Last Friday, the IDF boarded two boats attempting to run Israel’s maritime blockade on Gaza. One boat was Canadian and the other Irish and they carried 27 pro-Palestinian activists, journalists and crew members. The last Flotilla attempt, 4 months ago, was beset by all kinds of problems – “mechanical” breakdowns, local authorities not allowing the boats to sail etc. In the end, none of the boats made it anywhere near Gaza. Hoping to avoid a similar fate, the Canadian and Irish boats kept it on the down low until after they left their Turkish port on Thursday.

However, with only a day’s lead time, there wasn’t the usual press and social media chatter. And then when the IDF boarded the ships and brought them to Ashdod without anyone getting injured or hurt? Well, it was the opposite of “If it bleeds, it leads.” Meaning, it became a boring non-story. The New York Times had it on page A4. Twitter “Activistas” were forced to tweet @freedomwaves 6 times in one tweet, over and over again in the hopes that it would “trend” on twitter thus earning the momentary attention of Justin Bieber fans and, uhm… Social Network Consultants. Sadly, it never trended.

Clearly the faux humanitarian crisis in Gaza, described as the most pressing humanitarian disaster in the world, which it isn’t, isn’t newsworthy enough. For obvious reasons. I’m glad no one got hurt but I fear that the activistas, starved for media attention, will resort to shenanigans next time they try to launch a flotilla full of much needed aid to Gaza, like expired medicine, used shoes that no one in Gaza would ever wear, or the latest flat screen TVs. Said shenanigans might include a greater willingness to use violent “resistance” à la Mavi Marmara, or who knows. Well, I guess all we can do is sit back and wait…

The IDF, for example, has expressed to the political echelon in Israel that they believe Abbas has been undermined by the Shalit exchange and in order to strengthen him and his armed forces which have supposedly been keeping the peace with Israel, it is important to give the Palestinian chairman a prisoner release of his own.

Others, like George Mitchell, are suggesting that Abbas has been weakened by the deal because in order for him to maintain peace and not let Judea and Samaria devolve into violent conflagrations launched by frustrated Palestinians, he must bring home the bacon show some tangible political results and a prisoner release would help reverse Hamas’s strengthened position.

Abbas himself has now gone into “release Fatah prisoners” mode by claiming that Olmert had promised him once that if Shalit is released in an exchange with Hamas, then Fatah would get even better prisoners. People around Olmert have acknowledged the promise.

I say, let the Fatah prisoners rot in jail. Release more Hamas men to finalize the Shalit deal.

The Palestinians apparently like to take what they can and give nothing in return. With Olmert, they were offered a far-reaching peace agreement that was even superior to what Israel had offered at Taba. Abbas walked away, pocketing the map, and never returned to talks. Later, the Palestinians would claim that talks had to begin where they ended with Olmert.

But they’d like to honor Olmert now. Did the PA do anything to help Shalit get released? No. To help find him? No. Did they do anything as a thank you for all the various gestures Israel has provided over the years including the removal of road blocks, opening of trade channels, military support for PA leaders so their predators, Hamas, wouldn’t topple them, a settlement freeze, a Likud leader’s offer of a two state solution and even prisoner releases? No.

In fact, the PA just continued on its merry way with its diplomatic and existential war on Israel. The PA, to remind you all, just walked away from Oslo Accords and its agreements with Israel in order to present a unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN without committing to peace or to end of claims on Israel.

The fact is, the PA has been very effective in this war against Israel and has left Israel bloodied on the battlefield. Heck, the Palestinians are so confident after this victory that they’ve taken on the United States at the UN.

If the prisoner exchange which was partially intended to strengthen Hamas and weaken Abbas has worked as planned – and apparently it has or all these people wouldn’t be trying to save his hide – then why ruin an effective strategy?

It’s simple: let Fatah prisoners go and then you face an ascendant, cocky PA that refuses to negotiate and tries to undermine Israel in every international public forum, not to mention at campuses across the Western world…or; don’t let Fatah prisoners go and watch as Abbas licks his wounds and takes a step back from all the bravado.

As for the fear that the PA will let Fatah loose again and resort to violence, I find that hard to believe. The Palestinians have made more headway, despite their ongoing lies and games, in a few years of wearing expensive suits and playing at diplomacy than they have in a century of attacks on Jews. They won’t risk that. It’s the Hamas long-time terrorists Israel should fear (and it should release lesser criminals to fulfill its obligations, not more murderers).

Let the PA wallow in it for a while. It’s not as if they’re partners for peace anyway.

I'm gonna blow and blow and bloooooooowwwwww your house down!

That’s right. Available in four colors, including the classic black worn by Shalit, the shirts are flying off the shelf in Gaza. Selling at 50 shekels each (about $16.50) the shirt is a veritable sensation, with sales fueled by no less than 4 Facebook groups/pages, and I have only one question. Why?

I went to some of these Facebook groups and with the help of Google translate, it seems this is somehow meant to be a fashion statement whose aim is to make fun of Gilad Shalit and express the hope of many more Gilad Shalits to come, who will help empty Israeli jails of the rest of the Palestinian murderers and terrorists uh… freedom fighters still left there.

Gaza's Latest Fashion Sensation

Thing is, see, that shirt is the fucking ugliest thing I have ever seen on a man since that night when I walked into the bathroom at Max Fish and saw Courtney Love grinding on the Muffti. But I promised I’d never mention that again so… yeah. Back to that thing, those shirts didn’t just suddenly appear in Gaza City. Someone bought a shit load of them before they ever knew Shalit would be forced to wear it upon his release. Someone thought that this shirt would sell on its own. What this shirt, and it’s current popularity actually suggests is that … what? People in Gaza have no fashion sense? Hamas is a particularly cruel entity? I don’t know. What I do know is that for some odd reason… I want one of those shirts. My neck size is 17 if anyone’s going to be in Gaza, I’ll pay you 75 shekels for the shirt, keep the change.

H/T: YNet News

1024 Palestinian detainees are set to be released in the near future and Gilad Shalit is coming home in a deal brokered between Israel, Hamas and Egypt. Last night in Jerusalem, at the site of the Gilad Shalit protest tent near the Prime Minister’s residence, a spontaneous celebration erupted as people congratulated Shalit’s parents. Approximately 10,000 people in Gaza City also celebrated the deal in one of those rare occasions when Palestinians and Israelis celebrate together. Not everyone is thrilled with the deal though. Three members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, most notably including head of Israel Beitenu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, voted against it. In the past, some Palestinians released in similar deals have been involved in further fatal attacks against Israelis.

I am personally all in favor of the deal. It’s just that I can’t help but imagine that as you read this, someone is walking around Israel right now and they don’t know that they will die some time soon as a result of Shalit’s release. Who is it going to be. It could even be me! But one thing we’ve learned from these swaps. Someone is going to die. Sigh. Welcome home Gilad.

Parting with the Gaza Flotilla
Joop, opinion section, June 29
Why I am not sailing aboard the Dutch ship after all
By Hasna El Maroudi

I have been to the Greek island of Corfu over the past few days. I got to know the activists and journalists intending to sail to Gaza and received training on non-violent resistance from Anne de Jong, a passenger in the previous flotilla.

Although I had intended to report on the sail for Uitgesproken Vara and Joop, I was going first and foremost as an activist. I want Israel to lift the illegal blockade on Gaza and give the people that which they are entitled to have: Self-rule.
And that is also the issue for me: The population there. The Palestinian youths who published a document last year in which they expressed their longing for leading a normal life. I didn’t go for any political movement or for those in power.

When I decided to subject myself to the sail and the long list of preparatory engagements and training sessions it entailed, I presented the organizers with one single crucial demand: I wanted to know exactly who would sail with me on the Italian-Dutch ship and requested to have the opportunity to meet them all in advance before embarking on the trip.

I did not want to be surprised by the presence of figures or organizations with which I did not want to become involved. I was told that my demand was self-evident: There would be team-building and “we are going to have it in Greece.”

Despite assurances to the contrary, the Italian activists who were supposed to sail with us were nowhere to be seen upon our arrival in Corfu. More crucially, the Dutch delegation was isolated on the island. The rest of the flotilla was in Athens.

I repeatedly I asked to receive a tentative list of all the passengers. Realizing that many difficulties had been put in the organizers’ path, I did not expect to receive a complete list of participants. I would have been satisfied with the available information. None such information was given. Despite my insistence on receiving the list in advance, it was given to me when I decided to return to Holland. Too late.

But there was more going on. The ship’s funding remained unclear. Also regarding this point I repeatedly asked for information but as answers I was told of a loose web of associations under different umbrella and daughter organizations. The Nederland Gaza Association [the organizers of the Dutch boat ride] claims to be fully transparent. To me, this means publication of subsidies.

