’” which is consistent with Koran 9.5: “Then when the sacred months have slipped away, slay the polytheists wherever you find them.” As Averroës summarizes the controversy, “the source of their controversy is to be found in their divergent views concerning the motive why the enemy may be slain. Those who think that this is because they are unbelieving do not make exception for any polytheist,” including women and children. But even those who take the contrary view that only those able to fight may be killed make an exception for women who fight or who aid the enemy in some way, such as speaking against Islam or spying on Muslim warriors.

In short, many Muslims over the centuries have disagreed with Obama’s bald assertion that “no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” Modern jihadists like ISIL, al Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah, and the numerous other groups thus have a foundation for their actions in a long tradition of Islamic theology. They see the outsized power and influence of the West, and the people who support it economically or politically, as a mortal threat to Islam. Thus destroying them is acceptable as a defense of the faith, for they are not “innocent” of aggression against Islam.

Many other practices of the jihadists likewise have justifications found in Islamic tradition and history, even if there are disagreements among Muslims about their validity. The jihadists’ penchant for beheading has its precedent in Koran 8.12: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” We have acted as though the filmed beheading of reporter James Foley is some unprecedented act of savagery by a Manson-like cult. But as Ian Tuttle reminds us, early in his career Mohammed beheaded the some 700 Jews of the Banu Qurayzah. In the 11^th century Yusuf ibn Tashfin beheaded 24,000 Spaniards and, in a primitive version of YouTube, sent the heads to cities in North Africa and Spain. In the 19^th century the Mahdist jihadists in Sudan beheaded their enemies, including the British war hero Charles “Chinese” Gordon. And Saudi Arabia today continues to publicly behead malefactors, 23 so far this August. There are few better ways to “cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve” or, as Obama said of Foley’s beheading, “shock the conscience of the entire world.”

Similarly, the indiscriminate bombing of people including women and children, whether through rockets or highjacked airliners, is argued as licit based on the fact that Mohammed used mangonels, a type of catapult, at the siege of al-Taif, even though such bombardment endangered women and children. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has written an essay justifying al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks of 9/11 based on this tradition. So too with the prohibition against suicide, used by some apologists to argue that so-called “suicide-bombers” are contrary to Islamic doctrine. But in the Koran and hadith it is clear that killing oneself as an act of martyrdom while fighting for the faith is acceptable. For example, according to one hadith, Muhammad said, “I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.” That’s why for 14 centuries jihadists have said they love death the way infidels love life.

Groups like ISIL or al Qaeda do not embrace “extreme religious views,” or “twist the overall message of religious texts,” as the New York Post has it. They act on a venerable tradition within Islam, one based on writings some Muslims have construed differently because of inconsistencies among various texts. But that doesn’t change the fact that the jihadists have within the faith long-established precedents for their actions, a tradition with millions of Muslim adherents worldwide, including the leaders of Turkey and Qatar who finance the vicious terrorist group Hamas, and the Mullahcracy in Iran, the world’s foremost supporter of Islamic terrorism.

We in the West correctly find such views “extreme,” or “savage” and “barbaric,” but they are not “fringe” anomalies conjured out of textual misreadings by an extremist cult. They derive from the history and sacred texts of Islam, the clear meaning of which is illustrated on page after page of Muslim history. And they are being acted upon today across the Muslim world, as evidenced by the nearly 24,000 violent attacks perpetrated by Muslim terrorists since 9/11. Contrary to Obama, ISIL does speak for a religion. It’s called Islam.

Massive rocket barrage targets south; sirens sound near Tel Aviv

Palestinians, Cairo said waiting on Jerusalem response to month-long truce offer; over 80 rockets shot at Israel Monday;

Family of slain 4-year-old says they won’t return to Gaza-area kibbutz

By Itamar Sharon, Marissa Newman and Ilan Ben Zion August 25, 2014, 12:34 am  Updated: August 25, 2014, 1:29 pm

via Massive rocket barrage targets south; sirens sound near Tel Aviv | The Times of Israel.

This is What a Politically Correct Mental Breakdown Over ISIS Looks Like, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, August 25, 2014

I remember how Churchill won WW2 by pretending that Hitler wasn’t running Germany, but was still painting ugly postcards.  And who can forget his stirring words. “We will deny that they are on the beaches. We will deny that they are in the cities. We will deny that there is a Nazi Germany.”

****************

I had to keep reading this to the end to be sure it wasn’t a parody. But this is what happens when someone in denial digs a deeper hole to deny in and then a deeper one under that.

