Amidst the rise of ISIS and the jihadi attacks in Europe, the International Criminal Court (ICC) admitted the Hamas-linked Palestinian Authority into its ranks, in effect, welcoming terrorists.
The Palestinians have long sought statehood. The official narrative proclaims a desire for an independent state in the “occupied territories” of Gaza and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capitol. But in reality, Palestinians consider all of Israel to be “occupied” and many seek the extermination of the State of Israel entirely.
Israel and Palestine are bound by the Oslo accords to negotiate for peace through bilateral talks. The premise is that Israel will relinquish land in exchange for peace and security. But when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, instead of receiving peace, Israel was bombarded with 10,000 Kassam rockets and Palestinians renamed their streets to “honor” jihadi martyrs.
Over the years, peace talks have failed repeatedly and negotiations have been interrupted by multitudes of Palestinian assaults on the Israeli civilian population. The Palestinian Authority (PA), the only representative of the Palestinians officially recognized by Israel and the U.S., has been unable to halt the terrorism.
To make matters worse, in 2014, the PA and Hamas joined together to form a “unity government” in an effort to reconcile the Fatah-Hamas conflict. This “reconciliation”, in effect, made the PA official collaborators with Hamas, which is a State-designated terrorist organization. Hamas refuses to recognize the State of Israel or to negotiate with her. Its charter spells out its mission to obliterate Israel through violence, and its deeds back up its words.
It is illegal to fund a terrorist organization and there is no exception for the U.S. government. However, the Obama Administration has bent over backwards to find legal loopholes through which it could still funnel financial aid to “Palestine,” to the tune of 400 million dollars annually. In contrast, Israeli officials refuse to negotiate with a terror-affiliated entity.
PA President Abbas publicly proclaimed that the unity government would recognize Israel’s right to exist, be non-violent, and be bound by prior PLO agreements. The Hamas spokesperson, on the other hand, admits that it never did, or would, recognize the State of Israel. Furthermore, Hamas claims that its affiliation with the PA ended after a six month term. Abbas insists to the contrary, that the unity government is still in full force.
Either way, “Palestine” is not a state, and therefore fails to qualify for ICC membership. Never-the-less, in an attempt to make an end-run around bi-lateral negotiations, the Palestinians applied for, and obtained, an upgrade in UN status. In 2012, pursuant to a UN General Assembly vote, Palestine’s status went from “observer entity” to “non-member observer state”. This change in status made admission to the ICC possible.
It is noteworthy that this is the same GA that on a regular and frequent basis, passes anti-Israel resolutions. Indeed, the entire UN apparatus in incredibly biased, holding Israel to a standard to which no other country is held. Resolutions condemning Israel in the GA and the Human Rights Council are numerous, while both bodies turn a blind eye to real human rights abuses in countries like Sudan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Additionally, Palestine has been lobbying countries to provide it with unilateral recognition of statehood. Many states have acquiesced, with a swell in the western ranks during 2014, though sometimes the recognition extended is diplomatic and not legally binding. These states include Sweden, France, Spain, Britain, Ireland, and Iceland, as well as the EU.
Palestine’s goal has been to join the ICC for the purpose of filing claims against Israel for war crimes and crimes against humanity, in an attempt to force unilateral concessions without an exchange of peace. Already, the PA is preparing its paperwork for submission to the ICC. The PA seeks to have Israel prosecuted for its 2014 campaign against Gaza, though it was a response to Palestinian terrorism and the illegal smuggling of weapons through underground tunnels. Additionally, the PA wants Israel prosecuted for her settlements on so-called “occupied territory”, despite the fact that it is quite a stretch to allege that settlement activity constitutes a war crime.
Israel is not a member of the ICC, but the ICC asserts jurisdiction over anyone that commits war crimes or crimes against humanity on the territory of its member states. Jurisdictional disputes are determined by the ICC itself, demonstrating one of the many problems with its expansive, unchecked power. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has already promised that Israel will stand by the IDF soldiers as they have defended Israel, but what that means in legal terms is unclear. Israeli citizens are also at risk for potential prosecution if the ICC accepts the PA’s case.
Already there is blowback from the PA’s move to ICC membership, which Israel considers to be a game-changer of escalatory proportion. Accordingly, Israel has frozen 127 million dollars in tax revenue designated for the PA, which the Palestinians direly need, and the peace talks are virtually dead. Additionally, U.S. officials are re-evaluating appropriations and will consider legislation to cease U.S. aid to “Palestine” if it demands the prosecution of Israel.
Still, the PA seeks momentum in the court of public opinion. Its goal on the world stage is to gain international recognition of Palestinian statehood and to delegitimize Israel.
On June 13, 2014, “Palestine” accepted ICC jurisdiction by means of a declaration pursuant to article 12(3) of the Rome Statue (the treaty that provides for the creation and jurisdiction of the ICC). The PA government signed the Rome Statute on December 31, 2014. This was one day subsequent to its failed bid at the UN Security Council to pass a resolution calling for Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders within the next three years. “The State of Palestine’s” instruments of accession to the ICC were deposited and effected as of January 2, 2015. The PA also signed a multitude of treaties and international conventions shortly thereafter.
The official date on which Palestine will become a full-fledged ICC member is on April 1, 2015, April Fool’s Day. In a world where anti-Semitism and Islamic jihad are on the rise (both stealth and violent), April Fool’s Day will be a grim day indeed. But the joke is not on Palestine. It will be on all those in the West who profess to care about freedom and human rights, but have abandoned their principles in capitulation to Islamist demands and welcomed terrorists into their midst.
A leftwing organization is complaining that not enough building materials are being let into Gaza, but admits that what goes in is not being used to rebuild Gazan home.
A Hamas policeman walks past trucks loaded with cement which entered the Gaza Strip from Israel through the Kerem Shalom crossing. Photo Credit: Abed Rahim Khatib / Flash90
It’s difficult to get a handle on the tone of a recent report by the radical left-wing organization Gisha.
In a recent article, they report on how much building materials such as concrete and cement have been brought into Gaza since the end of Operation Protective Edge in August 2014.
Trucks
Tons of Material
Private use (Reconstruction)
722
34,570
Qatar projects
1,496
104,198
International Organization Projects
960
57,636
Totals:
3,178
196,404
Gisha complains that this amount isn’t nearly enough, making up only 3.9% of the amount of building material that Gaza needs to for reconstruction.