If this complicates fundraising and scares off donors, so be it. It’s the only way to show an already-suspicious Netherlands that you have nothing to hide.

The presence of Amin Abou Rashed suggests there is something to hide. He, too, sailed last year to Gaza with the flotilla, and he was arrested by Israel. According to various media, he is Hamas’ top figure in the Netherlands. He is also affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. How much of this is true, I do not know. How much of this is not true, I know even less. That is the problem, and it creates an atmosphere of suspicion.

Over dinner Anne de Jong insisted that it was all lies and that Amin is a terribly nice man with an unbelievable amount of love for the Palestinians. However much I wished I could believe her and those blue eyes of hers, I could not do it. Simply because his involvement with the flotilla was kept secret until the arrival to Greece. And not only vis-à-vis the rest of the world, but also when it came to the flotilla participants. I find this to be detrimental.

On this dangerous action, the participants are laying their lives on the line. It is therefore only fair that they be provided with the relevant essential information.

Amin was there the day the Dutch delegation received a non-violence training but hung in the background. Wilfred van de Poll, a journalist for Trouw, spoke briefly with Amin about his presence and role within the organization. “The brain behind the flotilla” as the man elected to be described, arranged the purchase of the boat. He also provided for the lion’s share of funding, according to Anne de Jong. If he played such a vital role, then why was it kept secret and why couldn’t I know who or what he was?

Our activists were told that the goods [aboard the ship] will be distributed by UNHCR, but it later turned out that this was not 100 percent sure. Few organizations beside UNCHR are capable of performing this task in Gaza. In fact, only one other such entity remains. Hamas. And I wanted to have nothing do with them.

The bottom line is very simple. In a mission such as this one, the activists must be able to fully trust one another, like firefighters entering a burning building. My trust in the organization only diminished the further we progressed.
The moment I expressed reservations about the information which was given out, Anne de Jong’s reacted accusatory and snappy. “Would you rather we told you nothing at all?” she demanded, as though I should applaud her right away for getting to hear anything at all. And as though I had failed to understand the magnitude of the task of setting out against a great power such as Israel.

It is regretful that the organization (according to my opinion) missed its mark. The boat is about to set sail, carrying many good intentions, too little experience and too many illusions. I wish everyone would come back in one piece. Over a period of one week I became truly attached to the Dutch group and I am convinced of their honest motivations in sailing.

I hope they remain extra critical. The goal of freeing Gaza cannot be reached without openness. And it’s up to us to set the example.

Alice Walker

Alice Walker, a Pulitzer Prize winning novelist and author of “The Color Purple,” was reached by Foreign Policy magazine from her hotel in Greece, as she prepares to board a flotilla (or faux-tilla to many) to Gaza.

Interviewed by Robert Zeliger, Walker said that Israel was the biggest terrorist in the region and the in general, the United States and Israel are great terrorist organizations themselves. She shared that her activism began after the Six Day War in 1967, when she and her Jewish husband were very happy because they thought Israel was right to try to defend itself by pre-emptively striking against its neighbors. But she then thought that America saw Israel in mythical terms and was against Israel’s occupation of post 1967 lands. Asked about Hamas’ attacks against Israel, Walker responded that, “…I’m not for a minute saying anybody anywhere should fire rockets. I mean, I would never do it. Nor would I ever supply such a thing to anyone. But it’s extremely unequal. If people just acknowledge how absurdly unequal this is. This is David and Goliath, but Goliath is not the Palestinians. They are David. They are the ones with the slingshot. They are the ones with the rocks and relatively not-so-powerful rockets. Whereas the Israelis have these incredibly damaging missiles and rockets.”

Howard Jacobson

Howard Jacobson, a British author and recent recipient of the Booker Prize, speaking to CNN criticized Alice Walker’s decision to join flotilla to Gaza. Walker fails to give a single convincing reason for joining flotilla, says Jacobson. Jacobson added that , “… good people can do great harm. One of the finest and funniest novels ever written — Don Quixote — charts the damage left in the wake of a man who would make the world a better place. Human beings are seldom more dangerous than when they are sentimentally overcome by the goodness of their own intentions. That Alice Walker believes it is right to join the Freedom Flotilla II to Gaza I do not have the slightest doubt. But beyond associating her decision with Gandhi, Martin Luther King and very nearly, when she talks about the preciousness of children, Jesus Christ, she fails to give a single convincing reason for it…. Human beings are seldom more dangerous than when they are sentimentally overcome by the goodness of their own intentions.”

He continued that if Walker seeks to express her solidarity with those in Gaza who long for peace, that the firing of rockets from Gaza is not, on the face of it, an expression of such a longing for peace. He added, “And what about the declared hostility of Hamas to the very existence of Israel? Hamas, we are often told, is the elected government of Gaza, a government that fairly represents the wishes of its people. In which case we must assume that Hamas’s implacable hostility towards Israel fairly represents the implacable hostility felt by the people of Gaza. Are Alice Walker’s letters of love and ‘solidarity’ solid with the people of Gaza in that hostility?….. Alice Walker might be feeling good about herself, but by giving the Palestinians the same old false comfort we’ve been doling out for more than half a century, and by allowing the Israelis to dismiss it as yet another act of misguided and uncomprehending adventurism — further evidence that its fears go unheeded – her political gesture only worsens the situation. The parties to this conflict need to be brought together not divided: but those who speak disingenuously of love will engender only further hatred.”

I was recently in Washington D.C. and had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Walid Phares. He is an American scholar born in Beirut and frequent commentator on global terrorism and developments in the Middle East. Dr. Phares has testified before committees of the US Departments of Justice, Defense, State, Homeland Security, as well as Congress, UN Security Council, and the European Parliament. He is a frequent contributor to publications on international affairs and author of eleven books, the latest of which is The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East.

What follows is a summary of our interview.

Q: What is the impact of bin Laden’s death?

A: It’s going to be a “game changer” that transgresses geopolitics and political division.

Number one impact is the US relationship with Pakistan. For bin Laden to be in a conspicuously fortified compound near a Pakistani military academy so close to the capital indicates that there was a shielding of bin Laden on some level within the intelligence apparatus of Pakistan. I personally project (unless proven wrong) that the government was not shielding him, but “there are segments of the national security apparatus within Pakistan which allowed this to happen.”

Although, a new theory is now emerging that segments of Pakistan’s ISI was in fact containing bin Laden in a type of house arrest. But up till what level in the intelligence and defense establishment it was covered, that we’ll have to discover. For it would be illogical that the top leaders pf the People’s Party in the cabinet would have endorsed a shielding of Bin Laden, as his group, the Taliban and the Jihadists in general were waging a terror campaign against them. In any event, the Pakistanis must have known at least of his presence inside Pakistan while very few people knew of his presence there.

Q: What happens next?

A: Congress and the Administration are going to initiate a review of the relationship with the Pakistanis.

In this review I am calling for two things:

The Pakistani government must reform its intelligence services. Government policy is already on the right track. However, the ISI has a historically sympathetic relationship with Islamists in general and al-Qaeda in particular, which remains in some capacity today. As part of the reform, more action on al-Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistani territories is required.

US foreign policy must better identify and deal with the long term strategic threat to the US and the region. This analysis should clarify for the US that “there are two species of jihadis.” On the one hand there are the Salafists, al-Qaeda being the most extreme, and on the other hand is Iranian Islamism. I call on the US government administration to “start developing a national security doctrine which will see the threat as it is and not as it wants it to be.”

Q: How is the media in the Middle East reporting bin Laden’s death?

A: There are several kinds of media. Pro-Jihadist and Salafist media on the web and certain shows on Al-Jazeera are clearly anti-American. They are calling this an attack against Islam. The spin on bin Laden’s death is that he “wanted to die as a martyr” and “this will not change the course of al-Qaeda.”

For the most part, Al-Jazeera, although influenced by a Muslim Brotherhood-type outlook, is not making an issue of bin Laden’s death. They are making an issue of Pakistani sovereignty. They’re also advancing the point that now that bin Laden is dead, there is no reason for the US to be deployed in the region.

Q: How popular is this mindset?

A: Even if this viewpoint is not the majority, it is often the most vocal. We see this phenomenon in general with respect to Islamic fundamentalism. While civil society is generally moderate, the extremists are the most organized and the best equipped. I made the case for this in my last book, The Coming Revolution, which was published before the revolutions, in which I said that eventually all these societies are going to stand up. But at the same time, because they are not organized, “those who will harvest the revolution are the Islamists.” We see that now everywhere, including in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Q: Do we have a clear understanding of these dynamics in the West?