It probably won’t surprise you too much to learn that the woman who wrote this came out of Berkeley. It may surprise you though that this appeared in The Telegraph.

We are not engaged in a religious war. This is not a confrontation between Islam and the West. To start from that premise is to place Isil (which should not be called by its presumptive title “Islamic State”) on precisely the ground it wishes to occupy.

If we acknowledge reality then the terrorists (who have nothing to do with Islam) will have won.

I remember how Churchill won WW2 by pretending that Hitler wasn’t running Germany, but was still painting ugly postcards.  And who can forget his stirring words. “We will deny that they are on the beaches. We will deny that they are in the cities. We will deny that there is a Nazi Germany.”

As the voices of what the media calls “moderate Muslims” – who should actually just be described as “Muslims” – say repeatedly, the activities of these terrorist criminals hacking their way through northern Iraq have nothing to do with the Islamic faith.

Problem solved. No need to address reality. We’ll just pretend that ISIS isn’t what it is and that will make us feel better. What about all the hundreds of British Muslim settlers flocking to ISIS? Let’s pretend that they don’t exist.

So now that we’re insisting that it’s not a religious war because ISIS says it is… what is it then?

So it is more important than ever to say that this is not a struggle between “our values” and those of medieval fundamentalism, or Islamist extremism. The contest is not modern liberal democracy versus the Dark Ages. This is to impose meaning on what is, in truth, meaningless.

Ah it’s meaningless.

Just thousands and thousands of armed fighters who for no reason are conquering parts of the Middle East and then ruling it. There’s no meaning to it whatsoever.

Sure we could listen to their explanation as to what they’re doing… but that would be imposing meaning on the meaningless actions of a well organized army creating a meaningless new system that it insists on calling a Caliphate for some meaningless reason.

What a bunch of crazy nuts.

Indeed, it may be worse than counterproductive to deal with Isil as if it were a rational force with established roots and a comprehensible set of demands capable of political solution. Just as this is not about religion, it is also not about politics,

Great. So now it’s not about religion or politics. ISIS is like Seinfeld. It’s about nothing. It’s completely incomprehensible if we choose to pretend that it is.

Question for Janet Daley, does ISIS even exist? Maybe we should start pretending that we imagined all the beheadings.

There is not even anything particularly Middle Eastern in the Isil mode of operation.

Aside from the location, the tactics, the symbolism and the religion… not a thing.

In fact, the gratuitous violence and promiscuous mayhem of its onslaught resembles nothing so much as 19th-century European anarchism

Whew. I knew it was Europe’s fault somehow. ISIS isn’t Muslim. It’s a bunch of European 19th century anarchists. That explains everything.

The next obvious question: how do you fight a dream that is without identifiable substance or consistent objectives?

I guess you could stop pretending that it’s a unidentifiable dream without an objective.  That would make it easier to deal with. The same advice goes for the rest of the media.

Or we can just pretend that it’s all a dream.

Minister Insists Israel Will Not Abandon Gaza Belt

Finance Minister Yair Lapid vows to help strengthen the South – both politically and financially.

By Tova Dvorin

First Publish: 8/25/2014, 7:04 PM

via Minister Insists Israel Will Not Abandon Gaza Belt – Defense/Security – News – Arutz Sheva.

The State of Israel will not sanction the organized evacuation of the Gaza Belt region, Finance Minister Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) insisted Monday night, despite the rocket fire pelting the communities near Gaza on a minute-by-minute basis.

“Just because someone says to himself, ‘I do not want my children in the line of fire, I will get into the car and drive to where it’s safe,’ does not mean we will evacuate these communities,” Lapid said, in an interview with Walla!.

“It’s his right and we’ll help him find alternative arrangements, but Israel will not forsake entire communities, we will not see here an organized abandonment of settlements and we will not give this victory for Hamas,” he continued.

“Because then, where will it end? Will we evacuate Ashkelon? And then Ashdod? The State of Israel does not run off and evacuate communities due to terrorist organizations firing on their residents,” declared Lapid.

Lapid’s comments surface mere hours after the parents of four year-old Daniel Tragerman, hy”d, who was killed by a Hamas mortar shell Friday, announced that they would be permanently leaving their home in Kibbutz Nahal Oz after the incident.

The announcement highlights a mass exodus among Gaza Belt residents, with some 80% of families leaving their homes on a semi-permanent or permanent basis since Operation Protective Edge broke out on July 8, according to some reports.

Truce or no truce?