They claim that Gaza needs 5 million tons of building materials.
It would appear that Gisha is ignoring the estimated 3 millions tons of concrete rubble already in Gaza that can be recycled and reused for many projects — though that 3 million tons presumably includes the 800,000 tons of concrete originally used to build Gaza’s terror tunnel network that Hamas claims is already being rebuilt.
In the article, Gisha mentions that not a single home from the 20,000 destroyed homes hasbeen rebuilt since the construction material was first allowed back in.
But it is not clear who exactly Gisha is criticizing for that, or what they are implying.
So where did the concrete go?
An Israel Channel 2 reporter spoke with Gazans in December, and they said they haven’t seen any private reconstruction going on, only some main roads.
Based on the international mechanisms that were set up between the UN, Israel and the PA, every individual Gazan whose home was damaged need only fill out a form and they will receive the building materials they need to rebuild.
And yet the left-wing organization Gisha divulges that not a single new home has been rebuilt, despite nearly 35 tons and 722 trucks of construction material being brought in specifically for that purpose.
The Channel 2 reporter asked the Gazans about the construction material they were supposed to receive, and one Gazan in the construction business told him that the Gazans are reselling all their building materials on the black market to buy food and supplies – even though organizations like UNRWA supposedly supply them with the basics.
He claims that individual Gazans can’t afford to rebuild their homes, even after being given all the raw materials for free.
Which brings us back full circle, with one basic question.
Israel is allowing in building materials, more than enough for the Gazans to be rebuilding their homes.
There is enough recyclable construction material in Gaza to last them for years.
Individual Gazans are selling their construction material on the black market (to someone).
Despite the presence of international organizations who are supposed to be in Gaza helping them rebuild and ensuring that building materials do not go to Hamas, no one actually sees any help from them in rebuilding their homes, other than providing them raw material which they resell, presumably to Hamas.
Despite the multiplicity of NGOs supposedly concerned with Gaza, none of those NGOs seem to be helping the Gazans physically rebuild.
Despite having all the raw materials and the manpower, no one in Gaza is helping one another rebuild their homes, and certainly Hamas and the PA, their own government(s), isn’t helping either.
Which leaves us with one question: how many terror tunnels is Hamas currently rebuilding with all the redirected construction materials?
(The opinions expressed in this article are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or any of its other editors. — DM)
They should welcome Islamic peace, including eternal bliss with their beautiful virgins.
Many more of us await you. Hurry up!
The attacks by adherents to the Religion of “Peace” in France were not the first, nor will they be the last, by “extremists” who live for nothing better than to demonstrate Islamic tolerance by slaughtering blasphemers who mock their “holy prophet” or otherwise insult Islam. We are told, ad nauseam, that they and their cohorts — like the Islamic State — are not Islamic: the Fort Hood massacre was mere “workplace violence” that had nothing to do with Islam, the Islamic Republic of Iran can be trusted with nukes and Saudi Arabia is our friend.
No matter that Major Hasan, a Muslim, yelled “Allah Akbar” while he slaughtered thirteen people and injured thirty more, and now wants to be a citizen of the Islamic State. No matter that there were many more Islamic jihad attacks during 2014.
No matter that Iran has long sought (and may already have) nukes and the death of Israel. Is Iran non-Islamic? No matter that our “ally,” Saudi Arabia, just applied to Raif Badaw the first fifty of the one thousand lashes imposed as part of his punishment for blasphemy for calling for religious freedom and thereby insulting Islam. Is Saudi Arabia non-Islamic?
taught political philosophy at Georgetown University for many years until recently retiring. He is the author of numerous books and countless essays on philosophy, theology, education, morality, and other topics. His most recent book is Reasonable Pleasures: The Strange Coherences of Catholicism (Ignatius Press).
After highlighting only a few of many Islamic murders* and persecutions of Christians, Father Schall contends, quite persuasively, that
In the Quran, there is no mention of the Trinity or Incarnation, except explicitly to deny them. It is blasphemy to believe in them, as well as to question anything connected with the Quran. Allah intends the whole world to observe the Sharia, the Muslim legal code, observing its letter. As soon as it can, this law is imposed in every Muslim land or smaller community, even in democratic states. No distinction between Islam and the state exists. Everyone is born a Muslim. If he is not a Muslim, it is because his parents or teachers corrupted him. It is impossible to convert from Islam to another religion, without grave, often lethal, consequences. [Emphasis added.]
It is not against the Quran to use violence to spread or enforce Islamic law. Those Islam conquers, even from its beginnings till now, it either kills, forces conversion, or imposes second class citizenship. The Islamic State, now so much to the forefront, seems to have the correct understanding of what the Quran intends and advocates. The voluntarist presuppositions of Islamic thought allow what is prohibited to become good. Allah is not bound by the distinction of good and evil. Whatever Allah wills, even if it was the opposite yesterday, is good. [Emphasis added.]
. . . . To most Muslims, the West is itself morally decadent. Many think that the decline of population in the West and the high birth rate of Muslims almost guarantee eventual control of many European countries by Islam. And no talk exists of “converting” Islam by Christians. With Fatima, Reagan and John Paul II could talk of ending the evil empire of the Soviet Union, but the question, “What is Islam?”, is seldom addressed. There is certainly nothing said about really changing Islam, only containing it. [Emphasis added.]
[I]t is possible that Islam will follow its pattern in the early modern world. Much of its recent success has depended on its good fortune with oil and other resources. But no Islamic state or group has been the origin of any properly modern inventions or developments. There seems to be theological reasons for this, as there is no reason to investigate a world that is based solely on the arbitrary will of Allah. Islam lacks any real notion of a natural law or a basis in reason that would allow it to criticize itself and recognize the extremism of many of its own practices, and especially the killings. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[N]o real basis for the much-appealed-to “dialogue” with Islam seems to exist. Almost all the initiative for dialogue has come from the Christian side. Islam has no central authority. It has no fixed theology except what is in the Quran and attempts to defend its consistency.
Dialogue is looked upon as a sign of weakness unless it can be used to further Muslim goals. In the case of the killings that Coren lists, if they are looked upon as legitimate means, there is no need either to talk about them or to cease their presumed effectiveness in spreading Islam. One cannot really appeal to the Quran to cease these killings, as there is ample reason within it to justify them as worthy means. Had it not been possible to justify these means in the Quran, the whole history of Islam would be different. Indeed, it probably never would have expanded at all. [Emphasis added.]