A: Many in Washington and the West have a bifurcated outlook. Some focus almost exclusively on the Islamist element and others focus almost exclusively on moderate civil society. We need a better analysis. What we have seen are truly popular revolutions on the onset. The Islamists on their own would not have been able to get hundreds of thousands into the streets. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt did not show up until the third or fourth day. At the same time, the tidal wave of popular outrage is then co-opted by more organized Islamist elements whose aim is to take over the leadership. The West and the United States in particular have to be smart in understanding these forces, in understanding who controls what.

We need to partner with the right people. Within Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Jordan, and even to some degree the Arabian peninsula, the US must determine what are the pro democracy and civil society elements in those societies.

Q: Why has the American establishment analysis been clouded in your opinion?

A: Over the past many years, the body of  experts serving the US foreign policy establishment “have not given the administration, the president, and Congress the right expertise.” In my book, Future Jihad, I describe how our academic expertise and the national security analysis that is derived from it is compromised. Most of those who give academic advice come from the universities, whose Middle East departments are funded to a large degree by petrodollar regimes with strings attached. Thus, we have generations that have been raised in the classroom with the ideas of apology for jihadism. In sum, this explains why the President and Congress did not have from their experts the right information on either the threat or the democracy forces in the region.

The bigger change has to be done not in the Middle East but here in Washington.

Q: Should the US have gone into Libya?

A: With the exception of genocide, there is no single principle by which to decide whether to enter a conflict. The other exception is helping defend an ally if we’re bound to do so by treaty. There is a ground to help the Libyan civil society defend itself against brutal oppression but at the same time the forces seeking democracy have to be identified clearly.

Q: Is the conflict in Libya a revolution or a tribal conflict?

The jury is still out on this. In the beginning these were popular demonstrations against Qadaffi inspired by Tunisia and Egypt. The response by the regime was so sharp and violent that it encouraged members of the armed forces to break away and join demonstrators from their tribe or home town who were harmed in Qadaffi’s response. When you have a split army fighting each other along tribal lines, it’s a civil war.

We know Qadaffi is a bad guy, but we must also understand who is there to replace him. In my analysis, the core of the revolution in Libya is made up of former diplomats, bureaucrats, military personnel, and intellectuals. However, a wide swath of rebels is made up of Islamist-inspired militias. The concern is that if this conglomeration of groups reach Tripoli, the Islamists “would overthrow the others and then declare a Taliban or Muslim Brotherhood inspired state.”

Q: Do you believe economic sanctions will dissuade Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?

A: “Sanctions are not a policy, they are tools of a policy.” To change the course of the Iranian regime, additional pressure must accompany sanctions. Sanctions worked against South Africa and may work against Syria along with other measures,  given the nature and interests of those countries. Iran, on the other hand, is interested in becoming a regional empire and a few sanctions will not dissuade them.

I am not even sure that more pressure will alter Iran’s course. Ultimately, what may required is regime change. Some hold that they are against regime change in Iran because such change is accomplished through military action. Since they are against military action, by extension they oppose regime change.

But when we say regime change, it does not necessarily entail military action. The military option is for instances when national security is concerned. The other option, which I propose in my book, is to support the popular movement against the regime.

Q: Do you believe that the current US Administration failed to do this so far?

A: “The Administration is not yet there.” They were given a great opportunity in June 2009 when 1.5 million people marked for reform in the streets of Iran. The beauty about it is that 60% of them were under the age of 20 and half of all demonstrators were females. This is unusual. When you have young protesters of both genders who are not proposing fundamentalism as a solution, you are in business with moderate civil society.

The Obama Administration did not go for it and I do not see in Washington a real change of direction yet. We’ll see a real change when the narrative, speeches, expertise, behavior, and funding priorities will change.

Q: Iranian public opinion surveys, to the degree that they are accurate, show a wide support for pursuing nuclear development. The issue is seen as a matter of national pride and defense across the political spectrum. Will a more moderate regime alter nuclear development given the popular base of support for it?

A: If Iran was Italy or Poland, one would worry less about it seeking a nuclear segment of the economy or even a nuclear deterrent because those countries are committed to democratic ideals and norms.

Iran is a regime which has a stated goal to destroy Israel. To this effect, they support Hamas and Hezbollah and threaten use of missiles and gas. A nuclear weapon in the hands of such a regime is extremely detrimental to regional stability and to the West. What we need to see in Iran is not just a change of regime but of the political direction of that regime.
Currently, nuclear development is one way of expressing their national pride. Were they a practicing democracy, the Iranian regime would be focused on what to do with oil revenues, labor unions, and other quotidian concerns about the welfare of their citizens. In such an environment, Iranian nuclear ambitions could then be negotiated and they will likely find more productive ways of expressing their national dignity.

Ukraine provides a good example, since at one point it had nukes. It left the Soviet orbit and is developing as a democracy. The basis of their pride now revolves primarily around economic development.

The Iranian alternative, the Green movement, is another Iran. If this Iran takes over, I would be less inclined to see Iranian nuclear development as posing a problem. But if, say, another president replaces Ahmadinejad, this is not true reform. We need to see change at the level of Khamenei—not an Islamic republic, but just another democratic republic.

Q: Switching our focus for a moment, how will the recently announced Fatah-Hamas unity government affect prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace?

A: First issue is how will they alter the Palestinian scene itself. It is unfortunate that Mahmoud Abbas accepted the deal of unifying Fatah and Hamas without even asking Hamas to reform. They have killed hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians in Gaza. In my opinion, Mahmoud Abbas has done a poor evaluation of events after the Egyptian revolution. He figured the Palestinians are not getting much from the Israelis and the United States is busy with other matters. These are legitimate concerns. The reaction to this was to go to the opposite pole of their position and join with Hamas.

What factored into this decision? The Egyptian revolution has brought the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to have a significant influence on the Egyptian military, which is now going to be more supportive of Hamas, a MB offshoot. Also, since Hamas is going to be supported by a Sunni regional power, they are expected to move away from Iran. The thinking was that if Fatah connects with Hamas, they will be at equal distance from the Egyptians. This is a big mistake because in Egypt there will be a struggle between MB on the one hand and the moderates on the other. The military will aim to survive and maintain the dollars coming from the US. Palestinian interests are not their primary concern.

My view is that the military is allowing this level of MB influence for peculiar reasons. The MB has a lot of embarrassing information on the military establishment about their financial involvement in the Egyptian economy. As a result, the military is trying to establish an understanding with the MB while keeping an equal distance from the United States. The military does not fear distancing from Israel because it does not receive any tangible support from them. With respect to maintaining peace, the US will anyone come and moderate between the US and Israel because it is important to them.

In short, Egypt will not be as important a partner as the United States for the Palestinians. Mahmoud Abbas should have instead built a direct relationship with the United States, and that would have been his guarantee to continue negotiations with the Israelis. As for the original question, my feeling is that Hamas will eat the PLO and not the other way around in this instance.

Q:  Does that change European policy?
The Europeans are divided. We have the classical more “progressive” Europeans who will continue to be with Hamas, albeit in a very limited way. There are also Europeans who are concerned with the rise of Islamism worldwide. The politics in Europe are moving slightly right, while the political establishment remains tilted to the left. In other words, the majority of the elites in Europe are on the progressive/left while the majority of the public is going in another direction. At some point there will be a political clash within Europe. That is why official Europe considers Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood as acceptable partners, but the emerging Europe will be very different.

David Bratslavsky comments on US foreign policy and the Middle East. Follow StreetSmartPolitics on Facebook and Twitter.

Well, no. Not really. Almost a year ago I stated in a comment that “based on some of his comments thus far, I don’t believe we’ve heard Goldstone’s final word on the report that bears his name…” and sure enough, that off the cuff prediction came true. In an opinion piece that appeared in the Washington Post on Friday, April 1st (not an April fool’s joke), Goldstone stated:

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

How so? Goldstone continues:

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

Goldstone blames the discrepancy between what really happened during Operation Cast Lead and the conclusions of the Goldstone Report on Israel’s decision not to cooperate with the UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission:

Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes… Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants.

I can’t say that I disagree with him. In this day and age of rapid and unfettered communication, trying to remain opaque, except for matters of absolute national security, is a policy that will always backfire and is an exercise in futility. The message that the world received is that Israel had something to hide. And yet, as Goldstone noted the findings of the UN committee of independent experts, chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis which stated that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.” The implication here is that Hamas’s alleged war crimes in Gaza have now come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court because no domestic investigation, or even the pretense of an investigation, has taken place. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that.

Goldstone concluded that “In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.”

Obviously, this has set the world of punditry aflutter. The man who was once the darling of the “critical of Israel” crowd is now being reviled. His motivations are being called into question and every word of his “reconsideration” is being analyzed for hidden meanings. I’m sure that in the coming days and weeks we will hear more from Goldstone, but for me his words are crystal clear: The findings of the report merit reconsideration in light of new facts, and those new facts demonstrate that there was no intentional Israeli policy to target civilians.

