You kind of knew this was coming. There is no moral lines left for the left not to breach.
(Carl) Palestinian media are reporting based on Israeli sources (not reported yet in any Israeli media that I have seen) that the United States has ‘suggested’ to Israel that it release convicted terrorist Marwan Barghouti (one of the ‘heavy’ terrorists that Israel refused to release in the ‘terrorists for Gilad’ deal) from jail so that Barghouti can compete in the ‘Palestinian elections’ against Hamas (link in Arabic). Barghouti is serving multiple life sentences for murder.
The following is an untouched Google translation of the link.
Palestine Today – Gaza
Israeli sources said that the U.S. administration is concerned about the prospects for the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections in the event of future conduct in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The radio said, the occupation army from those sources that concern the U.S. is increasing in light of certain information received from Arab countries on the determination of the Palestinian president to leave office and not to run for president, opening the door to the Hamas victory, even in the presidential election and full control over the Palestinian situation.
Meanwhile, Israeli sources said that the American delegation discussed the important role during the last few months and down with officials in Tel Aviv, the idea of releasing a member of the Central Committee of Fatah, Marwan Barghouti from prison so that the occupation of the movement’s leadership in the face of Hamas in the upcoming elections.
The sources pointed out that Netanyahu rejects the idea of releasing Barghouti, considering it an extension of the late Palestinian leader ‘Yasser Arafat’ where he helped the two together in planning to kill dozens of Israelis during the second intifada, according to those sources.
The sources pointed out that many mediums, including an Israeli Knesset member Binyamin Ben-Eliezer and former Defense Minister Amir Peretz and some leaders of security agencies and Mossad, the former does not oppose the release of Barghouti, considering him one more Palestinian commitment to peace with Israel.
(Carl) If he ever had one, Barghouti no longer has any commitment to peace with Israel. Ben Eliezer and Peretz are both Labor party MK’s who were both failures as Defense Minister (Peretz should never have gotten the job in the first place). And if Obama is willing to make an outrageous demand like this one during an election campaign, imagine what he will demand if God forbid he is reelected.
What could go wrong?
there is little difference between Barghouti and any other Palestinian leader. When the bar is moved to the point beyond comprehension one can no longer defend children because the line between right and wrong is not so much arbitrary, but rather completely biased against a Jew’s existence. Israel should make a note of this and have a death penalty for those who cross the moral line and attacks Jews in Israel. Because of political pressure there is no way to keep a terrorist captive for long enough for him to pay for his misdeeds. One can literally see the direct line between the Left in Israel and the death of innocent civilians.
27 female prisoners included in the Gilad Shalit deal, including the woman who drove the suicide bomber to the Sbarro restaurant in 2001.
By Elad Benari
First Publish: 10/12/2011
Among the terrorists who are to be released as part of the deal to free Gilad Shalit are 27 female terrorists.
One of them is Ahlam Tamimi, the first woman to join Hamas and the person who drove the suicide bomber who carried out the attack at the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem in August of 2001.
16 people were killed in that attack, including five members of the Schijveschuurder family from the community of Neria in Binyamin.
Tamimi has previously declared, “Despite the fact that I’m sentenced to 16 life sentences I know that we will become free from Israeli occupation and then I will also be free from prison.” Also included in the deal to release Shalit is Amna Muna, who in January of 2001 lured 16-year-old Ophir Rachum to Ramallah, where he was shot to death by terrorists.
Rachum met Muna, then 24 years old, on the internet. After gaining his confidence, Muna persuaded Rachum to come to Jerusalem to meet her.
When Rachum arrived at the Jerusalem Central Bus Station, Muna drove him to the outskirts of Ramallah, where they were greeted by her two partners, both terrorists belonging to the Fatah organization. The two tried to get Rachum out of the car and when he refused, one of them shot him to death.
After the murder, Palestinian Authority Arabs took Rachum’s body to Ramallah, where they buried it.
In total, Israel will release 280 terrorists with blood on their hands in exchange for Shalit. These do not include arch-terrorists such as Marwan Barghouti; Abdullah Barghouti, serving 67 life sentences; Hassan Salameh, serving 38 life sentences; and Jamal Abu Al-Hijja, serving nine life sentences, all of whom are imprisoned for planning suicide bombings. Also reportedly not included in the deal is the killer of Israeli minister Rechavam Ze’evi, Ahmed Saadat.
On Tuesday night, the Israeli cabinet voted to approve the deal. 26 ministers supported the deal with only three – Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau, and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon – voting against the deal.
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
|image via Mid East i|
|Dahlan ousted via Maan News|
|Bio of Dahlan via
Lawrence of Cyberia
Abbas’s recent decision to expel Dahlan from Fatah is threatening to divide the faction into two separate parties. Dahlan is enormously popular among many Fatah cadres in the Gaza Strip, where there is great anger over Abbas’s decision. via hudson-ny.org
Dahlan hates Hamas and Hamas hates him. It is reasonable to think that he is being forced out because he opposes Fatah’s cooperation with Hamas. Dahlan believes that in any such deal Fatah will eventually be the loser and Hamas will take over the PA. via crethiplethi.com
Many Fatah leaders are now threatening to quit the faction in protest against the dismissal of Dahlan. Even those who are not known as Dahlan supporters have come out against the decision because of the way it was taken.