Speaking at the start of a three-day trip to Turkey, Pope Francis said “terrorist violence” showed no sign of abating in Turkey’s southern neighbours, where Islamist insurgents had declared a caliphate and persecuted Shiite Muslims, Christians and others who do not share their ultra-radical brand of Sunni Islam.
“It is licit, while always respecting international law, to stop an unjust aggressor,” the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics said in reference to the Islamic State militants after a meeting with Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan.
“What is required is a concerted commitment on the part of all … [to] enable resources to be directed, not to weaponry, but to the other noble battles worthy of man: the fight against hunger and sickness.”[Emphasis added.]
Sure. That should take care of the problem. In an Islamic pig’s eye.
Perhaps Obama and His devotees should read the article, even though it would not likely change their minds even a whit.
Why do many refer to Islamic terrorists as “extremists” or “radicals?” Aren’t they actually Islamists, dedicated to defending their religion against “slander?”
Are Christians and Jews, who actually practice their religions, “extremists” or “radicals?” Aren’t they practicing Christians and Jews? Or are Christians, in the eyes of Obama and His supporters, just bitter little people who cling to their religion or their guns and hate those who are not like them? (That’s a good characterization of Islamists.)
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. [Emphasis added.]
How about the Jews of Israel, who would much rather live in peace with their neighbors than kill or be killed by them? Are they also “bitter clingers?” They cling to life, so they must be, in Obama’s view.
President Obama finally remarked upon the attacks on our consulate in Libya — but was silent on the attack on our embassy in Egypt — and stressed the importance of not disrespecting religion in his speech, something he’s newly concerned about:
While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
It’s interesting that only when Islamists riot is Obama concerned for religious respect. I assume that Islam is excluded from what is called his ‘war on religion’ as he’s never before shown any concern for the denigration of other faiths. He’s demonstrated none of what he asks these past several years. Who could forget his demeaning characterization of middle America as ‘bitter clingers?’ [Emphasis added.”
Remember Obama’s October 3, 2014 Eid greeting to Muslims around the world?
As our Muslim neighbors and friends gather for Eid celebrations, Muslim Americans are among the millions of pilgrims joining one of the world’s largest and most diverse gatherings. Hajj brings together Muslims from around the world – Sunni and Shiite – to share in reverent prayer, side by side. It serves as a reminder that no matter one’s tribe or sect, race or religion, gender or age, we are equals in humanity.
On Eid, Muslims continue the tradition of donating to the poor and joining efforts with other faith communities in providing assistance to those suffering from hunger, sickness, oppression, and conflict. Their service is a powerful example of the shared roots of the world’s Abrahamic faiths and how our communities can come together in shared peace, with dignity and a sense of justice. [Emphasis added.]
Is there such a thing as “moderate” Islam of the type to which Obama may have referred? After searching high and low and finding none, Daniel Greenfield finally found an example:
There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.
You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.
You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.
Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe. [Emphasis in original]
The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all. [Emphasis added.]
Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim. [Emphasis added.]
Perhaps such secular Muslims are not “bitter clingers.”
Islam and the multicultural “blessings” of “shared peace, with dignity and a sense of justice” (from Obama’s Eid greeting) it brings are rampant in Europe. They could have been avoided but were not, on the apparent theories (a) that there is no evil in the world, (b) that all religions are equally evil, (c) that all religions are equally good and/or (d) that no other evil is even comparable in its insidiousness to Islamophobia.
Some in Europe are learning, but their principal leaders seem to be too dense, too devoted to their ideologies or both, to absorb the lessons of even recent history. French President Hollande decried “racism and anti-Semitism” and proclaimed that the Islamic attacks in France had “nothing to do with Islam.” Apparently, in his twisted view, “true” Islam rejects racism and “antisemitism.” This Islamic preacher must not be Islamic.
In similar vein, a Palestinian envoy to Iran recently “said that ‘Israel is a cancer’ that ‘will be destroyed.”
Islamists throughout the world are as antisemitic as they are anti-Christian and appear to be proud of it.
Here are five more short videos:
Appeasement (is that another name for multiculturalism?) is not a viable solution; it merely postpones evil until it become stronger and multitudes are slaughtered, unnecessarily. Unfortunately many of us, as well as many of our “leaders,” have yet to learn the lessons of history; hence appeasement continues to be the preferred, but most deadly, response to evil.
Meanwhile, Obama and all too many leading RINOs insist that massive immigration must continue in the United States and that amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the there is good. I have found no credible statistics suggesting the numbers of Islamists or other murderers among actual and potential illegal immigrants, but their numbers cannot rationally be assumed to be insignificant. Nor can it be assumed that the apparent hopes of our “leaders” that all will turn out just fine will be realized; it may all depend on their definitions of “just fine.” It can reasonably be assumed that the Obama Nation is galloping, and will continue to gallop, down a path similar to that trod by Europe and that the consequences will be comparable in lives and freedoms lost, to say nothing of the financial burdens incurred by Federal, State and local governments and, of course, their citizens.
– AFDI denounces the crippling rules of engagement under which our soldiers are forced to labor. They should be given the freedom to defend themselves and protect their comrades.
— AFDI calls for profiling of Muslims at airports and in hiring in professions in which national security and public safety could be compromised.
— AFDI calls for immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal.
— AFDI calls for surveillance of mosques and regular inspections of mosques in the U.S. and other non-Muslim nations to look for pro-violence materials. Any mosque advocating jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections should be closed.
— AFDI calls for curriculum and Islam-related materials in textbooks and museums to describe the Islamic doctrine and history accurately, including its violent doctrines and 1,400-year war against unbelievers.
— AFDI calls for a halt of foreign aid to Islamic nations with Sharia-based constitutions and/or governments.
– AFDI denounces the use of Sharia law in any Western court or nation.
– AFDI advocates deportation hearings against non-citizens who promote jihad in our nations.
– AFDI calls for an immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into nations that do not currently have a Muslim majority population.
— AFDI calls for laws providing that anyone seeking citizenship in the United States should be asked if he or she supports Sharia law, and investigated for ties to pro-Sharia groups. If so, citizenship should not be granted.
– AFDI calls for the cancellation of citizenship or permanent residency status for anyone who leaves the country of his residence to travel for the purpose of engaging in jihad activity, and for the refusal of reentry into his country of residence after that jihad activity.