I mean, duh!

Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The IDF is one of the best, most powerfully equipped armies in the world. If the IDF’s intent was to target civilians, the death count would have been much, much higher. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be true. Remember the ridicule that greeted Col. Richard Kemp, Former Commander British Forces in Afghanistan, when he declared that “…the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.” Not so ridiculous now, eh? But people will spin this however they like. Some spin will be reasonable, some will be quasi-retarded (what else did you expect from Richard Silverstein who used this post to make his blog’s first reference to the massacre of members of the Fogel family in Itamar. This man has no shame.) and others will be flat out hateful and anti-Semitic, claiming that Goldstone caved to Jewish communal pressure, or payoffs. But don’t start celebrating yet. Goldstone may have called into question the issue of intentionality, but he has yet to weigh in on other aspects of the report, ie the alleged use of human shields and the perceived disproportionality of Israel’s response to Hamas’s rocket fire.

In any case, like I said, we’ll see how this plays out in the future. I am reserving a more detailed analysis for a later date, or maybe for the Middle to pipe in given how much he’s written in the past about Goldstone. Well we’ve written a lot about the report, but he’s written the most…

YouTube has closed down PMW’s main video account – PALWATCH – for “violating YouTube terms of use”, by supposedly propagating hate speech. PMW does not promote hate speech, but exposes the hate speech of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

YouTube stated that the account was henceforth terminated “due to repeated or severe violations of our Terms of Use” and they specified the following PMW videos from Palestinian sources, promoting the killing of Jews.

Ironic.

The whole reason they put the videos online is to tell the world of the incitement and hatred being spewed daily from the TV stations of the PA and Hamas.

Here are some of the offending videos – of course they are gone now.

1. “Hamas TV teaches kids to kill Jews” formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwN2M6ZIIRU
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 10/02/2009.

2. “Jews are a virus like Aids” formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYaGl3KjPUw
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 01/18/2010.

3. “Farewell video before suicide attack of Hamas suicide bomber Adham Ahmad Hujyla Abu Jandal” formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYdTudQhWM4
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 06/10/2010.

4. “Hamas suicide farewell video: Jews monkeys and pigs; Maidens reward for killing Jews” formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryc7RqXlVdE
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 08/14/2010.

5. “PA cleric: Kill Jews, Allah will make Muslims masters over Jews” formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjuDTO8fgqM
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 12/12/2010.

6. “Hamas suicide terrorist farewell video: Palestinians drink the blood of Jews” formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSftYIGH6-w
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 12/15/2010.

PMW is urging people to help them get this account reopened as it is critical to their ongoing work.

The timing of these moves isn’t accidental. It takes place right after the US has given up on the premise of compelling Israel to end its settlement construction, having declared such construction improper in eastern Jerusalem as well. Even though Israel complied with US directives and took a 10 month hiatus from construction, the Palestinians chose to avoid entering negotiations. They did enter two weeks before the announced 10 months were up, only so they could “exit” negotiations in a huff when Israel restarted to build.

The US then tried to make Israel put construction on hold again for another three months, adding insult to the injury of treating an ally like merchants in a souk by promising things that would have been taken for granted by Israel from past American administrations.

Fortunately, the 3 month moratorium deal fell through, although I believe Israel made a tactical mistake and should have accepted it while rejecting all of the US offers-in-trade. Since the Israelis refused to freeze construction again, they will be made to pay a price and will be depicted as the party that stalled the peace process, although this is a blatant falsehood.

Now we enter a new phase as the Palestinians are showing. It is fair to say that an extremely unfriendly American administration is angry at Israel. They are not just angry at having had their intentions ruined, but the fact that the Israelis didn’t show much sympathy or concern regarding the devastating midterm elections and massive Democratic losses. It was clear the Israelis were pleased to see Republican counterweight in the House to a hostile administration.

In light of these changes, Israel would do well to act extremely cautiously regarding the PA. It is time to act on what has been obvious since the Taba talks, and the Palestinian War of 2000 – that the PA is nothing but a Trojan Horse.

Essentially, today the Palestinians have put Israel in a precarious position where they are deemed the legitimate party, righteously aggrieved and deserving of eastern Jerusalem. Israel is perceived as a violent interloper that exceeds its rights and violates international law. The sense is that it is even encroaching in its holiest site. This view is held by large swaths of the media (Shlomo Sand’s book, for example, won the French journalist association award for best book of the year and recently 60 Minutes had a report which could have come out of The Nation with respect to its views on Israel), of the population in Europe, certainly of the Arab and Africa blocs, and even of decision-makers such as many prominent EU leaders but perhaps even by Obama.

In light of this, Israel would do well to think about letting the PA get erased by Hamas. It is that the PA has – with the help of whitewashing not just of the Oslo process, but particularly by American and some Israeli leaders – become a government that is perceived as moderate and that knows how to play the game with the West. Having Hamas teach them the same lesson it did in Gaza would destroy the PA and remove the pressure they have placed on Israel. I say this as somebody who supports a two-state solution along the lines proposed by Barak and Olmert. Unfortunately, my proposal would set the prospect of peace back by decades, but we now know that the idea we could make peace with the Palestinians was nothing more than a dream. They only want peace if that peace does not involve a Jewish state. Since that is Hamas’s position as well, it may be better to have to confront them in the international arena than the smooth liars of the PA.

I’ve written a series of articles about this transformation which, as one can see in reading them, read and warn about the transforming landscape:

The Palestinians Think They are in the Endgame

The Palestinian Endgame Enters High Gear

More About the Palestinian Endgame

The Palestinian plan to keep stalling is working to perfection

The Palestinians Believe They Have Israel in a Corner

The Palestinians Make it Clear: No Deal

Time to end the PA’s Sham and Release Gilad Shalit in the Process

Details of Barak’s Taba Plan

Ehud Olmert’s Insanely Generous Peace Offer/Palestinians Predict They Won’t Talk to Israelis with Obama in Office/a> with More Details by Olmert Himself

Abbas was in the Palestinian Authority’s hierarchy when they rejected Ehud Barak’s Camp David and Taba offers. He was the leader when the PA rejected the Ehud Olmert peace offer. He was a member of the leadership when the Palestinians launched their war of 2000, which involved masses of suicide bomb and sniper attacks on Israeli civilians. He was leader or member of the leadership over the past decade in which the PA has led an international effort to de-legitimize Israel, make it a scapegoat in the UN, damage its standing in the world, and encourage a boycott movement which has included attacks on Israel’s Jewish heritage.

Locally, the Palestinian Authority under Abbas permitted shelling from Gaza, even after Israel evacuated all of its civilians and soldiers from there. Under Abbas, not a single Jewish resident of the Israeli Gaza settlements – even those born there – was permitted to remain to live as a resident of the Palestinian entity. Under Abbas, Fatah in its Sixth Congress and its Revolutionary Council have voted to continue their struggle against Israel with the possibility of violent struggle, voted to deny any Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, voted to reject any meaningful compromise that would permit a Jewish state to be recognized by the Palestinians and voted to reject any compromise that would not tend toward turning Israel into an Arab, Muslim state.

On the other hand, while serving as leader of the very Palestinians maintaining this hard-line position, Abbas has enjoyed being depicted as a “moderate.” Alongside him is another supposed “moderate,” Salaam Fayyad, the PA’s prime minister. There is hardly a newspaper or TV report that does not describe these two as “moderate,” often contrasting them with “hard-line” Israeli leaders such as Netanyahu.

Of course, Netanyahu has announced that he’s willing to come to a “two-states for two-nations” solution. Abbas has not. Fayyad has not.

In fact, the only tangible differences between the “moderate” PA -which receives American funds, American military training, American and Israeli weapons, American diplomatic support, European diplomatic and financial support and the benefit of the doubt of most Western media – and Hamas in Gaza are that the latter speaks straightforwardly about wanting to destroy Israel while the former are sly about playing the international diplomatic game often saying things in Arabic for Arab audiences that are different than what they say in English for international audiences. Also, Hamas’s raison d’etre originates in a religious approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict while Fatah, parent body of the PA, approaches the Palestinian war against Israel from a nationalist perspective, even if that nationalism has a heavy religious tint to it.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that the PA proved their bad faith conclusively. No, I am not referring to their continued refusal to negotiate peace with Israel, but rather to their public announcement that the Western Wall (also known as the Kotel and the Wailing Wall) had no connection to the Jewish people.