They point out that the removal of Dahlan was carried out illegally and without the approval of Fatah institutions. They also note that as a member of the Palestinian parliament, Dahlan enjoys parliamentary immunity – a fact that Abbas preferred to ignore when he decided to remove him.
Bio of Barghouti via
Lawrence of Cyberia
Another Fatah leader who is now challenging Abbas is Marwan Barghouti, who has been in Israeli prison for the past nine years after being convicted of organizing armed attacks against Israelis. Barghouti’s wife this week published a letter she sent to Abbas in which she accused the Palestinian president and his top aides of turning their backs on her husband.
On the other hand, the Fatah-Hamas “reconciliation” accord, which was announced on May 4, seems to be going nowhere. The two rival parties were supposed to announce the establishment of a unity government this week. But the announcement was postponed indefinitely because of Hamas’s refusal to accept Salam Fayyad as prime minister of the new government. It also seems that not everyone in Fatah is happy about the idea of having Fayyad as prime minister.
Hamas, meanwhile, is also witnessing a power struggle between its leaders in the Gaza Strip and those sitting in Syria, especially in regard to the reconciliation pact with Fatah and the fate of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit, who has been held by Hamas for five years.
Two weeks ago, Palestinians were shocked when they learned that militiamen belonging to Ahmed Jibril’s Popular Front-General Command opened fire at a demonstration in a refugee camp in Syria, killing 14 people and wounding many others. more via hudson-ny.org
From an email from DG:
1) War with Hamas
Barry Rubin writes about why there will be a war between Israel and Hamas.
And so, Hamas knows that it now has an ally, rather than an enemy, at its back. Moreover, there is no incentive in Egypt–or among its nationalist and Islamist-sympathetic officers–to block arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip. As a result, Hamas is stronger and more confident, and hence arrogant and reckless. It is better able to launch rockets, mortars, and cross-border attacks, and far more eager to do so. Hamas is also able to get longer-range missiles and other new types of weapons.
As for U.S. policy, while supporting some sanctions on Hamas and refusing to deal directly with the group, the U.S. government has not supported overthrowing the Gaza regime, though any serious assessment of U.S. interests show this should be a priority. A policy to destroy Hamas should be part of the war against Iranian hegemony in the region, revolutionary Islamism, terrorism, and instability. Even more, doing so would aid the moribund Israel-Palestinian peace process and keep the Palestinian Authority in power.
But there is no appreciation for these points in Washington. When it comes to fighting revolutionary Islamism, U.S. policy sees the Middle East as a no-try zone.
I would add that the Bush administration deserves some blame for this state of affairs.
Back in 2005 Dore Gold wrote about America’s Hamas Dilemma: Spreading Democracy or Combating Terrorism?
Originally, the realpolitik thinking underpinning the Bush administration’s support for democratization of the Middle East was based on the assumption that democracies are inherently peaceful and will not encourage extremist political systems that might host terrorist groups. Non-democratic regimes need to produce an external enemy as a control mechanism over their populations. What happens if democracy empowers a political movement like Hamas, whose core ideology is based on belligerency, regardless of whether it needs a control mechanism or not?
Westerners engaging in a dialogue with Hamas have also been speaking with the Muslim Brotherhood, the original Egyptian fundamentalist organization, founded in 1928, from which Hamas grew as its Palestinian branch. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has the status of being “illegal but officially tolerated.” Some have observed that voter participation increased in the 2005 Egyptian presidential elections because the Muslim Brotherhood called on voters to go to the polls. Organizations like the International Crisis Group have already recommended that the Muslim Brotherhood be decriminalized and permitted to take a more active role in Egyptian politics. In the Middle East, however, both intellectuals and officials, like Egyptian President Husni Mubarak, have warned against legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood. A former Kuwaiti education minister reminded his readers in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat in July 2005 that all of al-Qaeda’s terrorism started from the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.
This was at a time when the administration was openly arguing against the Sharon government to allow Hamas to participate in the upcoming Palestinian elections. Just prior to the election, a Washington Post editorial lauded the openness that Hamas’s electoral participation heralded.
Already, too, democracy is showing its benefits. Faced with the possibility of defeat by Hamas, Fatah has been forced to overhaul the aging and corrupt cadre left behind by Yasser Arafat and install young reformers at the top of its legislative list. Their leader, the Israeli-imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, published a remarkable letter in Palestinian newspapers Friday apologizing for Fatah’s mistakes and asking voters for another chance. Hamas itself is showing some pragmatism: Its newly elected council members supported the election last week of a Christian woman as mayor of Ramallah, the most important West Bank town. A senior Israeli army official recently predicted that if Hamas did win the elections it would continue to curtail attacks on Israel.