Lapid evaded questions on a possible ceasefire, hours after reports surfaced that Israel was weighing a deal.

“We are waiting to hear from the international community [on the ceasefire], so we do not know,” Lapid said. He indicated that Israel would take the ceasefire deal if it offered a chance for negotiations, but not under any other conditions.

“We will not negotiate under fire,” he stressed, asldo denying reports that Israel may have already accepted a ceasefire.

“I suggest not to rely on Palestinian media, but to wait for the official Israeli version of events, which will come at the right time,” he said.

Sources told the news outlet Monday morning that Israel accepted an indefinite ceasefire with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and that it was already in effect.

According to that report, in the first stage of the ceasefire Egypt will open the Rafah Crossing with Gaza, in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. If the ceasefire holds, the second stage will see Israel extend the Gaza fishing zone – currently restricted to 0-3 miles from the coast for security reasons – first to six, and later 12 miles.

Israel will also open the Kerem Shalom Crossing, which has been shelled by terrorists on numerous occasions during Operation Protective Edge, and allow goods for trading to pass through, including food and, at a later stage, building materials.

‘Determination and patience the key to the campaign’

Lapid also addressed his visit to the Tragerman family home earlier Monday, after which he remarked that “Hamas would pay” for the death of four-year old Daniel and for laying waste to the South.

“I see communities where residents are determined to stay,” he said. “But the loss is painful. This death is painful. They understand, however, that this is a just war.”

“This campaign should be fought, and it should be run with determination and patience – there is no other way to mount a campaign [like this]. So they understand.”

Lapid added that he spoke with the mayors in the South about the potential for government aid due to the prolonged war.

The aid would apparently be in addition to the 13.5 million shekel aid plan that was already approved several weeks ago for the long-term reconstruction of the Gaza Belt, as well as Tourism Minister Uzi Landau’s request that the region be made VAT-free (an 18% discount on sales tax) for one year.

Will Hamas Be Held Accountable for War Crimes? Gatestone Institute, Khaled Abu Toameh, August 25, 2014

(Hamas and the Islamic State have more than extrajudicial killings in common. They share the same Islamic ideology and act in accordance with it. Regardless of that, and the actions of Hamas, et al, against Israel, it is highly unlikely that the United Nations or the “International Community” will hold it accountable for anything. That would be politically incorrect.– DM)

What Khaled Mashaal forgot to mention was that Hamas and the Islamic State do have at least one thing in common: they both carry out extrajudicial executions as a means of terrorizing and intimidating those who stand in their way or who dare to challenge their terrorism.

According to Hamas’s logic, all members of the Palestinian Authority government are “traitors” who should be dragged to public squares to be shot by firing squads. According to the same logic, Mahmoud Abbas himself should be executed for maintaining security coordination with and talking to Israelis.

As for the two executed women, the sources said that their only fault was that they had been observed asking too many questions about Palestinians who were killed in airstrikes.

Hamas’s extrajudicial executions of Palestinians suspected of “collaboration” with Israel are a sign that the Islamist movement is beginning to panic in the wake of Israel’s successful targeting of its leaders.

But the public executions by firing squad of more than 26 suspected “collaborators” in the Gaza Strip could also turn many Palestinians against Hamas.

Masked Hamas members (dressed in black) prepare to execute local Palestinians who they claim spied for Israel, Aug. 22, 2014, in Gaza. (Image source: Reuters video screenshot)

Hamas has banned the publication of the names of the executed Palestinians “out of concern for the social fabric” of Palestinian society.

In other words, Hamas is afraid that revealing the identities of the executed “collaborators” would spark outrage in the Gaza Strip and possible calls for revenge, especially from the families of the victims.

Hamas says that the suspected “collaborators” were brought before firing squads after being tried before special “revolutionary tribunals” consisting of security experts and officers.

It says that in time of war, there is no room for holding proper legal procedures and that security circumstances require secret trials followed by swift executions.

Yet some Palestinians in the Gaza Strip argue that in the absence of proper legal procedures, it is impossible to tell whether the convicted Palestinians were guilty or innocent.

Sources in the Gaza Strip revealed that some of the executed men belonged to Abbas’s Fatah faction and had no connection with Israel.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights was the only group that dared to criticize Hamas for embarking on a spree of public executions in front of passersby, including many children.

A statement released by the human rights group said it was following events “with deep concern news about extrajudicial executions in the Gaza Strip.”

Noting that among those executed by Hamas were two Palestinian women, the group called on the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to intervene to “stop these extrajudicial executions, regardless of the reason and motives behind them.”

Raji Surani, director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, complained that the public extrajudicial executions “cause harm to all Palestinians” and called for “honoring the rule of law and human rights.”

However, “honoring the rule of law and human rights” has been a practice alien to Hamas ever since it seized control over the Gaza Strip through a violent and bloody coup against the Palestinian Authority in the summer of 2007.

Back then, Hamas killed dozens (some say hundreds) of Palestinians, including many from the rival Fatah faction headed by Mahmoud Abbas. Fatah members who were not killed during the fighting were later tossed from tall buildings or lynched in public squares.

One prominent Fatah activist, Samih al-Madhoun, was dragged to the street and brutally lynched by Hamas militiamen and supporters.

Over the past few days, Hamas officials have gone out of their way to tell the world that their movement is not like the Islamic State terror organization, which has become notorious for beheading almost everyone it finds standing the way of its creating an Islamic Caliphate.

“We are not a religious, violent group,” Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said in an interview with Yahoo News from his luxurious hotel in Qatar. He said that Hamas, unlike the Islamic State terrorist group, operates only in Israel, the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

What Mashaal forgot to mention in the interview was that Hamas and the Islamic State do have at least one thing in common: they both carry out extrajudicial executions as a means of terrorizing and intimidating those who stand in their way or dare to challenge their terrorism.

Even the Palestinian Authority [PA] now seems to be drawing an analogy between Hamas and the Islamic State and other radical Islamist terrorist groups.

Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a senior aide to Mahmoud Abbas, strongly condemned Hamas’s extrajudicial executions, adding that that they are “reminiscent of the summary executions carried out by Wahhabi militant groups in other parts of the Middle East.”

Abdel Rahim added, “The executions were done in cold blood and according to Hamas law, which is: Who is not with Hamas is against it.”

Under Palestinian Authority law, all death sentences must be approved by the president of the PA. But in 2005, PA President Mahmoud Abbas issued a moratorium on death sentences — a prohibition that did not stop Hamas from pursuing executions under the pretext that the PA president was no longer a legitimate leader since his term had expired in 2009.

It is notable that the latest executions in the Gaza Strip were carried out after the formation of the Hamas-backedPalestinian “national consensus” government a few months ago. These extrajudicial executions show that despite the unity agreement between the two parties, Hamas continues to act as the sole authority in the Gaza Strip, where it has its own security forces, militias and “revolutionary courts.”

It is also ironic that Hamas has chosen to execute suspected “collaborators” at a time when it is seen as part of the “national consensus” government that continues to conduct security coordination with Israel. According to Hamas’s logic, all members of the Palestinian government are “traitors” who should also be dragged to public squares and the yards of mosques to be shot by firing squads.

According to the same logic, Abbas himself should also be executed for maintaining security coordination and talking to Israelis.

Hamas does not even need to interrogate or hold a trial for Abbas because he recently announced, during a meeting with Israelis in his office in Ramallah, that “security coordination with Israel is sacred.”

Sources in the Gaza Strip said that the executed men were affiliated with Fatah and had been suspected of maintaining contact with senior Fatah officials in Ramallah and some Arab countries. As for the two executed women, the sources said that their only fault was that they had been observed by neighbors asking too many questions about Palestinians who were killed in Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip over the past few weeks.

Hamas’s hysteria has seen it turn not only on its political rivals in Fatah and innocent Palestinians, but also against its own followers. According to sources in the Gaza Strip, Hamas arrested more than 250 of its own members after Israel last week killed its three top military commanders, Raed al-Attar, Mohamed Abu Shamaleh and Mohamed Barhoum.

The public executions in the Gaza Strip are a sign that Hamas is losing the war with Israel, particularly in the intelligence field. The three slain Hamas commanders are said to have been hiding inside a tunnel 30-meters [100 feet] deep, beneath a house in the southern town of Rafah. But this did not prevent the Israel Defense Forces from locating them and killing them. For Hamas, this is a serious security and intelligence blunder.

That is why Hamas is nervous and anxious to show that it is capable of responding to the targeted killing of its commanders. And there is nothing easier than dragging men and women into public squares and executing them in public after declaring them Israeli “agents.”

The extrajudicial executions will be added to the long list of crimes committed by Hamas against Palestinians. But the question remains whether the international community will ever hold Hamas accountable for its war crimes. Judging from the apathy of the international community and the United Nations to Hamas’s extrajudicial killings and other crimes, probably not.