Today, to show the success of standing firm on a platform of no peace, no compromise, reticence to negotiate, occasional violence and outright anti-Semitism, the Palestinian “moderate” leadership has been rewarded by Brazil and Argentina, two important countries, with recognition of a Palestinian state over all the territory that Jordan occupied in 1948, ethnically cleansed of all Jewish residents and subsequently lost to Israel in 1967 after attacking the Jewish state.

Most important regarding this recognition is that it gives the Palestinians the area with the sites holiest to all three faiths which have been open and safe to members of all three faiths under Israeli rule. The Palestinians are the same people who built a new mosque at the Haram al Sharif (the Al Aqsa Mosque compound) by bulldozing a huge area containing both Islamic and Jewish historical artifacts, who have rewritten the history of Jewish sites like Rachel’s Tomb, who have declared the Dead Sea Scrolls written mostly in Hebrew as Palestinian artifacts and who (against all known history and study of the subject) deny all Jewish links to the holiest site in Judaism.

This recognition of “Palestine” without any quid pro quo has been sought recently by the PA from certain nations including the current Obama-led USA as a means to achieve a painless stage in seeking to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. This move, however, contravenes the Oslo Accords which the Palestinians signed, as well as subsequent agreements to which they are obligated. Furthermore, it does a run-around on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 which form the foundation to any agreement between the Palestinians and Israel – as agreed to by the Palestinians.

Israel has helped the Palestinians get to this point in numerous ways. They have provided economic, diplomatic, military and even personal support to the PA leadership. They have downplayed Palestinian infringements on agreements and Palestinian bad faith, while playing up Abbas and Fayyad. Israel has even supported the PA government’s claim to be the leadership of the Palestinian people even though the PA decided not to run new elections as is required by Palestinian law.

Most of all, Israel has protected the PA from its arch enemy, Hamas. By searching for and imprisoning Hamas men, Israel has ensured that the PA has no enemy in Judea and Samaria – no natural predator, so to speak.

It is time that the charade end. It is time for Israel to take steps to ensure that its enemies and the enemies of peace will stop interfering with attempts to forge a compromise under the guise of being “moderates.”
1. Israel should immediately lift all protective measures it provides for the PA in Judea and Samaria.
2. Its soldiers should not provide any service to the PA in arresting Hamas activists, and
3. Its intelligence services should not participate in any anti-Hamas activities that aren’t directed at Israel.
4. Israel’s leaders should address PA leaders at home and in all diplomatic circles as what they are: anti-Semites who would deny Jewish historical links to a land where Jewish historical links long precede Palestinian historical links.
5. Israel should negotiate a deal with Hamas to release the 1000 prisoners (many of whom are terrorists with Israeli blood on their hands) it seeks freed for Gilad Shalit.
6. Israel should direct all PA men from the release into Gaza, and all the Hamas men into Judea and Samaria.

I believe within 3-6 months, Hamas will have taken over the Palestinian Authority and “moderate” leaders like Abbas and Fayyad will either be sitting in Palestinian prisons or under house arrest. From that point on, Israel will have to deal with an implacable enemy just as tough as the PA (and backed by Iran, not the US), but at least it will be one that is recognized as “hard-line” by the world.

Peace might not come this way, but it should now be clear to everybody who seeks peace that it was not going to happen under the current PA leadership who have been offered a state 3 times in the past decade. In fact, the opposite is happening and Israel is damaged by the fiction it has helped to create and protect.

Let the truth out because it is Israel’s best defense.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. I do have a plan for the day after the religious terrorists of Hamas take over. Israel should offer the new Palestinian leadership a hudna where they get full autonomy in the area surrounded by the Security Barrier on one side and the Rabin “Jordan Valley Lines” on the other side in exchange for 100 years of peace. The IDF will move back to those lines to facilitate the long-term cease-fire. Israel will continue to control all borders as they do currently with Gaza. The hudna will include three key elements:
1. An understanding that severe attacks by Israel will follow any hudna violations by the Palestinians;
2. The Palestinians may not build up a military infrastructure beyond what they inherit from the Fatah PA, and,
3. Explicit permission for any Jews who wish to remain in the newly-created Palestinian autonomous area to live there peacefully and unmolested but under Palestinian law.

Another possibility occurred to me. A possible Plan B would be to allow Hamas to do what it wants to do to the current PA but then deny them taking over the government and instead establishing a new PA with explicit restrictions preventing former PLO members from serving in its ranks.

Jews? Oy!

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday that under no circumstances would the PA sign an agreement with Israel which required the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state or a land swap.

What’s the excuse Abbas gave?

“The PA recognized Israel’s existence in 1993, and now Israel needs to recognize the Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders,” Abbas said during a meeting…

He explains that he is referring to 1967 borders. Of course, there are no 1967 borders, he is referring to the 1949 armistice lines which the Arabs refused to accept as borders, apparently in the hope they would conquer more of Israel in the future. In 1967, however, after attacking Israel, Jordan lost the war and its hold over east Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria which they had named “West Bank.” Israel then annexed the eastern part of Jerusalem but not the West Bank.

About 80% of Israelis who live in towns in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria, live very close to the Green Line, which is the demarcation point of the 1949 armistice lines and what Abbas calls “1967 borders.” In the deals offered by Israel to the Palestinians over the past decade, they have offered 100% of Gaza and 95%-97% of Judea and Samaria. The idea is that these heavily populated Israeli neighborhoods and towns would be annexed to Israel. In exchange, Israel has offered the Palestinians land inside Israel which is contiguous with land they would control in their new Palestine.

The other element of “1967 borders” is, of course, eastern Jerusalem, which includes the holiest site for Jews, the Western Wall. Prior to 1967, under Jordanian control, no Jews were permitted to enter this area at all, Jews were not permitted to have citizenship or even live in these areas. Before 1948 when Jordan conquered this area, Jews were only permitted to be at the Western Wall based on restrictions established by Muslim authorities (and enforced by the British) which restricted the number of visitors drastically and did not permit things such as the blowing of the shofar – ram’s horn – which is a custom going back to the days of the Temple. Today, under Israeli rule, there are no such restrictions while Muslims and Christians also pray openly and freely in their respective holy places.

What Abbas is saying, in effect, is that this part of Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter which was razed by the Jordanians and rebuilt by the Israelis, must go to the Palestinians.

Now just to add one last bit of clarification. None of the area east of the “1967 borders” or west of the “1967 borders” was ever under Palestinian control; not under their sovereign control and not even under their figurative control. First the Ottomans controlled all of the province called Palestine as part of their empire, and then the British controlled it as part of their agreement to bring about the establishment of a “home for the Jewish people” as required by the League of Nations, predecessor to the UN, in 1922.

Of course, the Israelis have no intention of giving up the Western Wall or the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem. In offers of peace made by Barak and Olmert, the former offered shared sovereignty over eastern Jerusalem and the latter offered the same but recommended an international protectorate to be “sovereign” in the Holy Basin where the key holy sites for Judaism, Christianity and Islam reside.

Abbas and his predecessor, Arafat, rejected those offers. There does not need to be any more evidence as to what their goals are and how ridiculous the “peace process” has become. If the Palestinians “recognize Israel” but not as the state of the Jewish nation, and refuse to give up their dream of gaining control of Judaism’s holiest site, then there isn’t much left to discuss.

These rejections by the Palestinians are not made in a vacuum. To understand their reasoning, one need only listen to some Fatah Central Committee (essentially the executive decision-making body of the parent movement of the Palestinian Authority) members:

Jamal Muhaisen, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, said that it was “impossible” for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

“No Palestinian could ever accept such a demand, no matter where he is and what job he holds,” he said. “This recognition would scrap the right of return for the Palestinian refugees and endanger the status of the Palestinians living in the territories that were occupied in 1948.”

Or listen to Hassan Khraisheh, deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council,

“By saying he will recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Abed Rabbo has crossed all red lines,” Khraisheh said. “These remarks harm the right of return and our people in the territories occupied in 1948.”

These statements clarify why Palestinians won’t declare Israel a Jewish state. They still intend to bring to Israel all the descendants of those refugees who left in 1948, and together with the Israeli Arabs – to whom they refer as “Palestinians” and “our people” – create an “Israel” that is essentially another Arab, Muslim country. That country, would, of course, be joined to the new Palestine in Judea and Samaria. Needless to say, at that point, they would hope to join the two Palestines to the biggest section of original Palestine, Jordan, which has a majority of Palestinian inhabitants.

That’s a wonderful dream that has nothing to do with reality or peace.

The Palestinians are now making a move to take this to the UN Security Council to have the Council declare a Palestinian state on “1967 borders.” They appear to have tacit consent from the French and the Spanish, and possibly even from Obama. The UNSC’s resolutions are considered to be enforceable laws and therefore bear great import here. The Council would have to get around a previous resolution, 242, which would seem problematic, but anything is possible with the Obama administration, including abstention from a vote, which would enable the other members of the Council to do the Palestinians’ dirty work for them.

