The medical system in Gaza has been paralyzed because of disputes between Hamas and Fatah.
It apparently started when Hamas arrested a prominent physician with ties to Fatah.
The Palestinian Authority being run by Mahmoud Abbas retaliated by ordering physicians to curtail their schedules in Gaza hospitals to three hours a day, forcing patients to go to private clinics.
Hamas retaliated by ordering the clinics to shut down immediately.
Palestinian Authority Information Minister Riad al-Malki said "Hamas is not interested in the quality of medical service." Clearly, neither is the Palestinian Authority.
Thus far, there have been no reports of any criticism from any of the activists who go into tirades every time Israel checks to make sure Palestinian Arab terrorists aren't transporting more bombs by ambulance.
Monday, August 27, 2007
8 Palestinians stopped from attacking Israeli towns
Struck by the abuse of language in the articles about attempted terrorist attacks, Don Morris rewrote the narrative to show how responsible reporting would more accurately portray what occurred.
GAZA CITY, 26 August 2007“With the help of the morning fog, two armed Palestinians managed to infiltrate Saturday into Israeli territory in the area of the Erez and Netiv Haassarah kibbutzim,” Tal Lev-Ram, an Israeli officer, told AFP.
Communities neighboring the collective farming villages were put on alert and roads were closed to traffic. It was only the second Palestinian operation of its kind since June last year when Gilad Shalit, a young Israeli soldier, was captured by Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip.
Three armed resistance factions, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Fatah, Al-Naser Brigades, the armed wing of the Popular Resistance Committees, and the National Resistance Brigades, the armed wing of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) have claimed responsibility for the latest “joint attack on Israeli territory.” A joint statement identified the dead as Khader Aokal, 22, a fighter from the Popular Resistance Committees, and Mohammed Saker, 22, from the DFLP.
The Gaza Strip is now run by the Islamist group Hamas, which captured the territory in June from forces loyal to the secular Fatah faction of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The attack groups boasted that they “managed to infiltrate Israeli territory and reach the Netiv Haassarah settlement where its two martyred fighters fought for three hours with the Israeli Army.” The same groups also claimed responsibility for a joint operation in the northern Gaza Strip on Friday evening in which two Palestinian fighters were killed by Israeli troops.
The incidents marked a surge in clashes with the Israeli Army in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The incidents marked a surge in clashes with the Israeli Army in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
In the northern West Bank town of Jenin yesterday, Israeli forces killed one Islamic Jihad fighter wanted by Israel and wounded two others, including one seriously, a Palestinian security official said. A security official later reported that the seriously wounded fighter died of his wounds. This has not however been validated as of this edition.
Two bystanders also sustained bullet wounds in the operation, the official added.The question why they were out in the open during a gunfight remains unanswered. An Israeli Army spokeswoman said troops shot three armed men in a car, considered enroute to attack Israeli citizens. No confirmation regarding their status. A 13-year-old Arab Israeli boy and a fighter from Islamic Jihad were shot dead late Friday when Israeli troops traded fire with fighters in the northern West Bank village of Saida, a Palestinian security source said. It is unclear why a young teenager was standing along side an armed Jihadist while he engaged in a para-military action against the Israeli army.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Palestinians Breach Israeli Border
We comment on excerpts from an article originally published by the Los Angeles Times and reprinted in the Hartford Courant about an infiltration from the Gaza Strip into Israel.
In a rare breach of Israel's border with the Gaza Strip, two heavily armed Palestinians scaled a 25-foot wall Saturday, opened fire on an army outpost and eluded capture for nearly a half-mile before soldiers tracked them down and killed them.
Gaza is totally under the control of the Palestinian Arabs; there is absolutely no rationalization that can be given for launching attacks against Israel and Israelis from Gaza; the only reasons for such attacks are hatred and the desire to destroy Israel and murder innocent Israelis.
The attack also demonstrates the need for barriers to protect Israelis from Arab terrorists. Without the barriers, there would be hundreds, if not thousands, of terrorists infiltrating, rather than just a handful.
The Palestinians carried grenades and automatic weapons.
Clearly, although anti-Israel fanatics rail about the Israel allegedly cutting off access to Gaza, the terrorists certainly have had little difficulty in obtaining weaponry.
Three militant groups, the Popular Resistance Committees, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack in a joint statement.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, an arm of Fatah, the supposedly "moderate" faction Palestinian Authority Chair Mahmoud Abbas. We keep hearing that Abbas is committed to peace, but his terrorist group has never eschewed violence.