The Bush administration prepared a “quartet” statement with the European Union, United Nations and Russia last week that strongly supported the elections and urged Israel to allow voting in Jerusalem. At the same time, the statement reiterated a previous statement calling on Hamas to disarm and recognize Israel’s existence, and it added that the future Palestinian cabinet “should include no member who has not committed”to accept those principles. That was the right place to draw the line. Hamas should be given the chance to become a democratic movement, but Palestinians should understand that any retreat from recognition of Israel will mean the loss of vital international support.
At the time, Soccer Dad took issue with the Washington Post editorial: Post pre-election stress syndrome
It didn’t take long for the Bush administration to acknowledge that it misjudged the Hamas situation, as the New York Times reported:
“I’ve asked why nobody saw it coming,” Ms. Rice said, speaking of her own staff. “It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse.”
Immediately after the election, Bush administration officials said the results reflected a Palestinian desire for change and not necessarily an embrace of Hamas, which the United States, Israel and the European Union consider a terrorist organization sworn to Israel’s destruction. But Ms. Rice’s comments seemed to reflect a certain second-guessing over how the administration had failed to foresee, or factor into its thinking, the possibility of a Hamas victory.
Indeed, Hamas’s victory has set off a debate whether the administration was so wedded to its belief in democracy that it could not see the dangers of holding elections in regions where Islamist groups were strong and democratic institutions weak.
Interesting that a Times reporter would write that last paragraph, given how the Times has largely ignored that very same danger in Egypt.
Subsequently we’ve seen Hamas strengthened and emboldened. It is odd to read articles about a potential rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah portrayed as a necessary step for peace. If winning the election didn’t result in Hamas’s moderating, why would it moderate when it gains even more power as a partner of Fatah? In fact such a rapprochement would indicate that Fatah is moving closer to Hamas rather than the opposite.
2) UNHRC Oh, I see
The UN’s Human Rights Council will be voting on 6 anti-Israel resolutions.
The UNHRC has agreed to send a special rapporteur to Iran. Iran has declined to allow him to inspect the country.
No word if the UNHRC will be taking any action against current council member Bahrain for having its troops fire on demonstrators.
Elder of Ziyon points out that Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) made some changes in how the UNHRC operates.
Solomonia writes that it is no surprise, of course, that the OIC was behind getting Goldstone to investigate Cast Lead.
Given how many OIC members treat their own people, this is just one more example of what a bad joke the UNHRC is.
3) Now you see them …
A New York Times editorial praises the changes going on in Egypt.
The editorial also offers words of caution.
We share the unease of young protesters who made the revolution happen and worry their demand for democracy could be hijacked by the highly organized groups who campaigned hardest for the amendments: allies of the old regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
This is the only mention of the Muslim Brotherhood in the editorial. Mostly it is the “old regime” mentioned as a possible spoiler.
However a news story finally acknowledges Islamist Group Is Rising Force in a New Egypt
It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.
As the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence. But what surprises many is its link to a military that vilified it.
“There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,” said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. “It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street.”
Guy Bechor welcomes us to the New Middle East
A terrible thing happened to the Middle East: The only glue that brought together all the sects, religions, tribes, nationalities and minorities – who all hate each other – was Israel, yet this glue no longer works.
Ever since Israel was established, we got accustomed to hearing global experts and the Arabs themselves claiming that Israel is at fault for the Mideast’s sorry state, that the Arabs are preoccupied with the struggle against Israel to the point of having no time for themselves, and that should Israel’s conflict vis-à-vis the Arab world be resolved, cosmic tranquility will sweep through the region, ushering in progress, prosperity and happiness.
This doctrine allowed Arab world leaders to make a living and also allowed Western states to blame us for all the region’s ills. This is the outdated doctrine that still guides Obama’s close associates. For example: The need to press for the establishment of a Palestinian state, as though that would bring stability to the Middle East.
There are those who still will insist that this is the most opportune time for Israel to make peace. Or most critical time.
5) Little terror attacks
An editorial in YnetNews Killing Jews in small doses and ‘limited terror’ is unacceptable
The recent string of terror attacks against Israel may indicate that the Palestinians learned the lesson, and may be engaging in a more sophisticated – yet no less dangerous – terror campaign against the Jewish state.
The murder in Itamar, as shocking as it was, as well as Wednesday’s bombing in Jerusalem were not perceived by the world (and for the time being by Israel too) as “equivalent” to the suicide bombings of the 1990s and 2000s that left dozens of fatalities. As such, the response to them, both in the global media and by the IDF, was limited as well.
This quickly became apparent following the Itamar massacre, with global media largely downplaying the attack. Despite some coverage and international condemnations, the tone and ferocity were far weaker than the response to previous “major” attacks. A similar pattern followed the Jerusalem bombing, with many media outlets burying the story while focusing on other issues, such the Libya campaign or Elizabeth Taylor’s death.