Israel has now began to negotiate with Hamas over Gilad Shalit. Presumably, this is a signal to the PA and Fatah that if they continue to play hardball in this way, then Israel will stop protecting them from Hamas as it has been doing for years and might even enable Hamas to win control of the Palestinian population in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria by giving them a “victory” over Israel in the release of 1000 prisoners for this one soldier.

Since the PA has now proven in its statements and claims that its goals are the same as those of Hamas, Israel may be reaching the point where it refuses to whitewash the PA’s and Fatah’s two-faced game where it continues to speak about peace in the most sophisticated diplomatic style but in reality seeks to undermine Israel’s legitimacy, drives the international boycott efforts against it and continues to speak of “peace” as an outcome where the self-determination of the Jewish people is nixed and another Arab, Muslim state is born. It may well be that at least with Hamas in control, the truth will be plain for all to see.

Here are previous essays about this topic:

The Palestinian plan to keep stalling is working to perfection

The Palestinians Think They are in the Endgame

The Palestinian Endgame Enters High Gear

More About the Palestinian Endgame

The Palestinians Believe They Have Israel in a Corner

Details of Barak’s Taba Plan

Ehud Olmert’s Insanely Generous Peace Offer/Palestinians Predict They Won’t Talk to Israelis with Obama in Office/a> with More Details by Olmert Himself.

This Morning’s First Plenary Session featured speakers: Mr. Dan Meridor, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy, Israel; Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, Former Head of Counter-Terrorism Unit of the Paris District Court and Former leading French Magistrate for Counter-Terrorism, France; Mr. Shiraz Maher, Senior Fellow, International Center for the Study of Radicalization (ICSR), King’s College London, United Kingdom; and Brig. Gen. (Res.) Nitzan Nuriel, Director, Counter-Terrorism Bureau, Israel.

Mr. Dan Meridor – The “most characteristic feature of our time is the accelerated pace of changes” in various fields, including the economy, culture, defense, war, security, and terror. In the realm of war, Meridor splits the field into two: super-conventional, (i.e. nuclear weapons, such as by Iran), and sub-conventional, (i.e. terrorism). The change which has occurred in the field of terrorism, he stated, is the ability of a few individuals to cause mass casualties. Yet, change will continue to occur. Quoting Regan, he said, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”One cannot merely be well prepared for the old war, such as with “tanks, planes, and missiles.” It used to be, he noted, that wars were fought between states. Yet today, it is organizations fighting states, and unlike in the James Bond movies, where the organizations would always fail, today they are succeeding. According to Meridor, throughout the Muslim world there is a decline of identity by nation-state, or ethnicity, and the rise of the religion. The first identity has become religion. “An Arab, by nationality, and a Lebanese, by particular nationality, called Mr. Nasrallah, takes orders from a non-Arab, non-Lebanese, Persian, called Mr. Ahmadinejad, and they act together against other Arabs, because they are both Shiite Muslims…. The introduction of religion into decision making, into identity, not culturally, not family life, but in decision making in politics, in using arms, brings us into a different phase” danger because one is “willing to sacrifice much more, because you’re doing this in the name of God.” When God enters the picture, the element of compromise is removed, because you can’t compromise on God’s will. “This,” he said goes hand and hand in the decline or the weakening of the power of states”. Continuing, Meridor noted that money is no longer the determining factor in waging war. Terrorism doesn’t cost much. Moreover, hierarchy has become less important, particularly in the network of terrorism; there is no chain of command. Meridor argues that the “victory of what one can call Western ideas, liberty, democracy,… imposed on everyone…. [concepts like] certain basic rights which are above you [are] seen by them as an attack on their civilization, on their way of life, [and they are] using the technology that was invented by the modern world to fight this very world itself…” Our “enemies,” he said, “have developed a new paradigm of war to which we don’t have an answer.” This paradigm is comprised of three elements. First is the use of tens of thousands of rockets and missiles, which are not stopped by borders. According to Meridor, “there are over 44,000 rockets and missiles in Lebanon aimed at our country.… in the hands of Hamas and other organizations in the Gaza Strip… [there are] 5,000 rockets” some of which can reach the outskirts of Tel Aviv. This is problematic given that they have many rockets, which will only improve in quality, warheads, and range. Moreover, rockets are fired from within the civilian population against civilian populations… In addition, “when a war breaks out like it did in 2006 in Lebanon and 2008 in Gaza, in no time you’ll see a barrage of rockets sent by civilians… you don’t see soldiers, you see people like you and me going into an orchard where they hid something and pushing a button. No army there; civilians hitting civilians. On the larger scale, think of what it does to us or to any countries under this threat. You need a military way or operational way to deal with it.”

Judge Jean Louis Bruguiere – discussed the French strategy in combating terrorism. France, according to Bruguiere, has a strong legal system with which to contend with terrorist threats, and therefore does not need to rely on extra-legal activities. French laws make monitoring of its citizens somewhat possible, which is why Al Qaeda has asked its affiliates to use American providers, rather than European. At times, there may appear to be the need to infringe upon individual rights and freedoms to combat terrorism. Yet, according to Bruguiere, it is imperative that this not occur. Terrorism, he argues, must be fought against in within the framework of the law. Society must find the happy medium between efficiency and the law. France has had a practical strategy of combining intelligence with legal means in combating terrorism, and has suffered no attacks since 1996. Bruguiere stated that France has foiled approximately two attacks a year, since then. France, he noted, arrested over 50 jihadists in France in 2005 and 2006, including individuals from Nigeria, Mauritania, and Somalia, proving that other have joined the GIA in clandestine activities in France.
The terrorist threat is still grave and increasing. Bruguiere noted that the recent Time Square bombing attempt, the actions of the Somalian al-Shabab, and actions in Mozambique, demonstrate that the terrorist threat is difficult to grasp and that no nation is spared this threat. “It’s a matter of fact that radical Islamic organizations affiliated to Al Qaeda… are changing their strategy. They’ve scattered… [and are] using the Palestinian issue in propaganda to draw more people… [it is a] catalyst to recruit new followers.” Referencing the local region, Bruguiere turned to the Palestinians. The Palestinian organizations, themselves, have, for the most part, rejected such calls to join Al Qaeda. Since 2001, according to Bruguiere, Al Qaeda has been trying to convince the Palestinian organizations to embrace global jihad, and have attempted to provide the PIJ and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade with money and suicide belts, but they’re offers have been rejected. Yet, the Palestinian connection is not entirely lacking, as can be seen with the Gaza Flotilla in May 2010. The Turkish IHH was not simply carrying humanitarian aid. IHH, as an organization, is connected to both Hamas, in the 1990s, acted as a front for Al Qaeda, and supported militants in their fights in Chechnya and Afghanistan.

Mr. Shiraz Maher – discussed how liberal societies should deal with the threat. In his presentation, he focused on Britain’s response to radicalization. In the past, and even now, the British government has made a distinction between violent and non-violent extremist groups. According to Maher, in an attempt to prevent individuals from moving in the direction of violence, the British government has chosen to engage the non-violent groups. Yet, Maher asks, what is the price of such engagement? In many ways, the government’s engagement with these groups shows tacit approval and/or endorsement of the views that these organizations hold. Moreover, by engaging the Muslim constituents not as citizens who happen to be Muslim, but as Muslims who happen to be citizens, and primarily through these radical organizations, such as the Muslim Council of Britain, and Hizb ut-Tahrir, the British government, subliminally tells it’s Muslim citizens that “Muslim” or “Islamic” is, and ought to be, their primary identity. This undermines Britain’s own values. Moreover, he argues, it is ridiculous to act as though there is no connection between the violent and non-violent groups. Violence, he ntoes, stems from somewhere. Jihadists function within a society, “which supports, moralizes and gratifies them” which is particularly seen in the case of suicide bombers. It is essential to acknowledge and appreciate the link between the radicalization which is provided by the non-violent groups and the violence taken by radicalized individuals. Britain’s first suicide bombers, he recalled, who, in 2003, attempted to blow up Mike’s Place, here in Tel Aviv, were radicalized by non-violent groups, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Brotherhood. While these groups “may not have planned it [the bombing] they certainly set them on the path…” It is difficult to determine, according to Maher, which organizations are innocuous, and which have hidden agenda. Moreover, rather than pumping millions of poinds into such initiatives, which target the high-risk communities as Muslims, the government should focus on the other elements of their identities. Maher, further, argued, the government should clearly sate (and act accordingly), that while not all individuals/groups have to agree with the British value system, there is a British value system, and those who do not agree with it (including by supporting terrorism anywhere in the world) cannot and will not be made a partner. Last, Maher concluded by noting that local governments simply do not have the expertise to deal with radicalization, and therefore, efforts to that end should be coordinated on the national level.