Israel classifies Hamas as a terrorist group and has stepped up military incursions into the territory this summer to thwart rocket attacks and to search for cross-border tunnels.
There is a good reason why Israel "classifies Hamas as a terrorist group;" the reason is that Hamas is a terrorist group.
Israel is far from alone in recognizing that reality; one wonders why the the Los Angeles Times and Hartford Courant are afraid to simply state that reality, or even recognize that numerous countries, including our own, correctly classify Hamas as a terrorist group.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Routine Child Abuse in the Palestinian Authority
This past Tuesday, immediately after Kassam rockets had been fired from Gaza, two people who were moving towards the launchers, apparently sent to retrieve them, were killed by a tank shell. It turned out the two were nine and twelve year olds.
A source quoted in Ha'aretz <haaretz.com/hasen/spages/896224.html> said "This is a cynical use of children but we are no longer surprised by anything we see. A 14-year-old child has already fired an RPG rocket against an IDF force, a grandmother aged close to 70 fired a light weapon against a Givati [Brigade] force recently in the Strip. What were these children doing there anyway? The militants fled immediately after the launch and then sent the children to collect the launchers."
Such is the nature of the society developed by the Palestinian Authority. As Golda Meir observed, peace is not going to come until the Palestinian Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel.
As long as we accept the deviant behavior which is the norm among Palestinian Arabs and much of the rest of the Arab world, condescendingly believing they are not capable of any better, we only put that day off further into the future.
A source quoted in Ha'aretz <haaretz.com/hasen/spages/896224.html> said "This is a cynical use of children but we are no longer surprised by anything we see. A 14-year-old child has already fired an RPG rocket against an IDF force, a grandmother aged close to 70 fired a light weapon against a Givati [Brigade] force recently in the Strip. What were these children doing there anyway? The militants fled immediately after the launch and then sent the children to collect the launchers."
Such is the nature of the society developed by the Palestinian Authority. As Golda Meir observed, peace is not going to come until the Palestinian Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel.
As long as we accept the deviant behavior which is the norm among Palestinian Arabs and much of the rest of the Arab world, condescendingly believing they are not capable of any better, we only put that day off further into the future.
Friday, August 24, 2007
When Will We Ever Learn?
Do we really expect American training of terrorists will ever turn out any differently?
Fatah Militant: U.S. Training Was Key to Intifada's Success
By Aaron Klein - Special to the Sun
August 21, 2007
www.nysun.com/article/60989
RAMALLAH -- American-run programs that train Fatah militias were instrumental in the "success" of the Palestinian intifada that began in 2000, a senior Fatah militant told The New York Sun.
"I do not think that the operations of the Palestinian resistance would have been so successful and would have killed more than one thousand Israelis since 2000 and defeated the Israelis in Gaza without these [American] trainings," a senior officer of President Abbas's Force 17 Presidential Guard unit, Abu Yousuf, said.
America has longstanding training programs at a base in the West Bank city of Jericho for members of Force 17, which serves as de facto police units in the West Bank, and for another major Fatah security force, the Preventative Security Services.
This weekend diplomatic security officials announced that the State Department will begin training Force 17 again this year in an effort to bolster Mr. Abbas against Hamas, which took over the Gaza Strip in June when the terror group easily defeated American-backed Fatah forces in the territory.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Aksa Martyrs Brigades: We'll no longer honor agreements with Israel — So what else is new?
As reported by the Jerusalem Post:
The Aksa Martyrs Brigades is part of Fatah, the good terrorist gang, as opposed to Hamas, the bad terrorist gang.
The difference is that while Hamas speaks hatred out of both sides of its mouth, on one side of its mouth Fatah feigns an interest in peace, as long as Israel capitulates completely, while on the other side of its mouth it refuses to adhere to any of the agreements it makes and glorifies terrorists.
Israel and the United States are insisting that Hamas agree to adhere to previous agreements before entering into any dialog, but ignores the fact that the Palestinian Authority under Fatah has never adhered to any of those agreements either.
Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, on Tuesday announced that it would no longer honor understandings reached with Israel and called on its members to carry weapons to defend themselves against the IDF.So much for the latest exercise in futility.
"We call on all our members who had handed over their weapons to the Palestinian security forces to report to their commanders so that they can be issued new weapons," said a leaflet distributed by the group in Ramallah.
The Aksa Martyrs Brigades is part of Fatah, the good terrorist gang, as opposed to Hamas, the bad terrorist gang.