— AFDI calls careful investigation of Muslims resident in non-Muslim country who have obtained naturalized citizenship or permanent residency status, to ensure that that status was not obtained under false pretenses.
— AFDI calls for the designation of the following as grounds for immediate deportation: fomenting, plotting, financing, attempting or carrying out jihad attacks; encouraging or threatening or attempting to carry out the punishments Islamic law mandates for apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, fornication or theft; threatening or attempting or carrying out honor murders, forced marriage, underage marriage, female genital mutilation, or polygamy.
— AFDI calls for the U.S. and other free nations to have jihad, as it is traditionally understood in Islamic jurisprudence to involve warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, declared a crime against humanity at the U.N., or to withdraw from the U.N. and have its headquarters moved to a Muslim nation.
– AFDI calls for legislating making illegal the foreign funding of Islamic Studies departments and faculty positions in our universities.
– AFDI demands the repeal of U.N. resolution 16/18 and any other resolutions that might limit the freedom of speech.
– AFDI calls for all Muslim chaplains in prisons and the military to be thoroughly vetted, and dismissed if they have ties to any Islamic supremacist group, or if they advocate jihad.
– AFDI calls for the development of energy policies that will free us from dependence upon oil from Muslim countries.
Through SION, AFDI establishes a common American / European coalition of free people determined to stand for freedom and oppose the advance of Islamic law, Sharia. Islamic law is not simply a religious system, but a political system that encompasses every aspect of life; is authoritarian, discriminatory, and repressive; and contradicts Western laws and principles in numerous particulars. SION respects Muslims as fellow human beings and rejects Islamization as a comprehensive political, religious, cultural and social system of behavior and ideology.
AFDI and SION stand for:
— The freedom of speech – as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of “blasphemy” and “slander,” which are used effectively to quash honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism;
— The freedom of conscience – as opposed to the Islamic death penalty for apostasy;
— The equality of rights of all people before the law – as opposed to Sharia’s institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.
Here’s a link to an essay by Allen West proposing much the same. It’s well worth reading.
The Obama Nation won’t take any of the suggested steps, of course, and no European nation seems likely to; they are too preoccupied with fighting Islamophobia and pursuing the “blessings” of multiculturalism. However, it’s worth pushing hard for. After all, it’s more humane than giving Islamists the “peace” they claim to want, wholesale, and sending them to their virgins.
In the meantime, let’s load up on neat gifts and get ready for a merry Christmas.
_________________
*An exhaustive list of Christians slaughtered during November of 2014 is available in an article titled Christians Burned Alive, published on January 10, 2015 by the Gatestone Institute.
Grieving Parisians gathered to mourn the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Photo: Screenshot, Vice News.
[H]ad Palestinian gunmen similarly attacked Israel’s most important daily newspaper and then escaped, would the event inspire such constant coverage or international sympathy? Israel has suffered countless massacres followed by a suspenseful manhunt for the Islamist terrorists; in each of these incidents, the world hardly noticed until Israel forcefully responded and Palestinians died (prompting global condemnation of Israel).
The best response to the Charlie Hebdo attack is to redouble the free expression Islamists meant to stifle. Similarly, the best response to Islamist attacks on the only Mideast democracy, Israel, is to increase support for it.
****************
The Islamist massacre at Charlie Hebdo has understandably captured global attention because it was a barbaric attack on France and freedom of expression. In a moment of defiant moral clarity, “je suis Charlie” emerged as a popular phrase of solidarity with the victims. Hopefully such clarity persists and extends to those facing similar challenges every day in the Middle East.
Christians and other religious minorities have been beheaded by Islamists for years, but it wasn’t until US journalist James Foley was beheaded that the West cared. The Islamic State raped and slaughtered thousands of Yazidis — leaving the surviving refugees stranded on Mount Sinjar — before the West took notice. But one Islamist besieging a cafe in Sydney, killing two, dominated global coverage for the entire 16-hour incident.
Western leaders and media must realize that religious minorities in the Middle East are the canary in the coalmine for the West when it comes to Islamist threats. And Israel provides the clearest early warning of all, precisely because — despite Israel’s location in a region of Islamists and dictatorships — the Jewish state has free elections, freedom of speech, a vigorous political opposition and independent press, equal rights and protections for minorities and women (who are represented in all parts of civil, legal, political, artistic, and economic life), and a prosperous free market economy.
But had Palestinian gunmen similarly attacked Israel’s most important daily newspaper and then escaped, would the event inspire such constant coverage or international sympathy? Israel has suffered countless massacres followed by a suspenseful manhunt for the Islamist terrorists; in each of these incidents, the world hardly noticed until Israel forcefully responded and Palestinians died (prompting global condemnation of Israel).
However, when there is an attack in Europe, North America, or Australia, there is widespread grief, solidarity, and an acceptance of whatever policy reaction is chosen. But when Israel is targeted, there is almost always a call for “restraint,” as happened last November after fatal stabbings by Palestinian terrorists in Tel Aviv and the West Bank.
If two Palestinians entered a European or North American church and attacked worshipers with meat cleavers, killing five people, including priests, the outrage would be palpable in every politician and journalist’s voice. But when Israelis were victims of such an attack, Obama’s reaction was spineless and tone deaf. Did Obama condemn the Charlie Hebdo massacre by noting how many Muslims have died at the hands of French military forces operating in Africa and the Middle East? Of course not. Such moral equivocation would be unthinkable with any ally or Western country except Israel.
Similarly, would Secretary of State John Kerry ever suggest that the Islamic State is somehow motivated by French policies (whether banning Muslim headscarves at public schools or fighting Islamists in Mali)? Obviously not. Yet Kerry did just that sort of thing with Israel when he suggested that the Islamic State is driven by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Consider all of the justifiable news coverage and outrage over the 2013 Boston bombings, and imagine if one of those happened every week. Would anyone dare suggest that the US make peace with any Islamists demanding changes to US policy? And yet Israel had such bomb attacks almost every week of 2002 and was invariably asked to restrain itself and make concessions to the very people bombing them (as happened again last summer, when Hamas fired thousands of rockets at Israel).