Brig. Gen. (Res.) Nitzan Nuriel –Nuriel summarized the global jihad’s achievements, and the counter-terrorism communities weaknesses, and strengths. Regarding global jihad’s achievements, he noted that they rae doing “pretty well,” having the ability to launch (attempted, if not successful) attacks across the globe, whenever and where ever they wish. They are aided by the media, and, also, have their own media to spur their message. Their budget meets all of their needs, and are always able to procure funds and weapons. For 2011, global jihad will, according to Nuriel, likely try to increase their cyber-terrorism capabilities and start delving more deeply into non-conventional capabilities.
The counter-terrorism forces, on the other hand, are lacking. According to Nuriel, there are fewer forces with fewer capabilities than would like to be admitted. The main thing which, in his opinion, is missing, is a clear definition of terrorism. When the definition is unclear, he stated, different agencies contend with the events differently. In addition, there is no common database on terrorism and radicals. While human rights are important, Nuriel believes that there is a need to balance those rights against the need for better security tools. (He was very clear that this database should not be simply about Muslims, but rather of all radicals, regardless of religion, race, creed, etc.) Nuriel noted that when the international community determined that the phenomenon of pedophilia was unacceptable, the world created a common database in order to protect children. Under the same mechanism, it is possible, therefore, to develop a database which monitors those who are radicalized, given that radicalization, often, leads to terrorism. The “priority,” he said, needs to go to right to live, over the minor invasion of human rights. This, he stated, does not mean that governments should throw into custody those who check out radical websites. Rather, governments should be able to monitor such individuals and their activities with other pieces of information. Moreover, Nuriel argued, too many partners in counter-terrorism are conditional partners with low levels of commitment.
Positively, Nuriel noted that, today, “we” are better at sharing information than “we” were in the past… on all levels. In addition, the counter-terrorism community has become adept at developing weapons systems and using sophisticated technolog, though, in his opinion, it still needs to improve non-lethal weapons. Importantly, Nuriel stated that there is a good level of cooperation when dealing with terror financing. Concluding, he noted, that this is important for Israel, as well, as Israel must contend not only with terrorist organizations, but with nations, such as Syria, which provide aid to terrorists.

For more, you can follow the conference on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Maj. Gen. (Res.) Amos Gilad – “in the past Israel has never had its easier, in regards to terrorism.” Gilad noted that the phenomenon of suicide terrorism, in Israel, has practically disappeared, as a result of the actions taken by ISA and the IDF. Today, Gilad stated, the P.A. opposes terrorism, and has been working against Hamas, particularly in light of Hamas’ actions towards Fatah members after they [Hamas] took over Gaza [in 2006]. A second threat is that of rockets. Gilad observed that, following Israel’s campaign in Lebanon in 2006, there have been very few rocket attacks from Lebanon, and that the same can be said from Gaza, following 2008’s Operation Cast Lead. In the center of the country, due to a combination of Israeli and Jordanian action, Israel has, what Gilad calls, “a quiet border all the way to Iraq.” Referring to the recent rocket attack from the Sinai, he called this a rarity. Moreover, he noted that Israel has not recently suffered from other forms of terrorism from which Israel suffered from in the past, such as sea-launched attacks. Yet, Israel, he argued, must not rest on her laurels; Israel must look to the future in order to answer future threats. The first present/future threat mentioned was that of rockets. This, he called, the “Qassam/Shihab” threat from “Hizbullah-stan.” There are currently around 25,000 rockets in Lebanon, which poses a serious threat to Israel’s north, particularly in light of the mayhem in Lebanon. The President of Lebanon, he said, “sold the south, and has no idea as to what is going on there.” “Hizbullah-stan is, essentially, its own state, with its own policies and militaries. Hamas-stan is built on the same model. Both are trying to build rockets which can hit Tel Aviv, to hit the home front, and hit strategic targets…” including psychological ones. To great measure, it can be seen, according to Gilad, that Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, are working together. To this end, Gilad claimed that the P.A. could not, today, take over and control Gaza. “If Jordan, God forbid, would be unable to hold its security as it does, or if we should leave Judea and Samaria for whatever political reasons, we must be sure that the P.A. forces are strong enough to deal with the Hamas so that we are not caught between rocket and other attacks on two fronts. So what do we need to do? We need to maintain our deterrence.” Deterrence, he argued, can only be maintained so long as “they” [i.e. states, organizations] believe that Israel can destroy them. Moving on to the ever-present issue, a nuclear Iran, he stated, would pose a great danger from the “terror crescent,” (referencing the crescent of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah-stan, and Hamas-stan). Appearances are important, he argued. Even if it only appears that Iran has a nuclear weapon, it will strengthen and embolden the terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah and Hamas. Regarding the Hamas, “we must remember that they are not simply Palestinian terrorists. They are Muslim Brotherhood whose ideology is to turn the Middle East into an Islamic caliphate.” Iran, he said, cannot be allowed to get to the point that it can further impact terrorism. “Not to mention that the Arab States, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not allow the Persians to become the leaders of the region, which is even more of a danger… It’s a psychological issue that could tip the scales against Israel.” Concluding, Gilad stated that at present, Israel is “ok, but we have a lot of heavy clouds in the sky, some of which are unseen, and we need to maintain our deterrence, our defense, and our treaties with Arab States. To our great luck, the Arab States are acting against their own terror, and are working to maintain it. In the security realm, in my opinion, Israel can deal with it through increasing cooperation with other states.”

Prof. Moshe Arens – terrorism is, causing intentional harm against civilians, is an effective weapon. In the last years there has been a “plague” of terrorism, with Israel at the center. Israel, therefore, had to contend with “the suicide bombers, who are effective and precise weapons, able to target both a place and time. Serial suicide, as Israel was subject to 10, 20 years ago, during years where bombers were blowing themselves up on busses and in restaurants, in population centers, sometimes once, twice a day, were aimed to break the spirit of the attacked population, and were stopped mostly through Defensive Shield.” The second popular weapon among terrorists is rockets. Rockets, Arens noted, are not new, as the Germans used them against Britain. Yet, while very effective, they are not decisive. According to Arens, from then on, rockets have been available and cheap, and again, Israel has been the main target of rocket terrorism, primarily from Hamas in the Gaza Strip. “We have spent a lot of effort and funds, including on ‘Golden Domes,’ to defend against the relatively short range rockets. But, we have to deter those who have the ability to perpetrate acts of terrorism.” When discussing terrorist organizations, which don’t have a system of policy or administration, he said, there is little to be done. Yet, Arens argued that acts of terrorism will not occur if the terrorists are fearful of the response. Recalling the terrorism which used to be quite common coming from Judea and Samaria, he stated that such terrorism was stopped by deterrence. In contending with terrorism, it is important, according to Arens, to remember that terrorists, too, have considerations, and are, therefore, sensitive to acts which undermine them. Capabillity, he argued, is less important than motivation. (an argument with which I, your humble Jewlicious blogger, disagree). Arens provides two examples. First is that of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but also has a system which is both hegemonic and part of the government, which results in their having a series of considerations in deciding whether to perpetrate acts of terrorism. The second example is the Second Lebanon War. Arens argued that in a very short period of time, Israel was able to deter Hezbollah, and stopped the katushas and the kidnappings, and though there is great criticism regarding the war, there is little doubt that Hezbollah today thinks twice, or even thrice, regarding the implications of attacking Israel. A similar example is that of Hamas in Gaza. According to Arens, there were a number of years in which Israel was unable to deter Hamas from shooting their short-range rockets at Israel’s population. Yet, Arens noted, a barrage of rockets from Gaza have not hit Israel, since Cast Lead, because Hamas, while a terrorist organization, also, has an administrative apparatus. Under this logic, the governmental apparatus provides some stability as a result of Israel’s actions against them. While there have been terrorist attacks from Hamas, as of late, they emanated from Judea and Samaria, where they do not have the administrative apparatus, which made the individual Hamas-men more free to act. Arens concluded by noting that deterrence, when it works, is key, but when it fails, causes problem.