The difference is that while Hamas speaks hatred out of both sides of its mouth, on one side of its mouth Fatah feigns an interest in peace, as long as Israel capitulates completely, while on the other side of its mouth it refuses to adhere to any of the agreements it makes and glorifies terrorists.
Israel and the United States are insisting that Hamas agree to adhere to previous agreements before entering into any dialog, but ignores the fact that the Palestinian Authority under Fatah has never adhered to any of those agreements either.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Imbalanced Study: "God's Warriors"
A review (written by Joe Amarante, published in the New Haven Register) of a television series begins "Incisive and as disturbing as it is thoughtprovoking, 'CNN Presents: God's Warriors' shines a spotlight on religious fundamentalism as a global political force. And only one-third of the zealots seen here are Muslim."
Other snippets from the review:
"For one group, that might be sexual permissiveness and Britney Spears; for another, it's abortion and homosexuality; and for a third, it's breaking their covenant with God if they don't control the entire biblical land of milk and honey."
"Part One looks at 'God's Jewish Warriors,' who have worked to settle Jews in the West Bank and other disputed areas, on biblical grounds, despite the fact it infuriates Palestinians."
"Part Two ... centers on 'God's Muslim Warriors,' and we've become increasingly acquainted with them over the past several years."
"Part Three on Christian fundamentalist includes the last TV interview with Jerry Falwell before he died."
This creates a false balance. While I have some problems with Christian fundamentalism, at this time it is hardly in the same class as Islamist fundamentalism. We do not find Christian fundamentalists murdering thousands of innocent people around the world.
And, as for "Part One," consider how one would react to "Part Four looks at "God's Baptist Warriors," who have worked to settle Blacks in cities and suburbs and other segregated areas throughout America, on human rights grounds, despite the fact it infuriates the Klu Klux Klan."
Or consider "Part Five looks at 'God's Islamist Warriors,' who have worked to settle hostile Palestinian Arabs all over Eretz Yisrael, drive out the Jewish population and destroy the Jewish state, on the grounds that 'Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection,' as explained in the Hamas Charter, despite the fact that it infuriates the innocent Jews they are murdering and trying to wipe off the face of the earth."
The reviewer pointed out "only one-third of the zealots seen here are Muslim," but there is certainly no balance between those Muslim fanatics, Christian fundamentalists and Jews trying to remain in their ancestral homeland. In falsely trying to imply a balance and moral equivalence, CNN is doing a disservice to all.
Other snippets from the review:
"For one group, that might be sexual permissiveness and Britney Spears; for another, it's abortion and homosexuality; and for a third, it's breaking their covenant with God if they don't control the entire biblical land of milk and honey."
"Part One looks at 'God's Jewish Warriors,' who have worked to settle Jews in the West Bank and other disputed areas, on biblical grounds, despite the fact it infuriates Palestinians."
"Part Two ... centers on 'God's Muslim Warriors,' and we've become increasingly acquainted with them over the past several years."
"Part Three on Christian fundamentalist includes the last TV interview with Jerry Falwell before he died."
This creates a false balance. While I have some problems with Christian fundamentalism, at this time it is hardly in the same class as Islamist fundamentalism. We do not find Christian fundamentalists murdering thousands of innocent people around the world.
And, as for "Part One," consider how one would react to "Part Four looks at "God's Baptist Warriors," who have worked to settle Blacks in cities and suburbs and other segregated areas throughout America, on human rights grounds, despite the fact it infuriates the Klu Klux Klan."
Or consider "Part Five looks at 'God's Islamist Warriors,' who have worked to settle hostile Palestinian Arabs all over Eretz Yisrael, drive out the Jewish population and destroy the Jewish state, on the grounds that 'Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection,' as explained in the Hamas Charter, despite the fact that it infuriates the innocent Jews they are murdering and trying to wipe off the face of the earth."
The reviewer pointed out "only one-third of the zealots seen here are Muslim," but there is certainly no balance between those Muslim fanatics, Christian fundamentalists and Jews trying to remain in their ancestral homeland. In falsely trying to imply a balance and moral equivalence, CNN is doing a disservice to all.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Overabundance of Sand in the Middle East
The following is part of a response I wrote to a column published in the August, 2007 issue of The Waterbury Observer.
There's an abundance of sand in the Middle East and, with her rambling, uninformed, misleading, illogical and even hypocritical article "Ned Lamont-Where are you?," once again Marilyn Aligata has demonstrated that she has been hiding her head in it.
First the hypocrisy. On the one hand, Aligata complained "its (sic) offensive to me and the American people who oppose the war to be accused of being unpatriotic." On the other hand, she effectively made that very accusation about a United States senator from Connecticut.