Israel is still the country that everyone loves to hate. So it’s the cheap way to please Muslim voters in Europe and oil producers in the Gulf. But what happens to Israel eventually comes to the West, because Israel is an extension of the West. And just as surrendering Czechoslovakia failed to appease the expansionist appetite and murderous rampage of Nazi totalitarianism, so too will feeding Israel to Islamist totalitarianism fail to appease that movement. In the end, there is no set of concessions — short of civilizational surrender — that the Islamists will accept.
Moreover, if lofty concerns about self-determination and human rights are the true motivation behind Europe’s vocal support for Palestinian independence (despite its undemocratic and violent record), why is Europe deafeningly quiet on Kurdish statehood? Given that six million Jews were annihilated by a genocide on European soil, Europe’s hypocrisy on Israel should embarrass the continent even more.
Worse still, Europe’s gestures of appeasement only encourage the Islamists. The best response to the Charlie Hebdo attack is to redouble the free expression Islamists meant to stifle. Similarly, the best response to Islamist attacks on the only Mideast democracy, Israel, is to increase support for it.
Soldiers guard Samaria community (illustration) Flash 90
An argument erupted between the convoy and the community’s security guards, as all official visits to Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria must be coordinated with the IDF and police – a protocol the consulate allegedly ignored. At least one of the American guards allegedly pulled out his handgun and M-16 during the course of the argument.
*****************
Acting Head of the Samaria Regional Council, Yossi Dagan, has filed a request to the Minister of the Interior Gilad Erdan demanding he immediately expel the American Consulate staff members who entered the Samaria village of Adei Ad Friday and threatened Israeli Jews with an M-16.
“As revealed through Wikileaks few years ago, these supposed ‘officials’ are intelligence agents and spies in every respect,” said Dagan, adding “this time, they went too far and participated in a provocative tour with the Palestinians in the southern Samaria and north Binyamin, without any coordination as required with the IDF and police, and pulled out a firearm and threatened Israeli civilians.”
“This is a crossing of all red lines,” he continued. “This event could have descended easily into bloodshed and only as a result of the settlers’ responsible behavior was [a scenario like that] prevented.”
“I request that in view of the serious and criminal conduct, that these [US] security guards and officials be deported,” he added.
“If Israeli intelligence officials and armed Israeli security guards stationed in one of the Israeli consulates in the United States had participated in a political provocation without any coordination with the police and threatened American citizens with weapons, at best, they would bearrested and deported, and the more likely case would be them spending several years in federal prison.”
It is unclear exactly what prompted the incident at Adei Ad Friday, but reports say that several consulate officials arrived with armed guards at the community to investigate Palestinian Arabs’ claims of vandalism of a nearby olive orchard.
An argument erupted between the convoy and the community’s security guards, as all official visits to Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria must be coordinated with the IDF and police – a protocol the consulate allegedly ignored. At least one of the American guards allegedly pulled out his handgun and M-16 during the course of the argument.
[T]he increased authoritarianism of Abu Mazen is reflected in a recent survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. It indicates that 66% of Palestinians are afraid to criticise Abu Mazen and the PA, and 80% consider the PA institutions to be corrupt and infected with nepotism.
***************
Mahmoud Abbas, (aka Abu Mazen) has been a failure as the Palestinian “Rais.” He failed to lead the Palestinian Authority (PA) toward peace with Israel, and he mismanaged the alleged goal to achieve statehood for the Palestinians. Instead of facing the tough issues and making compromises required in negotiating peace and statehood with the Israelis, Abbas chose an alliance with the Gaza controlled terrorist group Hamas. Following Abbas’ pact with Hamas last April, Israel broke off peace negotiations with the Palestinians, just days before the talks brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry were scheduled to expire.
Abbas isn’t only confusing Israelis, Americans, and is his Europeans patrons, he is perplexing his own Palestinian consituents. Following last summer’s Gaza War between Hamas and Israel, Abbas threatened to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) and saught to indict Israel on war crimes. PA Foreign Minister Riad al-Maliki met with the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC last August to explore ways of joining the court by PA President Abbas signing the Rome Statute. When, however, the U.S. Congress threatened to cut off all funding to Palestine if Abbas filed war crimes charges against Israel, Abbas backed off. At the same time though, Israel’s Prime Minister threatened to counter-sue, alleging that the rockets fired by Hamas terrorists into Israeli civilian areas constituted “double war” crimes.
The Israeli Law Center called Shurat-HaDin, led by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner submitted a complaint against Mahmoud Abbas in the ICC for “war crimes.” The complaint claims that Abbas may be tried for his responsibility in the missile attacks targeting Israeli cities, executed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which Abbas heads. It charges that Fatah, also led by Abbas, was responsible for several missile attacks on Israeli cities. Darshn-Leitner pointed out that Fatah leader Abbas may be tried by the ICC. Abbas is a citizen of Jordan and Jordan is a member-state of the ICC. The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed by a citizen of a member state. Darshan-Leitner added, the organization “will not allow Fatah to carry out rocket attacks on Israeli population centers, while hypocritically advocating Palestinian membership in the ICC. Abbas falsely believes that alleged crimes against Arabs are the only ones that should be prosecuted.”
A week ago, Abbas threatened again. This time he fingered the security co-ordination with Israel following the death of Ziad Abu Ein, 55, PA Minister without Portfolio. He promptly backtracked. On November 29, 2014, Abbas declared that if the United Nations Security Council rejects the Palestinian statehood resolution, he will seek membership in the ICC. He said, “We will seek Palestinian membership in international organizations, including the International Criminal Court in the Hague. We will also reassess our ties with Israel, including ending the security cooperation between us.”
Abbas’ latest gambit is a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution that would force Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria (West Bank) within two-years. According to press reports, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry requested to postpone the Palestinian initiative at the UNSC until after the Israeli elections, (March 17, 2015) but the Palestinians refused. PA Foreign Minister Riad al-Maliki intimated to reporters that there was disagreement between the Americans and Palestinians on how the elections in Israel would or wouldn’t advance the PA UNSC resolution. Kerry believed that a UNSC vote before the elections would impact adversely on the winners. In other words, a vote before the elections would strengthen Netanyahu and the Right in Israel. Maliki argued that a vote before January, 2015 would be rather positive.
At a closed meeting last week with 28 EU ambassadors, John Kerry revealed that he was asked by former Israeli president Shimon Peres and Tzipi Livni to prevent the Palestinian initiative at the UNSC because it will help “Netanyahu and Bennett (Jewish Home Party chairman) in the upcoming elections.” Maliki posited that Kerry himself has not abided by his pledge not to intervene in the Israeli elections.
