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.
Minister of nat’l infrastructure: I’ll call for annexation if Palestinians get unilateral state in UN; “We have to take care of our interests.”
Dr. Uzi Landau, Israel’s Minister of National Infrastructure, warns that in the event of a unilateral United Nations declaration of a Palestinian state, he will call upon Israel to annex the Jordan Valley and large, Jewish populated blocs in the West Bank:
“We’ll have to take care of our interests,” Landau told Inside Israel’s Mordechai I. Twersky in a wide-ranging interview April 21. “We’ll have to take protect ourselves. If such a thing happens, I’m going to suggest to my government to extend out sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and over the highly-populated blocs we have in Judea and Samaria, just to start with.”
The former chairman of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee invoked the Bush Road Map and a letter of commitment issued by the former president committing to Israel’s retention of major Jewish population centers in the West Bank in any negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. If that signed agreement can’t be honored, he said, all bets are off.
“If we don’t see negotiations, and if we do a policy which basically makes the entire Road Map agreement a hoax, Israel should take care of its own interests,” said Minister Landau.
Landau said the Arab Spring has brought chaos to the Middle east, and could well spread to the important western allies of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. He questioned the logic of Israel signing a peace deal with a Palestinian leader, whose own future and that of his government, remains tenuous at best.
“Who knows what’s going to happen in the future to any agreement we sign with, let’s say, another chief of tribe in Judea and Samaria?” asked Minister Landau. “Today it’s Abu Mazen (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas). Who is it going to be in the future?”
Landau said the US Administration’s continued insistence that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is key to wider stability in the region – even in the face of spreading Arab unrest – is incomprehensible.
“This is clearly, totally detached from the present reality of the Middle East,” said Landau. “Anyone who lives here clearly understands that this is totally detached from the Middle East reality.”
Obama’s Word is no good with any party… let our state department respect agreements with Bush before any future agreements are signedNovember 17, 2010
Likud Minister Uzi Landau says that the United States is demanding far more than a ‘settlement freeze’ extension in return for the package of goodies offered to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
According to Landau, the conditions for the deal are far different than those being portrayed in the Israeli media, which is telling Israelis that in exchange for a “small” Israeli gesture of an additional three month freeze, Jerusalem will receive a bundle of benefits, including additional advanced F-35 fighter jets, and an American guarantee to veto any anti-Israel proposals at the United Nations and other world bodies – and to similarly smash any attempt by the Palestinian Authority to seek U.N. approval for a declaration of independence for an Arab state in Judea and Samaria.
But the United States doesn’t just want a three month extension, said Landau. When asked why he was opposed to so much benefit for “only” three more months of a building freeze, Landau responded, “Israel has failed to learn from the past. President Obama is ignoring previous promises, also written in a letter, that President Bush presented to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Those promises, too, were portrayed as a great diplomatic achievement.
“All the American promises share a similar characteristic – they lack specifics, and are not carried out if they are found to be damaging to American interests.” That was the case with the 2003 letter Bush presented Sharon, ostensibly recognizing Israel’s right to retain the “settlement blocs” in the event of a deal with the PA; in the end, that American promise has been rescinded by President Barack Obama because he has decided it is in American interests to do so.
“Here too, with the Obama promises, we must see the structure of the deal – and you see that the Americans are demanding that we come to a full agreement with the PA in order for the benefits to kick in,”Landau explained. “You only get the benefits in the event of a final-status agreement – only when everything is over.” Given the history of Israel-PA negotiations, the likelihood of that happening is “very low,” he added.
Perhaps even worse, Landau said, the understandings between Israel and the United States – which included American opposition to a unilaterally declared PA state – are apparently no longer extant, and have instead been turned into a “sword of Damocles,” to be held over the head of Israel.
“Until now, it was understood that the U.S. would veto” sanctions against Israel, or a non-negotiated settlement of the Middle East conflict. Apparently that has changed, Landau said. “The veto was promised and taken as a matter of course, as long as progress was being made and negotiations were continuing. No ‘gestures’ were required to expect it. Now, the American veto is being used as a threat against our negotiators, pressuring them to surrender our positions. If in a year there is no deal – and it’s unlikely there will be – the threat will descend like a sword on our heads, and the U.S. will blame us” and vote against Israel, Landau said.
“That’s why the Likud is presenting this deal as a ‘honey trap.’ They are right, but we’re much more likely to fall into the trap than to enjoy any honey,” Landau added.
Read the whole thing.
So far, Prime Minister Netanyahu is insisting on getting the offer in writing, and the United States is apparently having trouble producing it. Maybe there is still hope that this decree will be canceled. But I’m not optimistic. Our Prime Minister knows how to say “no” to Obama, but he apparently melts for Hillary Clinton.
What could go wrong?
it is very obvious that the present American leadership does not intend to keep it’s word. The deal is tempting only because Obama created a precedent where anything that our country claims can be withdrawn to an ally… and it would seem our enemies can do no wrong to receive the American tax dollar.