As I wrote after a similar accusation was made in the Waterbury Republican-American, impugning the patriotism of that United States senator by asserting he acts "without thinking what is in the best interest of the American people" goes "beyond the line separating legitimate and illegitimate discourse. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, one of our nation's oldest and most respected civil rights organizations, has pointed out the charge of dual loyalty is 'a classical canard of anti-Semitism.'"
The illogical: Aligata spends a good portion of her column on the danger of nuclear weapons, pointing out how Albert Einstein realized "nuclear weapons were a profound risk to humanity and could bring an end to civilization." She then castigates that same United States senator for his efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring those very weapons, whose acquisition would vastly increase that profound risk to humanity.
The head in the sand: Islamist fundamentalism in general and the particularly virulent strand being spread by the leaders in Iran in particular form a danger to the civilized world. I am not among those who believe there is a basic problem with Islam as a religion. From what I've studied, it appears Islam is far more similar to both Christianity and Judaism than it is different. Still, one has to have one's head in the sand to not recognize a significant number of fanatics, including the president of Iran and the mullahs who are really in charge there, have been perverting Islam to their own sick ends.
Indeed, almost every declared presidential candidate, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, has agreed on the critical nature of preventing the Iranian fanatics from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. They too have refused to take the option of using force off the table. Effectively, they have all agreed with the Connecticut senator Aligata has singled out for criticism, although, recognizing it is not an issue likely to win votes, none have been as outspoken.
I do not question Aligata's sincere desire for peace. I do question whether it is any more sincere than that of those she clearly believes are warmongers.
I cannot help but remember how popular Neville Chamberlain was right after appeasing Hitler at Munich and how unpopular Winston Churchill was for supposedly beating the drums for war. I cannot help but wonder how many millions of lives would have been saved had the British listened to Churchill rather than Chamberlain.
Only history, if civilization survives and we still have historians, will determine whether Aligata is a Chamberlain and Lieberman is a Churchill.
I do fear for the future and remember the warning from former CIA Director James Woolsey. He and others have pointed out that during the Cold War mutual assured destruction (MAD) worked because we were dealing with a regime which, ruthless though it was, ultimately wanted its people to live, while for the Iranian mullahs the threat of mutual assured destruction is an incentive rather than a deterrent.
I do fear that, if the Iranian mullahs get their hands on nuclear weapons, both September 11 and the genocide in Darfur will seem like the good old days.
I'd love to join Aligata and put my head in the sand with hers. Unfortunately, my conscience won't let me.
There's an abundance of sand in the Middle East and, with her rambling, uninformed, misleading, illogical and even hypocritical article "Ned Lamont-Where are you?," once again Marilyn Aligata has demonstrated that she has been hiding her head in it.
First the hypocrisy. On the one hand, Aligata complained "its (sic) offensive to me and the American people who oppose the war to be accused of being unpatriotic." On the other hand, she effectively made that very accusation about a United States senator from Connecticut.
As I wrote after a similar accusation was made in the Waterbury Republican-American, impugning the patriotism of that United States senator by asserting he acts "without thinking what is in the best interest of the American people" goes "beyond the line separating legitimate and illegitimate discourse. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, one of our nation's oldest and most respected civil rights organizations, has pointed out the charge of dual loyalty is 'a classical canard of anti-Semitism.'"
The illogical: Aligata spends a good portion of her column on the danger of nuclear weapons, pointing out how Albert Einstein realized "nuclear weapons were a profound risk to humanity and could bring an end to civilization." She then castigates that same United States senator for his efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring those very weapons, whose acquisition would vastly increase that profound risk to humanity.
The head in the sand: Islamist fundamentalism in general and the particularly virulent strand being spread by the leaders in Iran in particular form a danger to the civilized world. I am not among those who believe there is a basic problem with Islam as a religion. From what I've studied, it appears Islam is far more similar to both Christianity and Judaism than it is different. Still, one has to have one's head in the sand to not recognize a significant number of fanatics, including the president of Iran and the mullahs who are really in charge there, have been perverting Islam to their own sick ends.
Indeed, almost every declared presidential candidate, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, has agreed on the critical nature of preventing the Iranian fanatics from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. They too have refused to take the option of using force off the table. Effectively, they have all agreed with the Connecticut senator Aligata has singled out for criticism, although, recognizing it is not an issue likely to win votes, none have been as outspoken.