Also last week in London, Secretary of State Kerry met with Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, and according to a PA senior official, Kerry posed a number of U.S. principles that should be included in the Palestinian UNSC resolution. Kerry supposedly refused the two year time period demand by the PA for Israeli withdrawal. The resolution as Kerry suggested should include recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as well as U.S. opposition to declare Jerusalem as a joint capital for Palestine and Israel. Erekat rejected the U.S. proposals. Kerry declared afterward that the U.S. does not accept the Jordanian (presenting the Palestinian resolution) and French resolutions. He warned that if the Palestinians insist on presenting the resolutions, the U.S. would use its veto power. Erekat rejected Kerry’s ideas, and insisted that the resolutions would be submitted. As of December 25, 2014, Abbas rejected an Arab League request to delay the submission of the Palestinian statehood until January when five new members who support the Palestinian cause will join the Security Council.
Abbas’ gambits notwithstanding, the increased authoritarianism of Abu Mazen is reflected in a recent survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. It indicates that 66% of Palestinians are afraid to criticise Abu Mazen and the PA, and 80% consider the PA institutions to be corrupt and infected with nepotism. Last summer, according to the survey, support for Abbas (Abu Mazen) declined to 35% from 50%. “There is no doubt about the fact that outlawing freedoms and rights, especially of professional unions, is a factor in Abbas’ decline in popularity,” said Dr. Khalil Shikaki, one of the survey takers.
PA security agents inspect what is written in the social media, and threaten those who criticize Abbas. Abu Mazen critics point out that after a decade in power he is controlling all systems of government to such an extent as to minimize all resistance. Perceived political rivals such as Mohammad Dahlan, who once served as Abu Mazen’s assistant, and Salam Fayyad, the former Prime Minister of the PA, are vilified by Abbas. Following the Palestinian Unity government formation, headed by Rami Hamdallah last May, elections were to follow. But, once again, internal squabbling prevented it, and added to it was Abbas’ fear of a Hamas victory.
Abu Mazen’s strategy for the establishment of a Palestinian state has reached a cul-de-sac. None of his gambits proved successful. His rivalry with Hamas is bitter and ongoing, despite the alliance he forged at the expense of negotiations with Israel. And, like his predecessor Yasser Arafat, he balks at the idea of ‘ending the conflict’ with Israel. He knows full well that this might be a death sentence for him, targeting him for assassination. It is for this reason that Abbas and the PA are unlikely to forgo the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees to Israel. Israel for its part, cannot accept such a demographic suicide. This is why Abbas would rather avoid negotiations with Israel and bypass it by going to the UNSC. It is also the ostensible reason why peace with Israel cannot be achieved, and as a result, the Palestinian people continue to suffer political and economic deprivation. Abbas has not been the solution to the Palestinian problems; rather, he has been responsible for failing them.
[T]he more one delves into the U.N.’s outrageous conduct, the harder it becomes to separate the actions of the international community from the tailwind provided by certain Israelis.
******************
The growing relationship between Iran and the Palestinian Authority, as well as Iran’s arms shipments and its involvement in terrorism, are, as always, not being condemned internationally. This is in addition to the world’s silence about the Palestinian terrorist attacks in recent months, which have included stabbings, vehicular rammings and firebombings. None of these produced a U.N. resolution against the Palestinians. And if the massacre at the synagogue in Jerusalem had not looked like a classic anti-Semitic attack in Europe, it is doubtful we would have heard any condemnation of it at all.
One can, of course, complain about the hypocrisy of the world, and particularly that of European nations, who have continued to ignore the growth of Islamic radicalism and terrorism in the world and have focused instead, in a biased manner, on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alongside this, more and more nations are symbolically recognizing a Palestinian state and turning a blind eye to all Palestinian misdeeds. These moves are indeed symbolic, not just because they have no diplomatic meaning, but also, ironically, because Israel is once again being placed on the altar for sacrifice.
But the more one delves into the U.N.’s outrageous conduct, the harder it becomes to separate the actions of the international community from the tailwind provided by certain Israelis. Indeed, Tzipi Livni, Isaac Herzog and even Avigdor Lieberman have explained to us that this is all happening because of a lack of diplomatic initiative on the part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They do this, of course, without attributing any blame to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who, despite all the concessions offered by Netanyahu, would not even agree to begin peace talks.
And there are now more false accusations being hurled around, such as the claim that the lack of negotiations following Operation Protective Edge is leading us toward a renewal of hostilities in the Gaza Strip. There is no mention of Hamas or its desire to expel us from the region. There is also no mention of the use of reconstruction funds by Hamas to re-arm itself ahead of the next round of fighting or the fact that the Palestinian Authority was kicked out of Gaza by the Palestinians themselves. No, they say, everything is the Israeli government’s fault for not initiating a diplomatic process.
And even more bluntly, Israeli politicians are directly appealing to the international community to apply pressure on the Israeli government. For example, Livni had the gall to implore U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to not support the unilateral Palestinian move at the U.N., as this would have strengthened the Israeli Right. Herzog made a similar claim when he sought to dissuade the British parliament from recognizing a Palestinian state.
Former Labor MK Avraham Burg took a different tack, urging his British friends to recognize a Palestinian state and force a diplomatic solution on Israel. And if we look not too far back in history, this was the exact line taken by Livni when she was appointed foreign minister in 2006 by then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Her first speech at the U.N. did not remind the nations of world about the historical right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. Instead, her debut speech on the world stage was dedicated to presenting her vision of the establishment of a Palestinian state.
These are not some words uttered by one Palestinian government minister or another. And no, they are not a biased report by a BBC presenter. Rather, these are Israeli politicians who, whether they are just trying to butt heads with the government or if they truly believe in the righteousness of Abbas, are ultimately providing fuel for unilateral anti-Israel moves at the U.N. And when they do this, they are helping the lowlifes at the U.N.
Will the 114th Congress follow in his footsteps, or will it abdicate its constitutional responsibilities?
Congress has often abdicated its constitutional power in the area of foreign policy, failing to fully leverage the power of the purse: funding, defunding and “fencing.”