Lt. Gen. (Res.) Shaul Mofaz – “Nine years ago were the attacks of 9/11 which shook the world, and led to a change and an increase in mutual cooperation throughout the world to defend against global terrorism. The era of suicide terrorism, between 2000 and 2005, was the hardest military period Israel has ever had to contend with and had great difficulty in providing security to its citizens. It was difficult, because these people ultimately didn’t care about getting home. But then, at least their goal was mostly establishing a Palestinian state on the pre-67 borders. But now, new terrorism is coming from Gaza, though there, too, we [Israel] managed to deter it, and that is one of the great successes of the Israeli security apparati against terrorism.” Deterrence against radical organizations, Mofaz noted, requires a great deal of effort and funds. “The challenge of security and policy of Israel is first the double threat of Iran.” The Iranian threat, he argued, is the greatest threat to Israel. First, Iran leads the “radical crescent,” comprised of Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. This threat is relatively new, he argued, not having existed 15 years ago. The second threat posed by Iran, is its desire to become a nuclear power. “An Iranian bomb is an existential threat to the State of Israel, probably more so than any threat since the War of Independence.” According to Mofaz, this element must be understood by all decision makers in Israel. Today, he argued, Iran’s strategy is to gain time and go slowly. In Mofaz’s opinion, there are three steps to preventing a nuclear Iran. The first is international pressure, the second is sanctions, the third is a military strike. Mofaz argued that anyone who believes it is possible to compromise with a nuclear Iran is “delusional.” The US, he said, needs to lead each of these steps. A related security element with which Israel need contend, Mofaz stated, is the threat of missiles, which the aforementioned nations all have. The security apparati cannot solely be relied upon to prevent such attacks. Mofaz was vehement that Israel must find other ways to contend with these threats. “It’s a challenge of challenges,” he said, and has been a major topic of peace agreements in recent years. He, also, mentioned the fields of contending with terrorism, and proliferation of unconventional, and conventional weapons. “In my opinion, we have an opportunity to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with two nation-states for two people.” Summarizing problems, he argued, doesn’t work, recalling the many years since Oslo. “The Palestinians,” he said, “are looking at the fact that they have two political administrations, Fatah in Judea and Samaria, and Hamas in Gaza,” and so long as they don’t win with politics, they will turn to terror. This calls for an interim agreement. He claimed that the starting point should be some form of agreement between Israel and the Palestinians; dealing with borders and security. If those can be settled, than it is possible to move on. Borders, he argued, should based upon the large settlement blocks (i.e. Ariel, Gush Etzion, etc.) in exchange for extra land near the Gaza Strip. The land size, he stated, must be equal to those of the 1967 borders, “though not necessarily the same as ‘67.” Peace can be made, he believes, with the help of the USA, Europe, and increased regional economics. Deterrence, though, must continue to be part of strategic though. Mentioning the preliminary talks which are scheduled for September 23, he said, “let’s set the border. We must continue building and strengthening our borders, the [settlement] freeze can be maintained so long as we see that the [peace] process will be completed in the near future. I believe that the process can lead to trust between the two peoples, which doesn’t exist today. Today there is a feeling that we can’t come to an agreement with them, but the Palestinians won’t accept anything without the Americans…. I believe with the help of the Americans, Europe, and a reasonable Israel, we can make peace in our path….” Mofaz was vehement that Israel defend her citizens, and provide legitimacy to her borders, and “we shouldn’t have to relate our story every day” and justify “to our enemies…” Mofaz, also, noted the importance of speaking with Syrians, in order to find a way to negotiate and break up the “radical crescent,” for, “if we don’t make the effort, it’s possible that someone else will make the decision for us, and we can’t be sure that that will take into account our security and national concerns… so we need to take those steps.. in the hope of peace….”

For more, you can follow the conference on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

The War on Panties Continues

We’ve already written about the women of Palestine’s proclivity for provocative panties. While that post did raise the ire of some, I enjoyed writing it because it provided insight into some of the more relatively banal realities of Palestinian culture. It was humanizing to know that despite all the hullabaloo, people still share the same concerns across cultural barriers: as Tom Robbins put it, “Who knows how to make love stay?”

Robbins’ solution included the following exhortation: “Wake love up in the middle of the night. Tell it the world is on fire. Dash to the bedroom window and pee out of it. Casually return to bed and assure love that everything is going to be all right. Fall asleep. Love will be there in the morning.” Nice. But in Palestine, and particularly in Gaza, the solution to this conundrum has traditionally been fancy, almost outrageous panties as a fundamental part of every Palestinian bride’s boudoir.

This traditional aspect of Palestinian culture is now under attack by the sticky wickets over at Hamas. The ruling strongmen of Gaza, as part of a new modesty drive, have decided to target women’s underwear and have ordered lingerie shops to display more modesty:

A week after banning women from smoking water pipes in public places, the Hamas-run police force has told stores selling women’s underwear to remove scantily-clad mannequins and any posters of racy undergarments… “These measures have stemmed from complaints and pressure by ordinary people. They have to do with upholding our traditions,” police spokesman Ayman Al-Batniji said Wednesday.

Apparently, these efforts, as well as the recent banning of public female nargillah smoking, shutting down by police of a hip hop concert and attempts to get female lawyers and students to wear traditional Muslim clothing are part of an attempt to mollify conservative Islamic factions that have accused Hamas of failing to sufficiently uphold Islamic Sharia law.

But no one thinks about the detrimental effect this will have on the birthrate and domestic Palestinian cohesion. Why doesn’t anyone think about the children? Oh the humanity. In any case, most Palestinians voted for Hamas for political rather than religious reasons and this drive, like the others mentioned, will in all likelihood fail due to lack of popular support.

Phew!

Gilad – if you ever read this, know that we’re waiting for you!

And the viral video PR onslaught against the Fauxtilla continues. I have no idea who exactly is behind this video and their Web site provides scant details but it’s already scored nearly 45,000 views. I attribute this to the fact that English accents are both authoritative and funny. I mean how much could it possibly have cost to put this whole thing together? Any Limey will do just about anything for a pint of Guiness so, you know… just sayin’ – viral video makers and Government spokespersons take note. Want your video to go viral? Be funny. Use English people. Real ones, not some goofy American with a patently false accent! And that’s it. The End.

Fauxtilla goods being unloaded at Ashdod Port

Aren’t people starving in Gaza? How can the people managing The World’s Most Desperate Human Rights Disaster ™ deny their people the desperately needed humanitarian aid they so badly need? CNN reports that Hamas refused delivery of 21 truckloads of aid which included “expired medications, clothing, blankets, some medical equipment and toys”.

A spokesperson from COGAT, the organization that coordinates the delivery of goods into Gaza explained a little about what it is that COGAT does, supervising the delivery of 15-20 truckloads of goods a day including food, construction material (including cement), supplies for UNWRA sponsored summer camps etc. The current shipment of aid from the flotilla includes 100 electric mini-scooters for the elderly and handicapped which were unpacked first so as to prevent damage. He noted that the flotilla is estimated to have 70-80 truckloads of aid but it is badly packaged and loaded. On one of the boats the goods were just thrown in to the cargo holds. He observed that the aid included expired medicine as well as medicine set to expire in July. Also included as aid were used shoes and bundles of presumably used clothing.

The Jerusalem Post reports that:

Hamas refused on Wednesday to allow the aid equipment that was captured by the IDF aboard the flotilla ships earlier this week to enter the Gaza Strip… “We refuse to receive the humanitarian aid until all those who were detained aboard the ships are released,” said Ahmed Kurd, Minister for Social Welfare in the Hamas government said. “We also insist that the equipment be delivered in its entirety.” … Kurd said that Israel’s decision to allow a number of wheelchairs to be delivered to the Gaza Strip was a “deception,” claiming that the batteries that operate them had been removed, making them useless.

Hamas also claims that this delivery of aid is merely a smokescreen aimed at diverting attention from the deaths on the fauxtilla.

Oops! Did I just say fauxtilla? Yes I did. It’s clear that this was all a very well executed publicity stunt. For Hamas, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow isn’t aid desperately needed to alleviate The World’s Most Desperate Human Rights Disaster ™ but rather an end to the blockade which would allow for the unimpeded delivery of weapons from Iran. This would allow Hamas to further consolidate its control of Gaza and allow it to have the supplies needed to continue to attack Israel.

Let’s not make any excuses for Hamas, they are evil. However, one has to ask why the Palestinian Authority, which relies on Israel to protect it from Hamas, to rehabilitate their injured, to help their economy grow (currently at 12% annually), won’t come to peace with Israel. This is an infuriating conflict, but one of the reasons it’s infuriating is that we have knows what a peace deal will look like since 2000. Why isn’t the world putting pressure on the Palestinians to accept the deal? We had an offer from Barak and in 2008 an offer from Olmert (the lame Left attempts to deflect this offer by claiming it “wasn’t official” or that Olmert was a “lame duck). The Palestinians have responded with a desire to bring all their diaspora into Israel and refusal to share the Holy Basin or the Temple Mount. That is where the left and the international communities should be focusing their efforts, on forcing the Palestinians to give up their dream of taking over Israel or getting control over Israel’s most important religious and historic sites. The peace is there for the taking.