I do not question Aligata's sincere desire for peace. I do question whether it is any more sincere than that of those she clearly believes are warmongers.
I cannot help but remember how popular Neville Chamberlain was right after appeasing Hitler at Munich and how unpopular Winston Churchill was for supposedly beating the drums for war. I cannot help but wonder how many millions of lives would have been saved had the British listened to Churchill rather than Chamberlain.
Only history, if civilization survives and we still have historians, will determine whether Aligata is a Chamberlain and Lieberman is a Churchill.
I do fear for the future and remember the warning from former CIA Director James Woolsey. He and others have pointed out that during the Cold War mutual assured destruction (MAD) worked because we were dealing with a regime which, ruthless though it was, ultimately wanted its people to live, while for the Iranian mullahs the threat of mutual assured destruction is an incentive rather than a deterrent.
I do fear that, if the Iranian mullahs get their hands on nuclear weapons, both September 11 and the genocide in Darfur will seem like the good old days.
I'd love to join Aligata and put my head in the sand with hers. Unfortunately, my conscience won't let me.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Definition of a Palestinian Arab Moderate
Sometimes the lesser of two evils is still evil.
In the context of what passes for Palestinian Arab society, Hamas is generally described as extremist and Fatah is generally described as "moderate."
Everything is relative.
This week, a school in Tulkarm, under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, led by the "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas, organized a soccer tournament and named it after Ziyad Da'as.
Da'as was the architect of a 2002 terrorist attack at a Bat Mitzvah in Hadera in which six innocent Israelis were murdered and another thirty were injured. He was also involved in the kidnapping and murder of two Israelis in Tulkarm in 2001.
This is not the first and undoubtedly will not be the last time the "moderate" Palestinian Arabs honor a terrorist they consider "one of the brave people of the Palestinian resistance."
If the Palestinian Arabs stop resisting long enough, they might find the time to establish the state they've simultaneously insisted upon and rejected for more than seventy years.
In the context of what passes for Palestinian Arab society, Hamas is generally described as extremist and Fatah is generally described as "moderate."
Everything is relative.
This week, a school in Tulkarm, under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, led by the "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas, organized a soccer tournament and named it after Ziyad Da'as.
Da'as was the architect of a 2002 terrorist attack at a Bat Mitzvah in Hadera in which six innocent Israelis were murdered and another thirty were injured. He was also involved in the kidnapping and murder of two Israelis in Tulkarm in 2001.
This is not the first and undoubtedly will not be the last time the "moderate" Palestinian Arabs honor a terrorist they consider "one of the brave people of the Palestinian resistance."
If the Palestinian Arabs stop resisting long enough, they might find the time to establish the state they've simultaneously insisted upon and rejected for more than seventy years.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
There once was a time when your word mattered
There once was a time when your word mattered…people were held accountable…seems as though this has disappeared along with the rotary dial phone!
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
Fatah leader in secret talks with Hamas behind Abbas’ back
August 6, 2007,
DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources reveal that Mahmoud Abbas’ close adviser, Jibril Rajoub, is holding secret talks with the Gazan Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad.
Broad influential circles in Fatah, led by Jibril and Hanni al-Hassan, criticize as shortsighted and destined to be short-lived Abbas’ policy of separating the West Bank from Gaza and boycotting Hamas.
This falling away of support for Abbas in his own movement throws further in doubt the US-Israeli strategy of putting all their Palestinian apples in his West Bank basket, as manifested in American dollars and Israeli concessions on security.
At his meeting with the Israeli prime minister Monday, Abbas planned to demand further gestures of support, such as the release of more Palestinian prisoners, the removal of roadblocks and progress on fundamental issues. Realistically, their positions were too far apart for an agreed agenda.
Olmert faces opposition within his government. Defense minister Ehud Barak has distanced himself from his pro-Fatah Palestinian track. At meetings with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week, the defense minister was noncommittal on this issue, commenting that it was in the prime minister’s hands. Privately, Barak believes Olmert is overplaying his association with Abbas - most of all to shore up his own flagging leadership at home. The minister is therefore biding his time until the tactic breaks down.
The dim view of the process held in the defense ministry and IDF command found expression in the briefing military intelligence research chief Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz gave the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee Sunday, Aug. 5. The West Bank was the next Fatah-Hamas arena of conflict, he said, and Fatah has no chance of standing up to Hamas there, any more than it did in Gaza. Abbas’ forces are completely dependent on the Israeli army to keep Hamas in check, he said.
For more : www.debka.com.