***************
White House and State Department officials contend that, irrespective of Congress, President Barack Obama can apply effective diplomatic, commercial and national security pressure and coerce Israel to partition Jerusalem and retreat from Judea and Samaria to the 9-15 mile-wide pre-1967 sliver, surrounded by the violently turbulent and unpredictable Arab street.
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro recently voiced this inaccurate underestimation of the power of Congress — which has traditionally opposed pressure on Israel, echoing the sentiments of most constituents — saying, “What is unmistakable about our foreign policy system is that the Constitution provides the president with the largest share of power.”
The assertion that U.S. foreign policy and national security are shaped by presidential omnipotence can be refuted by the U.S. Constitution as well as recent precedents. The Constitution was created by the Founding Fathers, who were determined to limit the power of government and preclude the possibility of executive dictatorship. They were apprehensive of potential presidential excesses and encroachment, and therefore assigned the formulation of foreign policy and national security to both Congress and the president. Obviously, the coalescing of policy between 535 legislators constitutes a severe disadvantage for the legislature.
According to the Congressional Quarterly, the U.S. Constitution rectified the mistakes of its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, upgrading the role of Congress to the primary branch of the U.S. government. “Hence, the first article of the Constitution is dedicated to Congress. The powers, structure, and procedures of the national legislature are outlined in considerable detail in the Constitution, unlike those of the presidency and the judiciary.”
Unlike all other Western democracies — where the executive branch of government dominates the legislature, especially in the area of international relations and defense — the U.S. Constitution laid the foundation for the world’s most powerful legislature, and for an inherent power struggle over the making of foreign policy between the legislature and the executive, two independent, co-equal and co-determining branches of government. Moreover, while the president is the commander in chief, presidential clout depends largely on congressional authorization and appropriation in a system of separation of powers and checks and balances, especially in the areas of sanctions, foreign aid, military assistance, trade agreements, treaty ratification, appointment confirmation and all spending.
Congressional power has been dramatically bolstered since the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair and globalization, which have enhanced the involvement of most legislators in international issues, upgraded the oversight capabilities of Congress, dramatically elevated the quality and quantity of some 15,000(!) Capitol Hill staffers and have restrained the presidency.
However, Congress has often abdicated its constitutional power in the area of foreign policy, failing to fully leverage the power of the purse: funding, defunding and “fencing.” Legislators prefer to focus on domestic issues, which represent their constituents’ primary concerns and therefore determine their re-electability. Hence, they usually allow the president to take the lead in the initiation and implementation of foreign and national security policies, unless the president abuses their trust, outrageously usurping power, violating the law, assuming an overly imperial posture, pursuing strikingly failed policies, or dramatically departing from national consensus (e.g., the deeply rooted, bipartisan commitment to the Jewish state). Then, Congress reveals impressive muscle as befits a legislature, which is the most authentic reflection of the American people, unrestrained by design, deriving its power from the constituent and not from party leadership or the president, true to the notion that “the president proposes, Congress disposes.”
For example:
On August 1, 2014, Democratic senators forced Obama to separate the $225 million funding of Iron Dome batteries from the highly controversial $2.7 billion immigration and border security bill.
Since 1982 the Senate has repeatedly refused to ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and since 1999 it has rejected ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The January 2013 defense authorization bill tightened restrictions on the transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo to the U.S. In May 2009, Majority Leader Harry Reid foiled Obama’s attempt to close down the detention camp.
On February 17, 2011, Obama reluctantly vetoed a U.N. Security Council condemnation of Israel’s settlement policy, due to bipartisan congressional pressure.
In September 2012, a $450 million cash transfer to the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt was blocked by Congress.
The 2012 budget cut into Obama’s foreign aid spending request by more than $8 billion.
In 2009, bipartisan congressional opposition prevented the appointment of Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council.
In 1990-1992, Congress approved a series of amendments, expanding U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation to unprecedented levels despite presidential opposition.
In 1990, President George H. W. Bush failed in his attempt to cut Israel’s foreign aid by 5 percent due to congressional opposition.
In January 1975, the Jackson-Vanik Amendment was signed into law, in defiance of the president.
Congress ended U.S. military involvement in Vietnam (the 1973 Eagleton, Cooper and Church Amendments), Angola (the 1976 Clark Amendment) and Nicaragua (the 1982-1984 Boland Amendments).
In 1991, Senator Daniel Inouye fended off administration pressure to withdraw an amendment to upgrade the port of Haifa facilities for the Sixth Fleet: “According to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature supervises the executive, not vice versa.”
Will the 114th Congress follow in his footsteps, or will it abdicate its constitutional responsibilities?
Although the EU court has said that its controversial decision was “technical” and was not a reassessment of Hamas’s classification as a terrorist group, leaders of the Islamist movement believe that the move will eventually earn them legitimacy in the international arena.
The EU court’s decision represents a “severe blow to the Palestinian Authority and Egypt,” according to Palestinian political analyst Raed Abu Dayer.
Any victory for Hamas, albeit a small and symbolic one, is a victory for the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist groups, and causes tremendous damage to those Muslims who are opposed to radical Islam.
Hours before the EU court’s decision was made public, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar announced that his movement would never recognize Israel, and that Hamas seeks to overthrow the Palestinian Authority and seize control of the West Bank.
The EU court’s decision also coincided with a rapprochement between Hamas and Iran. Now, the Iranians and other countries, such as Turkey and Qatar, are likely to interpret the EU court’s decision as a green light to resume financial and military aid, including rockets and missiles, to Hamas — not only to Gaza but to the West Bank as well — to support those Palestinians whose aim it is to eliminate Israel.
Less than 48 hours after a top European Union court ruled that Hamas should be removed from the bloc’s list of terrorist groups, supporters of the Palestinian Islamist movement responded by firing a rocket at Israel. The attack, which did not cause any casualties or damage, did not come as a surprise.
Buoyed by the EU court’s ruling, Hamas leaders and spokesmen see it as a “political and legal achievement” and a “big victory” for the “armed struggle” against Israel.
Musa Abu Marzouk, a top Hamas leader, issued a statement thanking the EU court for its decision. He hailed the decision to remove his movement from the terrorist list as a “victory for all those who support the Palestinian right to resistance.”
When Hamas leaders talk about “resistance,” they are referring to terrorist attacks, such as the launching of rockets and suicide bombings against Israel. In other words, Hamas has interpreted the court’s decision as a green light to carry out fresh attacks as part of its ambition to destroy Israel.