Wait, still more news and from America …on August 8, US House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has warned Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas not to talk to an unreformed Hamas about reentering a unity government ahead of a visit to Israel and the West Bank next week.
"Dealing with Hamas and being in any coalition with Hamas [without Hamas accepting international demands to stop terrorism and recognize Israel] would be something which we would look on with opposition and suspicion," Hoyer (D-Maryland) told The Jerusalem Post in a telephone interview Wednesday. He said such a government would be a "setback" and a "cause for concern."
Hoyer's comments followed a Post report that officials from Abbas's Fatah party have been conducting secret negotiations with Hamas about a possible reconciliation, with the help of mediators from Arab countries.
Let’s put this together. Abbas received President Bush’s support; Rice visits us and brings a delightful package of monies and weapons. Olmert along with our new President Peres (ceremonial job only) support the Saudi plan, tell us we must buoy Abbas in the disputed territories and America’s legislature mandates that Abbas stay away from Hamas. Abbas agrees publicly to “never talk with Hamas” at the same time his own officials have opened a ”secret dialogue” with Hamas. All of this took place in less than a week. Do you see any disconnections, contradictions and outright foolishness?
Assume you know nothing about this region but were only told about this behavior. Tell me, if your own children stood in front of you and lied about staying away from the neighbor’s children while all the while playing with them, what would you believe? What would you do? Can you honestly tell me that you now trust your child to speak the truth? What if anything would you do to discipline your child? Your responses will speak volumes!
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
Fatah leader in secret talks with Hamas behind Abbas’ back
August 6, 2007,
DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources reveal that Mahmoud Abbas’ close adviser, Jibril Rajoub, is holding secret talks with the Gazan Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad.
Broad influential circles in Fatah, led by Jibril and Hanni al-Hassan, criticize as shortsighted and destined to be short-lived Abbas’ policy of separating the West Bank from Gaza and boycotting Hamas.
This falling away of support for Abbas in his own movement throws further in doubt the US-Israeli strategy of putting all their Palestinian apples in his West Bank basket, as manifested in American dollars and Israeli concessions on security.
At his meeting with the Israeli prime minister Monday, Abbas planned to demand further gestures of support, such as the release of more Palestinian prisoners, the removal of roadblocks and progress on fundamental issues. Realistically, their positions were too far apart for an agreed agenda.
Olmert faces opposition within his government. Defense minister Ehud Barak has distanced himself from his pro-Fatah Palestinian track. At meetings with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week, the defense minister was noncommittal on this issue, commenting that it was in the prime minister’s hands. Privately, Barak believes Olmert is overplaying his association with Abbas - most of all to shore up his own flagging leadership at home. The minister is therefore biding his time until the tactic breaks down.
The dim view of the process held in the defense ministry and IDF command found expression in the briefing military intelligence research chief Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz gave the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee Sunday, Aug. 5. The West Bank was the next Fatah-Hamas arena of conflict, he said, and Fatah has no chance of standing up to Hamas there, any more than it did in Gaza. Abbas’ forces are completely dependent on the Israeli army to keep Hamas in check, he said.
For more : www.debka.com.
Wait, still more news and from America …on August 8, US House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has warned Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas not to talk to an unreformed Hamas about reentering a unity government ahead of a visit to Israel and the West Bank next week.
"Dealing with Hamas and being in any coalition with Hamas [without Hamas accepting international demands to stop terrorism and recognize Israel] would be something which we would look on with opposition and suspicion," Hoyer (D-Maryland) told The Jerusalem Post in a telephone interview Wednesday. He said such a government would be a "setback" and a "cause for concern."
Hoyer's comments followed a Post report that officials from Abbas's Fatah party have been conducting secret negotiations with Hamas about a possible reconciliation, with the help of mediators from Arab countries.
Let’s put this together. Abbas received President Bush’s support; Rice visits us and brings a delightful package of monies and weapons. Olmert along with our new President Peres (ceremonial job only) support the Saudi plan, tell us we must buoy Abbas in the disputed territories and America’s legislature mandates that Abbas stay away from Hamas. Abbas agrees publicly to “never talk with Hamas” at the same time his own officials have opened a ”secret dialogue” with Hamas. All of this took place in less than a week. Do you see any disconnections, contradictions and outright foolishness?
Assume you know nothing about this region but were only told about this behavior. Tell me, if your own children stood in front of you and lied about staying away from the neighbor’s children while all the while playing with them, what would you believe? What would you do? Can you honestly tell me that you now trust your child to speak the truth? What if anything would you do to discipline your child? Your responses will speak volumes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