The rocket that was fired from the Gaza Strip at Israel only days after the court decision is not likely to be the last.
Although the EU court has said that its controversial decision was “technical” and was not a reassessment of Hamas’s classification as a terrorist group, leaders of the Islamist movement believe that the move will eventually earn them legitimacy in the international arena.
Ironically, the EU court’s decision coincided with Hamas celebrations marking the 27thanniversary of its founding. Once again, Hamas used the celebrations to remind everyone that its real goal is to destroy Israel. And, of course, Hamas used the event to display its arsenal of weapons that include various types of rockets and missiles, as well as drones.
Thousands of armed Hamas troops showed off their military hardware at a Dec. 14, 2014 parade in Gaza, marking the organization’s 27th anniversary. (Image source: PressTV video screenshot)
Hours before the EU court decision was made public, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar announced that his movement would never recognize Israel. Zahar also made it clear that Hamas seeks to overthrow the Palestinian Authority [PA] regime and seize control over the West Bank.
The EU court’s decision also coincided with increased efforts to achieve rapprochement between Hamas and Iran. Recently, a senior Hamas leadership delegation visited Tehran as part of efforts to mend fences between the two sides. The main purpose of the visit was to persuade the Iranians to resume military and financial aid to Hamas. The visit, according to senior Hamas officials, appears to have been “successful.”
“There are many signs that our relations are back on the right track,” explained Hamas’s Musa Abu Marzouk. “Hamas and Iran have repaired their relations, which were strong before the Syrian crisis.” Relations between Hamas and Iran deteriorated due to the Islamist movement’s refusal to support the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Now the Iranians are likely to interpret the EU court decision to remove Hamas from the list of terrorist groups as a green light to resume financial and military aid to the movement.
Iran’s leaders recently announced that they intend to dispatch weapons not only to the Gaza Strip, but to the West Bank as well, as part of Tehran’s effort to support those Palestinians who are fighting to eliminate Israel.
Moreover, the EU court’s move will also embolden other countries that provide Hamas with political and financial aid, first and foremost Qatar and Turkey. Oil-rich Gulf countries such as Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia will now face pressure from many Arabs and Muslims to join Qatar, Turkey and Iran in extending their support to Hamas.
The biggest losers, meanwhile, are Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Over the past few months, the two men have been doing their utmost to undermine Hamas and end its rule over the Gaza Strip.
Abbas has been fighting Hamas by blocking financial and humanitarian aid and arresting its supporters in the West Bank, while Sisi continues to tighten the blockade on the Gaza Strip and destroy dozens of smuggling tunnels along the border with Egypt.
The EU court’s decision represents a “severe blow to the Palestinian Authority and Egypt,” noted Palestinian political analyst Raed Abu Dayer. “As far is Abbas is concerned, the decision grants Hamas political legitimacy and challenges his claim to be the sole legitimate leader [of the Palestinians]. With regards to Egypt, the European court decision calls into question rulings by Egyptian courts that Hamas is a terrorist organization.”
Even if the EU court decision is reversed in the future, there’s no doubt that it has already caused tremendous damage, especially to those Muslims who are opposed to radical Islam.
Any victory for Hamas, albeit a small and symbolic one, is a victory for the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist groups around the world.
The decision has left many Arabs and Muslims with the impression that Hamas, after all, is not a terrorist organization, especially if non-Muslims in Europe say so through one of their top courts. Even worse, the decision poses a real and immediate threat to Israel, as evident from the latest rocket attack.
If the Europeans have reached the conclusion that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, then why don’t their governments openly invite tens of thousands of Hamas members and supporters to move to London, Paris and Rome? And they should not forget to ask the Hamas members to bring along with them their arsenal of weapons.
The red alert for the incoming rocket from Gaza which exploded in the Eshkol District Friday morning, Dec. 19, may well be the harbinger of more to come. In parts of Beersheba too the dull thumps of explosions were heard on Thursday.
According to DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources, Hamas has once again fallen under Tehran’s sway after patching up their quarrel.
Iran lost no time in directing the Palestinian terrorist group to revoke the ceasefire it accepted in June for halting Israel’s summer operation in the Gaza Strip and revive low-key rocket fire. An apparently “anonymous” organization will take responsibility – in reality it will be Hamas’ military wing.
Israel’s security authorities are aware of this ominous turn of events, but prefer to keep it quiet for the time being.
Hamas is reverting to its old terrorist ways, DEBKA reports, after not only spurning, but omitting to send a reply, to a Saudi package which Riyadh believed would be too generous to resist. The Saudis offered to put up the funds for Hamas’ entire annual budget, including military spending, as well as covering the full cost of rebuilding the Gaza Strip after the ravages of the summer war.
There were two conditions:
1. The Palestinian extremists must throw their unreserved support behind Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi and henceforth synchronize its operations with Cairo – i.e. desert its traditional allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood.
2. They must totally sever their military, political and financial ties with Iran. In token of this action, Hamas’ political chief Khaled Meshaal must call off his impending trip to Tehran, scheduled to mark the public announcement of the organization’s reconciliation with Iran and its leading ally, Syrian President Beshar Assad.
Instead of any sort of direct response to Riyadh’s offer, Hamas opted to use its 27th anniversary celebrations on Sunday Dec. 14, for a display of loyalty to Iran by 2,000 marching Izz e-din al-Qassam fighters. Every detail of the event was cleared in advanced by Tehran and broadcast live over all of Iran’s TV channels – an unprecedented honor.
As we first reported last week, a high-powered Hamas delegation visited Tehran on Dec. 9 to draft with Iranian officials the text of the Hamas reconciliation accord with Assad and map out future operations.
The most prominent members were Meshaal’s right hand, Muhammed Nasser; two members of the Hamas overseas military branch, Maher Abdullah and Jemal Ismail; and Lebanese agent, Osama Hamdan.
One item on this accord provided for the gradual resumption of rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip.
Hours after the first rocket was launched Friday, Hamas staged its first ever parade on Temple Mount, Jerusalem, marching around the golden Dome of the Rock, and shouting calls to revive the Palestinian rocket offensive against Israeli locations. They were clad uniformly in green with jihadi headbands and hoisted Hamas banners aloft.
Hamas’ riotous demonstration of defiance contrasted sharply with the calm observed in Friday worship at Al Aqsa in the last three weeks.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments