Tag: Palestinian Politics


After Tel Aviv Shooter Killed, Difficult Questions for Police and Israeli Arabs ‎: Avi Issacharoff, Times of Israel, Jan. 10, 2016 — The killing of Nashat Milhem Friday, a week after he shot dead three people in Tel Aviv, won’t be remembered as much of a success for the security establishment.

The Return of the Rule of Law: Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 4, 2015 — Last October, as the Palestinians began their latest round of terrorist war against Israel, lawmakers from the Joint Arab List participated in mass anti-Israel rallies in major Arab towns.

One of the World's Most Mysterious Organizations Gets a New Boss: Ronen Bergman, Ynet, Jan. 5, 2016— An elegant brown wooden pole, named "The Mossad Rod," is respectfully stored in a closed room in the Mossad headquarters north of Tel Aviv.

President Rivlin Must Eschew Politics: Isi Leibler, Israel Hayom, Dec. 17, 2015 — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was widely criticized last year for his efforts in trying to ‎prevent Reuven Rivlin from being elected president.


On Topic Links


Police Kill Suspected Tel Aviv Gunman in Northern Israel After Week-long Manhunt: Yaniv Kubovich and Noa Shpigel, Ha’aretz, Jan. 8, 2016

Netanyahu May Form Israeli 'Republican' Party: Arutz Sheva, Sept. 11, 2015

A Conversation With Ayelet Shaked, Israel’s Firebrand Minister of Justice: Liel Leibovitz, Tablet, Nov. 6, 2015

If Israel Disappears, Others Will Too: Mudar Zahran, Israel Hayom, July 9, 2015







Avi Issacharoff

Times of Israel, Jan. 10, 2016


The killing of Nashat Milhem Friday, a week after he shot dead three people in Tel Aviv, won’t be remembered as much of a success for the security establishment. On the tactical level, more than a few problems came to light concerning the attack. The first has to do with intelligence. While it’s certainly possible that the killer acted alone, using a submachine gun he stole from his father, it’s hard to comprehend why the father would keep such a weapon in the house even after his son served a five-year sentence for trying to snatch a rifle from a soldier.


Furthermore, despite the fact that security forces knew that Milhem was in the area of his hometown of Arara – there were clear indications that he was there hours after the shooting – it took a long time to get to him. The fact that he was hiding out in a more-or-less obvious place – an unoccupied house belonging to a family member – compounds the sense of failure.


The episode is reminiscent of the 2014 abduction-killing of three Israeli teens. In that case, the victims were buried in a plot belonging to the family of one of the terrorists, who hid in a building belonging to an extended family member. The takeaway – that fugitives often seek shelter in places that they know well – makes the fact it took eight days to get to Milhem even puzzling.


Still, on a more strategic level, it is important to note that even if Milhem’s shooting spree really was a “lone wolf” attack (at this point, it is not at all clear that that was the case), the excellent intelligence deployment of the Shin Bet security services in the Palestinian territories and among Israeli Arabs doesn’t make it easy to deal with the problem. There is a genuine difficulty among the intelligence community in countering the impossible challenge of “lone wolves” with access to weapons, who set out one fine day, without any prior warning, to carry out an attack.


The Shin Bet has had multiple successes in recent weeks thwarting organized terror cells sporting multiple members. The problem is that these days, there is an ever-growing mass of incidents – especially in the West Bank, where they are a daily occurrence – involving attackers who don’t rely on what the security establishment terms “terror infrastructure.” And then there’s the attitude of the Israel Police, which last week gave many citizens the sense that it was downplaying their genuine fears amid ongoing uncertainty and reports that Milhem could strike again.


But perhaps even more troubling than the security establishment’s dubious ability to cope with the situation was support for the attack among Israel’s Arab population. True, there were many condemnations, even among Milhem’s own neighbors. And yet it is becoming increasingly clear that the killer may have received help not only from his own family, but also from other friends and acquaintances. For one thing, we still don’t know who helped him get to Arara from Tel Aviv after carrying out the attack.


And of course, after he was killed by security forces, there was that – albeit small – demonstration during which young Arabs chanted, “With blood, with fire, we’ll avenge the martyr.” Milhem, we must recall, had murdered not only two Jews, Alon Bakal and Shimon Ruimi, but also an Arab resident of Lod, Ayman Shaaban.


Hamas, as expected, jumped on the bandwagon and embraced the murderer as a role model, while the Palestinian Authority equivocated, calling him a “martyr” but refusing to award him the status that would entitle his family to financial aid. Meanwhile, the ultra-radical Islamic State group appeared to scramble to declare that Milhem was one of its own, crowning Milhem an IS martyr for Palestine in a statement whose authenticity has yet to be established.


Finally, the big question that everyone here – Jews and Arabs alike – should be losing sleep over is whether Milhem’s action will sweep up and inspire others, sparking a trend among young Israeli Arabs. If, heaven forbid, a similar incident were to occur again, the already delicate relations between Jews and Arabs could sustain a heavy blow, and everyone will pay a price.


Almost as expected in times like these, the voice of the Israeli Arab leadership is not being heard very loudly. Members of Knesset known for their vehement condemnations when Palestinians are accidentally killed by IDF soldiers, go silent when an Arab is murdered by another Arab. True, some of them condemned the Tel Aviv attacks. But since the slaying of Milhem, not one of them has stood in front of the cameras and called on his or her supporters to denounce the likes of Milhem. For them, to condemn the death of an Arab at the hands of another Arab would simply be bad politics.





THE RETURN OF THE RULE OF LAW                                                                                                          

Caroline Glick                                                                                                    

Jerusalem Post, Jan. 4, 2016


Last October, as the Palestinians began their latest round of terrorist war against Israel, lawmakers from the Joint Arab List participated in mass anti-Israel rallies in major Arab towns. One such rally in Nazareth in mid-October attracted some 2,500 participants. After it ended, some demonstrators started throwing rocks at Jews. The next day, MK Ayman Odeh, who heads the Joint Arab List stood on a street in Nazareth and gave a live interview to Channel 2 news.


Just as the camera began filming, Nazareth Mayor Ali Salam drove down the street. Seeing Odeh, Salam stopped his car and began bellowing, “Get out of here! Enough of your interviews. Go ruin things somewhere else!” Odeh tried lamely to get the camera to stop filming. But Salam continued shouting.


“You guys ruined the city. I’m the mayor… there wasn’t even one Jew here today. Not even one! What are you being interviewed about? What are you doing to us?… You had a march, you guys torched the world. Shut up! Leave! Move it!” Salam’s outburst did not come out of nowhere. He was voicing the frustration that most Israeli Arabs feel towards their Knesset representatives who spend far more time demonizing Israel than advancing the interests of Arab Israelis inside of Israel.


According to the latest detailed survey of Arab Israelis published in November by Prof. Sami Smooha, 60 percent of Israeli Arabs do not trust their representatives in the Knesset. Two thirds of Israeli Arabs say that their Knesset representatives are not advancing their interests. A full 80% of Israeli Arabs believe that it is the job of the Arab members of Knesset to advance their communal interests rather than concentrate on political war against Israel. Most Israeli Arabs would probably agree that they are hurt by the political war against Israel. After all, 77% of Israeli Arabs define themselves as Israelis, 60% accept Israel as a Jewish state, and 54% believe Israeli democracy extends to them.


While Odeh’s constituents feel betrayed by him, the Obama administration apparently can’t get enough of him and his anti-Israel message. Last month Odeh became the first Israeli Arab politician to receive an audience at the White House. While in the US, Odeh was hailed as an Israeli Martin Luther King Jr. as he trampled on the civil rights of Jews. Odeh insulted the American Jewish community by refusing at the last moment to participate in a meeting with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.


As the leaders of the Conference’s member organizations sat waiting for him at the Conference’s offices in New York, Odeh stood in the building’s lobby and refused to get into the elevator. Odeh, a member of Knesset who has sworn allegiance to the Jewish state, wouldn’t meet with the American Jewish leaders because the Conference offices are located on the same floor as the Jewish Agency’s offices. And the leader of the third-largest Knesset faction didn’t want to give any legitimacy to Israel’s national institutions.


In light of Odeh’s insulting bigotry, it is troubling that the Obama administration spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to train Odeh’s political operatives and help them campaign during last year’s Knesset elections. It is similarly distressing that to elevate Odeh, the administration broke protocol and rolled out the red carpet for him, even as his own constituents attack him for effectively disenfranchising them.


It is against the backdrop of Odeh’s US-supported irredentism that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave one of the most significant speeches of his career Saturday night. Standing at the site of Friday’s Islamic State-like massacre in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu said that the time has come for Israeli Arabs – and their leaders – to recognize that with equal rights come equal obligations. In his words, “One cannot say ‘I am an Israeli in rights and a Palestinian in obligations.’ Whoever wants to be Israeli should be an Israeli all the way, both in rights and in obligations, and the first and highest obligation is to obey the laws of the state.”


Netanyahu demanded that the Arab members of Knesset denounce the attack and condemned the rampant incitement against Israel that takes place in the Israeli Arab sector. He then announced that the government will be investing billions of shekels in massively strengthening law enforcement in Israeli Arab towns and villages, and will seize the tens of thousands of illegal firearms that are now held by Israeli Arabs.


Netanyahu ended his remarks by embracing the integrationist trend among Israeli Arabs. In his words, “I view positively the increasing involvement in the IDF, in national service and in the overall life of the state, of the Christian, Druze and northern Bedouin communities, and within the Muslim community as well. I call on all citizens of Israel, especially its Muslim citizens, to take the path of integration, coexistence and peace and not the path of incitement, hatred and fanaticism. We are all citizens of the state and are all bound to maintain it and uphold its laws.”…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]





                ORGANIZATIONS GETS A NEW BOSS                                                                                            

                     Ronen Bergman

Ynet, Jan. 5, 2016


An elegant brown wooden pole, named "The Mossad Rod," is respectfully stored in a closed room in the Mossad headquarters north of Tel Aviv. Displayed on one of its ends is the secret organization's symbol and its famous slogan, borrowed from a verse in the Book of Proverbs (11:14): "Where no wise guidance is, the people falleth; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.." The bottom of the pole is encircled by 10 golden rings, each of them bearing the name of one of the Mossad chief who ended their terms.


On Wednesday morning, the "Mossad Rod" will receive a new ring, its 11th one, and the name of the organization director ending his term that day, Tamir Pardo, will be imprinted on it. While the rings are identical, each represents a completely different term. There is a deep difference between Pardo's term and the term of the owner of the preceding ring, Meir Dagan. It's reasonable to assume that the term of Yossi Cohen, who will replace Pardo that day and become the 12th Mossad director (the seventh to have grown within the organization) will be completely different, if only because of the major personality and outlook differences between them, alongside the regional environment in which the Mossad is required to operate and is undergoing dramatic and swift changes – the Arab Spring, the Iranian nuclear project challenge and the influence of the Islamic State.


When Cohen takes office, he will make history: The first Mossad chief to have grown and operated in the organization throughout almost all his years of activity, commanding Junction (Tzomet in Hebrew), the organization's biggest department which is responsible for recruiting and operating agents. Traditionally, most of the Mossad directors' bureau chiefs came from that department, but the head of the organization had never been appointed from there. Cohen will be making further history due to the fact that for the first time, a head of the National Security Council is being promoted to a higher position and is not ending his career in that position.


The Mossad which Yossi Cohen is taking charge of Wednesday is a large organization, one of the biggest intelligence organizations in the Western world, which deals with a diverse and difficult target list. According to the Mossad charter, the organization's goals are: "Secretly collecting information (strategic, diplomatic and operative) outside the State's borders; conducting special operations beyond the State of Israel's borders; stopping hostile countries from developing unconventional weapons and arming themselves with them; thwarting terrorist activities against Israeli and Jewish targets abroad; bringing Jews from countries which are preventing them from immigrating and creating a defense framework for the Jews in those countries."


The definition of these goals clarifies just how different the Mossad is from other intelligence organizations: It is not only required to provide intelligence, but also to carry out special operations; it is responsible for both intelligence relations and diplomatic relations with countries which do not have open ties with Israel; it is required to protect not only the citizens of the State of Israel, but sees itself as the defender of all Jews in the world, and as an organization required to help smuggle Jews from hostile countries.


There has never been another intelligence service in the history of mankind which has been forced to engage in so many missions, which are so different from each other. Cohen is arriving at this position after two prominent and strong-minded Mossad chiefs, who shaped the organization according to their image and outlook. In 2002, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided that he was looking for someone with "a knife between his teeth" for the organization's leadership, and decided to give the job to his subordinate and associate from the IDF, Meir Dagan.


After a period which was considered drowsy under Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, Dagan sent the entire organization into a state of operational madness. He narrowed down and emphasized the organization's list of targets, opened the organization to cooperation with moderate countries in the Middle East, which see the situation in the region as Israel sees it, and mainly pushed for more and more operations. The Mossad went back to being an important player vis-à-vis other intelligence organizations in Israel and vis-à-vis colleagues in the United States and Europe.


Dagan, a man with particularly sharp senses, realized that the war is against enemies, but it also over consciousness. The thunderous operations attributed to the Mossad made his workers proud and perpetuated once again the myth about the most mysterious, efficient and lethal organization in the world. After every headline about a mysterious blast or assassination which no one knew who was behind but assumed it was the Mossad, the organization's website nearly collapsed with so many requests flowing in from candidates.


During that period in Dagan's term, Yossi Cohen made a name for himself as a meteor in the skies of the Mossad. Then, about 10 years ago, we wrote that he would make a possible candidate to serve as head of the organization one day.


As it is forbidden to identify active Mossad personnel by name under Israeli law, we gave the senior organization officials nicknames. We called Cohen "the model" due to his handsome appearance and meticulous clothing (he was the only one who had the courage to wear pink shirts in the ultra conservative Mossad working environment, and with cufflinks, no less). This nickname, which was later criticized as superficial and objectifying, was well received and many in the Mossad and the intelligence community began referring to Cohen that way.


Cohen himself, upon joining the Mossad in the early 1980s, chose the operational nickname "Callan," after the tough, brilliant, and sarcastic hero of a spy series from the 1970s, who does not hesitate to use the most aggressive methods, including torture and assassinations, in order to protect the United Kingdom's citizens. It wouldn’t be a wild guess that Cohen saw himself as very similar to that "Callan." Yossi Cohen was raised in a religious family in Jerusalem and studied in a yeshiva. To this very day he (partially) and his family (fully) observe a religious lifestyle and he is very knowledgeable about the Mishnah and debates of Jewish wisdom…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]





Isi Leibler

Israel Hayom, Dec. 17, 2015


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was widely criticized last year for his efforts in trying to ‎prevent Reuven Rivlin from being elected president. However, given Rivlin's ‎recent engagement in politics, which is constitutionally beyond the jurisdiction of ‎the primarily ceremonial role of the president, there may have been significant ‎substance to Netanyahu's concerns.‎ Like most Israelis, I have a fondness for Rivlin as a ‎friendly character, a man of the people. He is a stark contrast to his predecessor, ‎Shimon Peres, the ultimate diplomat, always coiffed and sartorially elegant. He was admired from a distance, sought to present himself as ‎a cosmopolitan intellectual, and succeeded.‎

The more avuncular Rivlin, who worshipped at my local synagogue during the ‎High Holidays, endeared himself to all, ignoring protocol and mingling with the ‎congregants after the service. The intimacy he projects by rubbing shoulders ‎rather than acting as a formal diplomat has made him highly popular at the grass-‎roots level. Besides, he is in every sense a warm and genial personality who ‎instinctively recoils from pomp and ceremony.‎ Alas, in recent months he has become increasingly involved in politics, which ‎should be beyond his domain. Admittedly, some of his predecessors, including ‎Peres and the late Ezer Weizman, also breached the boundaries of their ‎ceremonial constitutional roles and dabbled in politics.‎


But what makes Rivlin more controversial is that he has seemingly adopted public ‎policies quite inconsistent with his former role as a Likud hard-liner. He has ‎increasingly been publicly critical of government policies and initiated policy ‎innovations that are totally beyond his jurisdiction, such as his recent call for the ‎creation of a confederation of Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians.‎ He has now gone further, and during his recent visit to the United States made ‎totally inappropriate statements and innuendoes about his country, indirectly ‎criticizing his government's failure to take diplomatic initiatives, which obviously ‎endeared him to U.S. President Barack Obama and the liberal media. ‎


But it was his contentious decision to participate in the Haaretz-New Israel Fund ‎conference in New York and some of the extraordinary statements he made at ‎that venue that suggest he may be losing the plot. ‎ NGO Monitor refers to the politically far-left New Israel Fund as an organization ‎‎"active in repeating unsupported allegations of deliberate, systematic, and ‎widespread targeting of Palestinian civilians; war crimes and crimes against ‎humanity, and grave violations of international humanitarian law." The NIF also ‎provides funds for Jewish and Arab groups that oppose Zionism and a two-state ‎solution.‎


The conference was essentially a hate-fest and an effort by left-wing American ‎Jews to exert pressure on the democratically elected Israeli government and its ‎security policies, which enjoy the support of the vast majority of its citizens. It ‎attracted a host of anti-Israeli elements, including prominent promoters of ‎the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement such as former Pink Floyd ‎frontman Roger Waters.‎

The conference was addressed by chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who ‎fully endorses and takes part in the evil incitement that has led to the current killing ‎spree against Israelis emanating from his boss, Palestinian Authority President ‎Mahmoud Abbas. To compound matters, Erekat demanded that the Israeli flag be ‎withdrawn from the platform, and, disgustingly, his hosts complied with this ‎request. In his address, Erekat "congratulated" Netanyahu for "destroying a culture of ‎negotiations, a culture of dialogue, and a culture of peace." Speaking with a ‎forked tongue and claiming he supports a two-state solution, Erekat accused ‎Israel of "promoting apartheid." He also told the gathering that Israeli security ‎forces had killed his nephew last month — but failed to point out that he was killed ‎after having shot and wounded two Israelis in Jerusalem. His address received a ‎standing ovation from the audience of "progressive" Jews.‎..                    

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]



On Topic


Police Kill Suspected Tel Aviv Gunman in Northern Israel After Week-long Manhunt: Yaniv Kubovich and Noa Shpigel, Ha’aretz, Jan. 8, 2016—Nashat Melhem, the suspected gunman behind the Tel Aviv shooting last week, was shot dead in a firefight with police forces in his hometown of Arara in northern Israel on Friday. 

Netanyahu May Form Israeli 'Republican' Party: Arutz Sheva, Sept. 11, 2015—Senior journalist Yossi Verter reported on Friday in the leftist paper Haaretz that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is considering forming a politically right-centrist bloc of parties to run on a joint list in the next elections.

A Conversation With Ayelet Shaked, Israel’s Firebrand Minister of Justice: Liel Leibovitz, Tablet, Nov. 6, 2015—Ayelet Shaked is an anomaly in Israeli politics. She’s a successful female politician in a landscape governed almost entirely by the male graduates of the Israel Defense Forces’ elite units. She’s a secular woman who had ascended the ranks of a religious party. And she’s a computer programmer who found herself, after a brief and meteoric rise, as Israel’s minister of justice.

If Israel Disappears, Others Will Too: Mudar Zahran, Israel Hayom, July 9, 2015 —Since 1948, we Arabs have been taught that all we need to do is get rid of the Jewish state, and ‎everything else will go well after that.













Quizz sur la «Palestine»

primo-info.eu, 8 décembre 2011

Prenez plaisir à répondre à ce quizz concernant la démographie, les conditions de vie et l'histoire du peuple palestinien… et testez vos connaissances avec les réponses fournies à la fin du Communiqué…:




1.) Classez ces pays en fonction de l'espérance de vie (taux le plus long, selon vous, en premier):


Brésil – Turquie – Égypte – Gaza – Russie – moyenne mondiale


2.) Classez ces conflits (depuis 1950) en termes de nombre de victimes:


Birmanie/Myanmar – Russie/Tchétchénie – conflit israélo/arabe –
Zimbabwe (troubles civils) – Révolution iranienne –
répression des Kurdes (Turquie, Irak, Iran) – guerres civiles au Soudan


3.) Combien de Palestiniens ont été traités dans les hôpitaux israéliens en 2010?


Aucun – 180 – 1.800 – 18.000 – 180.000


4.) Classez ces pays selon leur taux de croissance économique (PIB, chiffres de 2009)


Australie – Allemagne – Israël – Égypte – Territoires palestiniens – Hong Kong – Brésil


5.) Combien d'électricité est fournie par Israël à Gaza?


Aucune – 10% – 33% – 50% – 70%


6.) Depuis qu'Arafat a lancé la 2ème Intifada contre Israël, la dernière décennie a été de loin la plus coûteuse en vies palestiniennes de toute l'histoire israélo-palestinienne. Combien de Palestiniens sont morts dans ce conflit depuis 2000?


Moins de 10.000 – 10.000/20.000 – 20.000/30.000 – 30.000/40.000 – soit plus de 40.000


7.) Dans la Seconde Intifada contre Israël, combien de Palestiniens ont été tués par d'autres Palestiniens (appelons-le «Intra-fada»…)?


70 – 170 – 370 – 570 – plus


(Les réponses sont fournies à la fin du Communiqué…)


Leadership du Bloc:
la candidate Maria Mourani entre l’incompétence
et la complaisance à l’égard des islamistes
pointdebasculecanada.ca, 6 décembre 2011

 Après que le National Post (19 novembre 2011) ait révélé le double emploi de l’ex-ministre Philippe Couillard comme membre du Comité de surveillance des activités d’espionnage du SCRS et comme consultant pour l’Arabie saoudite, Maria Mourani a dénoncé la situation et enjoint l’ex-ministre de choisir entre ses deux positions.


Il était légitime que madame Mourani s’objecte au double emploi du Dr. Couillard d’autant plus qu’elle est la critique de son parti en matière de sécurité publique. Cependant, quand on constate les relations qu’elle-même entretient avec des puissances étrangères, on peut difficilement croire que son intervention ait été motivée par la sécurité du Canada.


À l’occasion de la campagne au leadership du Bloc Québécois qui doit se conclure par l’élection d’un nouveau chef le 11 décembre 2011, Point de Bascule revient sur certaines des prises de position passées de la candidate au leadership Maria Mourani. Selon nous, ces positions témoignent au mieux de son incompétence et au pire de sa complaisance envers les islamistes.


Le 22 juin 2010, le directeur du SCRS, Richard Fadden, mentionna à la CBC que des politiciens canadiens sont sous l’emprise de gouvernements étrangers. Le 26 juin, Maria Mourani exigea la démission de M. Fadden dans un communiqué de presse après l’avoir accusé «de semer le doute sur la probité et l’intégrité de nombre d‘élus et (de)
cré(er) un climat malsain de suspicion et une paranoïa populaire, notamment à l‘égard d‘élus d’origine étrangère».


À l’époque, Richard Fadden avait laissé entendre que la Chine cherchait activement à influencer les politiciens canadiens. En septembre 2011, les médias canadiens révélèrent que le secrétaire parlementaire du ministre des Affaires étrangères, Bob Dechert, et une journaliste de l’agence de presse officielle chinoise Xinhua basée à Ottawa avaient échangé des messages amoureux par courriel. La journaliste chinoise fut rappelée en Chine dès que l’affaire fut rendue publique. Invité à commenter, un ancien espion chinois réfugié aux États-Unis déclara au Globe and Mail (30 novembre 2011) qu’il était fréquent que la Chine utilise des journalistes pour influencer des politiciens de haut rang ou obtenir des informations de leur part. L’ancien espion ne put cependant pas confirmer si c’était bien le cas cette fois-ci.


Dans cet article, Point de Bascule revient sur certaines des positions passées de Maria Mourani à l’égard des islamistes:


9 mars 2006– Maria Mourani invite les représentants de huit pays membres de l’Organisation de la coopération islamique à assister à son assermentation comme députée à Ottawa. Elle leur déclare: «Je serai à votre écoute». En 2010, Madame Mourani a décrit comme «parfaitement normal» que des députés canadiens répondent ainsi aux demandes de représentants de puissances étrangères;


17-24 août 2006– Lors d’un voyage au Liban financé par le Conseil national des relations canado-arabes, Maria Mourani accuse Israël d’avoir commis des crimes de guerre au Liban. Plus tard, elle se rétracte;


Février 2009– Maria Mourani fait parvenir un courriel à tous ses collègues députés à Ottawa qui contient de nombreux liens vers des sites glorifiant les attentats-suicide et le jihad. Plus tard, elle dira qu’elle n’avait pas pris connaissance des vidéos qu’elle suggérait à ses collègues de visionner;


11-18 février 2010– Maria Mourani voyage en Turquie aux frais de l’ambassade turque et du gouvernement de la Turquie qui soutient ouvertement le Hamas. Madame Mourani a également participé à d’autres activités commanditées par le gouvernement turc au Canada;


2 novembre 2011– Maria Mourani dénature le crime d’honneur et le présente comme un équivalent aux meurtres qui surviennent dans un contexte familial non-musulman en Occident. Madame Mourani passe sous silence le fait que le crime d’honneur est endossé par la charia et que le meurtrier profite de la complicité de sa famille et du silence de sa communauté, ce qui n’est généralement pas le cas dans les autres cas de meurtres en milieu familial auxquels elle fait référence. (…)


(Lisez la suite de l’article au: http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/articles/10002520-leadership-du-bloc-la-candidate-maria-mourani-entre-l’incompétence-et-la-complaisance-à-l’égard-des-islamistes.html)

Analogie entre Somaliens et Palestiniens:
l’ombudsman de Radio-Canada conclut à une inexactitude

David Ouellette
davidouellette.net, 6 décembre 2011

L’ombudsman de Radio-Canada Pierre Tourangeau a conclu que «dans sa comparaison entre réfugiés somaliens et réfugiés palestiniens, la journaliste [Sophie Langlois] a enfreint la valeur d’exactitude en affirmant que tous les réfugiés palestiniens, plutôt qu’une minorité d’entre eux, n’ont pas le droit de travailler et dépendent de l’aide internationale… Exception faite de cet accroc», poursuit l’ombudsman, «l’échange entre la journaliste et l’animatrice du Téléjournal respecte les Normes et pratiques journalistiques de Radio-Canada».


Le 7 septembre dernier, le Centre consultatif des relations juives et israéliennes avait déposé une plainte auprès de l’ombudsman en raison du parallèle que Sophie Langlois avait établi entre les Somaliens menacés de famine et les Palestiniens. La correspondante de Radio-Canada avait déclaré que «les Somaliens sont en train de devenir les Palestiniens de l’Afrique, des réfugiés permanents dans une ville étrangère où ils n’ont pas le droit de travailler, ce qui fait qu’ils sont forcément dépendants de l’aide, de l’aide internationale (…)».


Notre plainte soutenait que «l’insensée assimilation des conditions de vie des Somaliens à celles des Palestiniens contribue à banaliser l’ampleur de la tragédie humaine qui frappe les populations de la Corne de l’Afrique et à dramatiser indûment et à outrance les conditions de vie des réfugiés palestiniens ».


Notre plainte démontrait aussi que les conditions de vie des réfugiés des Palestiniens décrites par Sophie Langlois étaient non seulement erronées, mais qu’elles ne se prêtaient à aucune analogie avec le sort des réfugiés somaliens. Nous soutenions, en conclusion, que la journaliste avait émis une opinion «purement subjective» et que son commentaire contrevenait aux Normes et pratiques journalistiques de Radio-Canada sur le plan de l’exactitude de l’information et de l’expression d’opinions personnelles.


L’ombudsman juge que le commentaire de la journaliste était inexact dans la mesure où tous les réfugiés palestiniens ne sont pas dépendants de l’aide internationale ou interdits de travail, mais ne considère pas que la journaliste a émis une opinion personnelle. Le Centre entend continuer de demander à Radio-Canada que son traitement d’Israël et du conflit israélo-arabe soit plus rigoureux dans le respect de ses Normes et pratiques journalistiques

Plus guère un allié
Caroline B. Glick
Jerusalem Post, 6 décembre 2011

Version originale anglaise: Our World: An ally no more

Adaptation française: Sentinelle 5772 ©

 Au lieu de mettre en garde l'Égypte contre une rupture de son traité avec l'État juif, les officiels des USA choisissent de critiquer Israël.


Avec le décompte des votes pour le premier tour des élections parlementaires en Égypte, il est assez clair que l'Égypte est sur la voie rapide d'un État islamique totalitaire. Le premier tour des élections a eu lieu dans les villes cosmopolites les plus libérales d'Égypte. Et pourtant les 'Frères Musulmans' et les salafistes ont recueilli plus de 60% des suffrages. Le scrutin pour 52 autres sièges augmentera leur représentation selon les estimations. Puis dans le mois à venir, les électeurs égyptiens dans le Delta du Nil et le Sinaï bien plus islamistes, apporteront sans aucun doute les forces de l'islam jihadiste avec une plus grande marge de victoire.


Jusqu'au renversement d'Hosni Moubarak soutenu par les USA, l'Égypte servait d'ancre au système d'alliance américain dans le monde arabe. L'armée égyptienne est armée par les USA, formée par les USA, et financée par les USA. Le Canal de Suez est l'une des voies d'eau vitales pour la marine américaine et l'économie mondiale. Grâce à l'engagement de Moubarak à contenir la marée des forces jihadistes qui menaçaient son régime, sous sa férule, l'Égypte servait de centre anti-terroriste majeur dans la guerre menée par les USA contre le jihad international.


Avec l'importance singulière de l'Égypte pour les intérêts stratégiques des USA dans le monde arabe, la réponse du gouvernement Obama aux résultats calamiteux de l'élection a été choquante. Plutôt que de faire sonner les alarmes, le président américain Barack Obama a fêté les résultats comme une victoire pour «la démocratie». Plutôt que de mettre en garde l'Égypte vis-à-vis des conséquences sévères qu'elle affrontera si elle achève sa transformation islamiste, le gouvernement Obama a retourné ses armes contre le premier pays à payer le prix de la révolution islamique en Égypte: Israël.


S'adressant au conclave annuel de stratégie politique à Washington parrainé par le Saban Center pour la Politique au Moyen Orient de l'Institut Brookings orienté à Gauche, le secrétaire américain à la Défense Leon Panetta et la secrétaire d'État Hillary Clinton ont tapé à coups redoublés sur Israël, le seul véritable allié que les USA ont conservé au Moyen Orient après la chute de Moubarak. Clinton a senti la nécessité – au nom de la démocratie – d'adopter les positions de la Gauche radicale d'Israël contre la majorité des Israéliens.


La même secrétaire d'État qui a proclamé des négociations avec les Talibans violents et misogynes fanatiques; qui a chanté les louanges de l'Arabie saoudite où les femmes reçoivent dix coups de fouet pour se permettre de conduire, et dont le département d'État a formé des agents parmi les 'Frères Musulmans' qui haïssent les femmes pour conduire les élections actuelles en Égypte, elle a accusé Israël d'opprimer le droit des femmes. Le seul État de la région où les femmes ont la plénitude des droits et des protections légales est devenu le cœur de la vertueuse rage féministe de Clinton.  (…) 

Wiesel annonce un livre prouvant la négation du droit d'Israël à exister
par les Palestiniens
Naama Rehoboam
Guysen.com, 7 décembre 2011

 Deux auteurs révèlent les moyens qu’emploie l'Autorité palestinienne pour diffuser des messages de haine envers l’État Juif et afin de saper le processus de paix avec Israël.


Lors d’une apparition publique mardi 6 décembre, le lauréat du prix Nobel de la Paix, Elie Wiesel, et le fondateur de Human Rights Watch, Bob Bernstein, ont annoncé la publication d'un ouvrage exposant une année de diffusion médiatique dans l'Autorité palestinienne. Celui-ci montre que presque tous les messages diabolisent Israël, tout en niant son droit d’exister.


Deception: Betraying the Peace Process, par Itamar Marcus et Nan Jacques Zilberdik, analyse les sources médiatiques qui diffusent des messages de haine pour le compte de l’Autorité palestinienne afin de saper le processus de paix avec Israël. En mai 2010, I. Marcus et J. Zilberdik ont ​​commencé leur examen en profondeur des supports approuvés par l’Autorité palestinienne (AP), afin de déterminer comment l'AP a répondu à ses engagements face au Quartet d’encourager la non-violence, de reconnaître l'État juif d'Israël, et de l'accepter comme un partenaire pour la paix.


Après avoir examiné un large éventail de magazines et de documents culturels pendant une année complète, la conclusion est la suivante: les messages diffusés directement ou indirectement par l'Autorité palestinienne reflètent «une abrogation totale des engagements pris vis à vis de la population», a déclaré I. Marcus. Le livre détaille des centaines d'exemples de sources culturelles, éducatives et médiatiques visant à promouvoir des messages de haine chez les Palestiniens et à saper le processus de paix avec Israël. Il catalogue et contextualise les nombreuses politiques de l'AP pour glorifier le terrorisme et diaboliser les Israéliens et les Juifs, tout en rejetant le droit d'Israël à exister.


Même dans des contextes banals tels que des pages sportives, I. Marcus confie que l’on peut faire référence à Israël, sans évoquer Israël mais une «patrie qui est occupée». Autrement dit, l'intégralité d'Israël, et pas seulement la Judée-Samarie et la bande de Gaza. Fréquemment, I. Marcus l'a souligné, toutes les villes et sites israéliens sont considérés comme palestiniens, soit sur papier ou à la télévision, y compris dans les programmes éducatifs conçus pour les enfants. Marcus a néanmoins précisé que le livre distingue bien ceux qui nient l'existence d'Israël de ceux qui nient son droit à exister entièrement, tel que le montrent ceux qui se réfèrent à Haïfa, Tibériade et Jaffa, comme des «villes palestiniennes».


«Il y a une ignorance de la presse occidentale sur ce qui est en train de se passer. Ils ne lisent pas l'arabe», explique Bob Bernstein. «Tout aussi troublant, ajoute I. Marcus, est la diabolisation répétée d'Israël, en assimilant les Israéliens aux nazis et en alléguant qu'Israël a empoisonné Yasser Arafat. Cette diabolisation se produit également lorsque les kamikazes sont glorifiés, ayant même des stades, des tournois et des places de la ville à leur nom».


«Des discours de haine parrainés par le gouvernement sont incompatibles avec la paix», souligne Bob Bernstein. «Sauf si l'AP arrête de présenter les terroristes comme des modèles à suivre, ainsi que les Juifs et les Israéliens comme intrinsèquement mauvais, et à moins qu'elle cesse d'éduquer son peuple à imaginer un monde sans Israël, il n'y a aucune chance de parvenir à une paix authentique», a déclaré J. Zilberdik dans un communiqué.


I. Marcus espère remettre son livre dans les mains de tous les membres du Congrès américain ainsi que des parlementaires européens, «afin que les législateurs sachent à quoi sert l’aide qu’ils versent aux Palestiniens… L’objectif est que la diffusion de ces informations constitue une première étape vers un véritable changement», a conclu I. Marcus. 



1.) Classez ces pays en fonction de l'espérance de vie (taux le plus long en premier):


i) la bande de Gaza – 73,4 années

ii) en Égypte – 72

iii) le Brésil – 72

iv) la Turquie – 72

v) la moyenne mondiale – 66,6

vi) la Russie – 66


Vous pouvez donc vous attendre à profiter de… 16 mois supplémentaires si vous êtes né du côté de Gaza que si vous êtes né côté égyptien! La moyenne en Cisjordanie palestinienne monte à 74,5 … ce qui pourrait bien être expliqué en partie par la question 3. Et étant donné que le taux de Gaza est supérieur à la moyenne Turque, les flottilles «humanitaires» devraient sans doute faire cap …dans la direction opposée!


2.) Classez ces conflits (depuis 1950) en termes de nombre de victimes.


i) les guerres civiles au Soudan – 1,9 millions de victimes

ii) la répression des Kurdes – 300.000

iii) Russie-Tchétchénie – 140.000

iv) Birmanie / Myanmar – 130.000

v) révolution iranienne – 80.000

vi) au Zimbabwe – 60.000

vii) le conflit israélo-arabe 52.000


En fait, le conflit israélo-arabe arrive 49e sur la liste des conflits les plus meurtriers de ces 60 dernières années, dont bon nombre sont, honteusement, complètement oubliés … ou ignorés par la presse occidentale.


3.) Combien de Palestiniens ont été traités dans les hôpitaux israéliens en 2010?


v) 180 000


Il s'agit notamment des milliers de patients de Gaza, en dépit des attaques constantes du Hamas sur les citoyens israéliens. Les hôpitaux israéliens seraient en mesure de traiter beaucoup plus de Palestiniens si la sécurité n'était pas un problème. Avant l'Intifada de 2000, tout Palestinien pouvait librement arriver à un hôpital israélien pour y être traité.


4.) Classez ces pays selon leur taux de croissance économique (PIB, chiffres de 2009)


i) les Territoires palestiniens (8%)

ii) le Brésil (7,5%)

iii) Hong Kong (6,8%)

iv) l'Égypte (5,1%)

v) Israël (4,6%)

vi) l'Allemagne (3,5%)

vii) l'Australie (2,7%)


Après la dépression économique qui a accompagné l'Intifada contre Israël, et conduit à la construction de la barrière de sécurité pour protéger les Israéliens contre les agressions terroristes afin de rétablir la sécurité en Cisjordanie, les perspectives sont très prometteuses pour l'économie palestinienne.


5.) Combien d'électricité est fournie par Israël à Gaza?


v) 70%


Israël fournit plus de 70% d'électricité à Gaza, l'Égypte fournit un «généreux» …5%, les 25% restants provenant d'exploitations isolées autour et au sein de la Bande.


6.) Depuis qu'Arafat a lancé sa guerre d'Intifada contre les Israéliens, cette dernière décennie a été de loin la plus coûteuse en vies palestiniennes dans l'histoire israélo-palestinienne : combien de Palestiniens sont morts dans ce conflit depuis 2000?


i) Moins de 10 000 : environ 6000, combattants et non-combattants.


Pour mettre en perspective: 20 000 morts en 1 mois lors du conflit au Sri Lanka (2009)Entre 50.000 et 70.000 morts au cours de la même décennie en Tchétchénie, alors que 35.000 personnes perdent la vie lors des guerres de la drogue au Mexique depuis 2005…


7.) Dans la Seconde Intifada contre Israël, combien de Palestiniens ont été tués par d'autres Palestiniens («Intra-fada»)?


v) 570


Ou, plus précisément, 557 selon l'ONG israélienne B'Tselem. Pour une raison quelconque, peu – sinon aucune – des protestations internationales n'ont été entendues sur ces assassinats inter- Palestiniens.




6-7: félicitations, vous êtes bien informés! Continuez à mieux connaître les mythes et réalités autour du conflit israélo-arabe.


3-5: Vous croyez souvent aveuglément à la couverture des médias traditionnels sur le conflit israélo-palestinien… pourquoi ne pas suivre les sources d'information israéliennes (il en existe maintenant en langue française) de temps en temps?


0-2: Vous avez probablement pris les grands quotidiens français pour des journaux sérieux… Votre déception doit être grande!






Jerusalem Post, April 28, 2011


“There will be no dialogue with these murderers,” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said back in June 2007, referring to Hamas. “There will be no dialogue with the forces of darkness.” Abbas made these remarks shortly after Hamas, in a bloody coup, had seized control of the Gaza Strip. It was also a few months after an assassination attempt against him, which he said was engineered by Hamas. Now the same Hamas members whom he once correctly referred to as “murderous terrorists” are to become Abbas’s colleagues in a “national unity” government.

Abbas purports to expect Israel to cooperate with his volte face by entering into a negotiating partnership with this new government—a Palestinian leadership featuring a terrorist group whose members promulgate the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and vow, as a core of their religious conviction, to eradicate the Jewish state from what they insist is Muslim land.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has declared that such negotiations will not happen. The PA has to choose between a peace deal with Israel and one with Hamas, Netanyahu said on Wednesday. Israel would not accept Abbas’s hair-splitting distinctions between the PLO (to which Hamas does not belong), that would supposedly be responsible for handling negotiations, and the new unity government.

The New York Times’ Ethan Bronner predicted that Israel could be blamed for Abbas’s turn to Hamas. The reconciliation, wrote Bronner, “was sure to fuel debate on whether Mr. Netanyahu had done enough in his two years in power to forge a deal with the Palestinian Authority led by Mr. Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, widely considered the most moderate leaders the Palestinians have ever had.”

Presumably, according to this reasoning, if the government had only caved in to every Palestinian demand, even those that endanger Israel’s security, Abbas would never have followed that sizable proportion of his own people who already chose, at the ballot box five years ago, to entrust their future to a reactionary form of Islamic rule that blatantly discriminates against non-Muslims and champions suicide bombings.

As anyone not prejudiced against Israel and willing to credit Palestinians with making their own decisions knows, however, the real impetus behind the reconciliation, which enjoys massive grassroots support on the West Bank and in Gaza, is that many, if not most, Palestinians truly identify with many of the goals and aims of Hamas. Similarly, many, if not most Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians support the goals and aims of the Muslim Brotherhood in their respective countries, none of which, by the way, are under Israeli “occupation.”

Yasser Arafat fostered the foul notion among his people that there was no historical basis and no modern legitimacy for Jewish sovereignty in this land. Abbas chose not to energetically challenge that mindset. The misnamed new “unity”—which Hamas will destroy at its convenience—is the latest consequence.

Abbas failed to present to his people a compelling vision of a Palestinian state without religious extremism and violence; a state that fosters reconciliation—not with Hamas but with Israel. Instead, his PA has continued to incite against Israel in its school curriculum and its official media and to glorify terrorists who kill Israelis. It has clung to “peace” positions that no Israeli government could accommodate, and chose not to seize upon the unprecedented terms that were offered by former prime minister Ehud Olmert.

Now Abbas is…entering a partnership with an organization that…uses its own people as human shields for its rocket attacks on Israel, that attempted to assassinate him, and whose vision of a Palestinian state is another fundamentalist Muslim regime patterned after Iran. (Tellingly, one of the few senior government officials to have come out in favor of the unity deal is Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi who called it a “blessed, positive move”).…

Rapprochement with Hamas should be counterproductive to the PA’s campaign to secure UN recognition in September for an independent state.… No morally minded country should recognize a Palestinian state led by a government whose members reject the Mideast Quartet’s principles of renouncing violence, accepting past agreements, and recognizing Israel’s right to exist. “Should,” however, is the operative word here.…

Eight months ago in Washington, Netanyahu called Abbas his “partner in peace.” He isn’t any more.


P. David Hornik
FrontPage, April 29, 2011



On Thursday, a day after Wednesday’s announcement of a Fatah-Hamas rapprochement in Cairo, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas said he would keep pursuing peace talks with Israel. Almost concurrently, top Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said Hamas would stick to its stance of neither recognizing nor negotiating with Israel, but “if Fatah wants to negotiate with Israel over trivialities, they can.”

Notable here is that Abbas cannot “keep pursuing” talks with Israel because he has almost totally abandoned such talks since 2009. [Accordingly], his statement appears to reflect a strategy of retaining his image as a moderate despite the reconciliation with Hamas—and al-Zahar’s grudging agreement suggests Hamas is willing to play along with the game.

And at whom is the strategy aimed? Not at Israel, which, Abbas knows, would not negotiate in any case with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.… Probably not at the U.S. either. Senior congressmen have already threatened to cut off aid to the PA if the deal with Hamas holds. The Obama administration—which has already come out against the PA’s push for a unilateral recognition of statehood at the UN in September—also reacted coolly. But if, as observers generally agree, the Fatah-Hamas deal aims to allow Abbas to present himself as the leader of a united “Palestine”—both the West Bank and Gaza—at the UN in September, thereby strengthening his pitch for statehood, and if the deal can’t reasonably be seen as an attempt to raise his stock with the U.S., then a likely target is Europe.

Abbas knows that merely getting the standard General Assembly bloc of Muslim and underdeveloped countries to recognize “Palestine” would have little impact. Europe—and especially the key countries Britain, France, and Germany—hasn’t yet taken a clear stance on the statehood push. Abbas knows he can’t have “peace”—that is, can’t get along—with both Hamas and Israel, or Hamas and the U.S. for that matter. But Abbas would like to get along with both Hamas and Europe. That is, he would like to have “unity” with Hamas and a ringing European endorsement of his state, too. Being able to claim he represents all of “Palestine”—while still professing readiness for nonexistent “peace talks” with Israel—could be a way of getting Europe on his side.

As for the UN itself, its Middle East envoy Robert Serry already blessed the Fatah-Hamas announcement on Thursday. And as for the EU, it stated on Thursday that, while it still needs to “study the details” of the deal, “We have consistently called for reconciliation and peace under the authority of Abbas as a way to end the division between the West Bank and Gaza.” In other words, while preferring that Fatah have the upper hand, the EU hardly rules out Hamas—even though it officially defines it as a terror organization.

Much depends—with many skeptical—on whether a Fatah-Hamas unity government will indeed be formed and, if so, will last till September. That would require less than five months; the previous, 2007 Fatah-Hamas unity government lasted only three months before dissolving into bloody strife in Gaza. But these are different times, and some believe Hamas was driven to the deal by alarm over the possible fall of its patron in Damascus.

Much will also depend—presumably—on what such a government would do between now and September. One point of the agreement reached Wednesday, for instance, is a mutual prisoner release. Hamas is supposed to release Fatah prisoners held in Gaza; Fatah, Hamas prisoners held in the West Bank. That would mean hundreds of Hamas terrorists roaming freely in the West Bank, where hundreds of thousands of Israelis live. No doubt the U.S. would react negatively, since those Hamas terrorists were imprisoned in the first place by U.S.-trained Fatah forces under the strategy of helping supposedly moderate Fatah suppress and defeat Hamas. But would Europe see such a move as part of “reconciliation and peace”?

On Thursday Israeli president Shimon Peres said: “The world cannot support the establishment of a state part of whose government is a terrorist organization in every respect.” But it remains to be seen. Seemingly, Fatah’s political melding with openly genocidal Hamas should remove its—and the Palestinians’ generally—last fig leaf of purported moderation. But if it’s Jews vs. (declared) genocidists, it’s again not clear which side Europe, and others, come down on.


Dore Gold

Foreign Policy, April 28, 2011


On Wednesday, representatives of Fatah and Hamas, the two main Palestinian factions, announced in Cairo that they had suddenly reached a reconciliation agreement. The emerging deal, which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government to pave the way for elections within a year, has a lot to do with the Palestinians’ drive to gain the U.N. General Assembly’s backing this September for the establishment of an independent state.

But the world should not cheer this bargain. Although the agreement may solve some of the short-term problems of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s statehood drive, it will create larger problems that promise to doom the plan to irrelevancy.…

Abbas’s reconciliation with Hamas contains more risks than it does advantages. Hamas is designated as an international terrorist organization not only by Israel, but also by Canada, the European Union, and the United States. Moreover, it serves as a proxy force for Iran, which provides Hamas with funding, training, and weapons. So even though the Palestinians can always depend on the Non-Aligned Movement bloc for 120 or 130 General Assembly votes, these facts will imperil the Palestinians’ ability to gain the backing of major Western powers, including the EU countries.

Since coming to power in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, Hamas has steadfastly refused to accept the conditionsof the Quartet—the Middle East contact group that includes the United States, the U.N., the EU, and Russia—for becoming part of the diplomatic process.… Mahmoud al-Zahar, the senior Hamas leader who participated in the Hamas-Fatah talks, clarified after the agreement was reached: “Our program does not include negotiations with Israel or recognizing it.” As recently as April 17, Hamas’s military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, reminded its supporters on its website: “We are going on the path of jihad.” Hamas’s intractability will no doubt jeopardize European diplomatic support for the Palestinian statehood drive, as well as financial assistance for any Palestinian government in which Hamas plays a role.

These concerns come on top of other serious European reservations. For example, the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, also known as Oslo II, clearly established: “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations.” The EU signed Oslo II as a witness. If the EU supports the Palestinian initiative at the U.N., it will be violating a core commitment of the peace process, which is that the territories’ fate should be determined only by direct negotiations between the parties.

The problems with including Hamas don’t stop there. Abbas’s hope is that a General Assembly resolution will reference the pre-1967 boundaries, which have assumed almost holy status among Palestinians. (Never mind that these were only armistice lines from the 1948 war, and were not regarded as final political borders.) In Jerusalem, the pre-1967 line will put the entire Old City, with its holy sites, like the Western Wall, under Palestinian control. Israelis will not agree to such a division of their capital in any case, but will European governments risk putting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre under a regime even partly controlled by Hamas? They know that many members of Gaza’s small Christian community have been seeking refuge abroad in order to flee Hamas rule.…

Abbas needs to choose his priority: working with Hamas, or working with Israel. Faced with the departure of his old regional ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’s parent organization, Abbas appears to be recalculating his interests.… The pathway to peace is open. But by reaching out to Hamas, Abbas has plainly moved even further away from it.


Caroline B. Glick
Jerusalem Post, January 29, 2011


Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s response to the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority’s peace deal with Hamas would be funny if it weren’t tragic. Immediately after the news broke of the deal Netanyahu announced, “The PA must choose either peace with Israel or peace with Hamas. There is no possibility for peace with both.”

Netanyahu’s statement is funny because it is completely absurd. The PA has chosen.

The PA made the choice in 2000 when it rejected Israel’s offer of peace and Palestinian statehood and joined forces with Hamas to wage a terror war against Israel. The PA made the choice in 2005 again when it responded to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza with a tenfold increase in the number of rockets and missiles it fired on Israeli civilian targets in the Negev. The Palestinians made the choice in 2006, when they elected Hamas to rule over them. They made the choice in March 2007 when Fatah and Hamas signed their first unity deal. The PA made the choice in 2008 when Abbas rejected then-prime minister Ehud Olmert’s offer of statehood and peace. The PA made the choice in 2010 when it refused to reinstate peace negotiations with Netanyahu; began peace negotiations with Hamas; and escalated its plan to establish an independent state without peace with Israel.

Now the PA has again made the choice by signing the newest peace deal with Hamas.

In a real sense, Netanyahu’s call for the PA to choose is the political equivalent of a man telling his wife she must choose between him and her lover, after she has left home, shacked up and had five children with her new man. It is a pathetic joke.

But worse than a pathetic joke, it is a national tragedy. It is a tragedy that after more than a decade of the PA choosing war with Israel and peace with Hamas, Israel’s leaders are still incapable of accepting reality and walking away. It is a tragedy that Israel’s leaders cannot find the courage to say the joke of the peace process is really a deadly serious war process whose end is Israel’s destruction, and that Israel is done with playing along.

There are many reasons that Netanyahu is incapable of stating the truth and ending the 18-year policy nightmare in which Israel is an active partner in its own demise. One of the main reasons is that like his predecessors, Netanyahu has come to believe the myth that Israel’s international standing is totally dependent on its being perceived as trying to make peace with the Palestinians.… Irrespective of the nakedness of Palestinian bad faith, seven successive governments have adopted the view that the only thing that stands between Israel and international pariah status is its leaders’ ability to persuade the so-called international community that Israel is serious about appeasing the Palestinians.

For the past several months, this profoundly neurotic perception of Israel’s options has fed our leaders’ hysterical response to the Palestinians’ plan to unilaterally declare independence.

The Palestinian plan itself discredits the idea that they are interested in anything other than destroying Israel. The plan is to get the UN to recognize a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza outside the framework of a peace treaty with Israel. The PA will first attempt to get the Security Council to endorse an independent “Palestine.” If the Obama administration vetoes the move, then the PA will ask the General Assembly to take action. Given the makeup of the General Assembly, it is all but certain that the Palestinians will get their resolution.

The question is, does this matter? Everyone from Defense Minister Ehud Barak to hard-left, post-Zionist retreads like Shulamit Aloni and Avrum Burg says it does. They tell us that if this passes, Israel will face international opprobrium if its citizens or military personnel so much as breathe in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem without Palestinian permission.

These prophets of doom warn that Israel has but one hope for saving itself from diplomatic death: Netanyahu must stand before the world and pledge to give Israel’s heartland and capital to the Palestinians.

And according to helpful Obama administration officials, everything revolves around Netanyahu’s ability to convince the EU-3—British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel—that he is serious about appeasing the Palestinians. If he doesn’t offer up Israel’s crown jewels in his speech before the US Congress next month, administration officials warn that the EU powers will go with the Palestinians.

And if they go with the Palestinians, well, things could get ugly for Israel.

Happily, these warnings are completely ridiculous. UN General Assembly resolutions have no legal weight. Even if every General Assembly member except Israel votes in favor of a resolution recognizing “Palestine,” all the Palestinians will have achieved is another non-binding resolution, with no force of law, asserting the same thing that thousands of UN resolutions already assert. Namely, it will claim falsely that Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza are Palestinian territory to which Israel has no right. Israel will be free to ignore this resolution, just as it has been free to ignore its predecessors.

The threat of international isolation is also wildly exaggerated. Today, Israel is more diplomatically isolated than it has been at any time in its 63-year history. With the Obama administration treating the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem as a greater affront to the cause of world peace than the wholesale massacre of hundreds of Iranian and Syrian protesters by regime goons, Israel has never faced a more hostile international climate. And yet, despite its frosty reception from the White House to Whitehall, life in Israel has never been better.

According to the latest data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel’s economy grew 7.8 percent in the last quarter of 2010. International trade is rising steeply. In the first quarter of 2011, exports rose 27.3%. They grew 19.9% in the final quarter of last year. Imports rose 34.7% between January and March, and 38.9% in the last quarter of 2010. The Israel-bashing EU remains Israel’s largest trading partner. And even as Turkey embraced Hamas and Iran as allies, its trade with Israel reached an all time high last year. These trade data expose a truth that the doom and gloomers are unwilling to notice: For the vast majority of Israelis the threat of international isolation is empty.

The same people telling us to commit suicide now lest we face the firing squad in September would also have us believe that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is the single greatest threat to the economy. But that lie was put paid this month with the demise of the Australian town of Marrickville’s BDS-inspired boycott.

Last December, the anti-Israel coalition running the town council voted to institute a trade, sports and academic boycott against Israel. Two weeks ago the council was forced to cancel its decision after it learned that it would cost $3.4 million to institute it. Cheaper Israeli products and services would have to be replaced with more expensive non-Israeli ones.

Both Israel’s booming foreign trade and the swift demise of the Marrickville boycott movement demonstrate that the specter of international isolation in the event that Israel extricates itself from the Palestinian peace process charade is nothing more than a bluff. The notion that Israel will be worse off it Netanyahu admits that Abbas has again chosen war against the Jews over peace with us has no credibility.

So what is preventing Netanyahu and his colleagues in the government from acknowledging this happy truth? Two factors are at play here. The first is our inability to understand power politics. Our leaders believe that the likes of Sarkozy, Cameron and Merkel are serious when they tell us that Israel needs to prove it is serious about peace in order to enable them to vote against a Palestinian statehood resolution at the UN. But they are not serious. Nothing that Israel does will have any impact on their votes.

When the Europeans forge their policies towards Israel they are moved by one thing only: the US.

Since 1967, the Europeans have consistently been more pro-Palestinian than the US. Now, with the Obama administration demonstrating unprecedented hostility towards Israel, there is no way that the Europeans will suddenly shift to Israel’s side. So when European leaders tell Israelis that we need to convince them we are serious about peace, they aren’t being serious. They are looking for an excuse to be even more hostile. If Israel offers the store to Abbas, then the likes of Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy will not only recognize “Palestine” at the UN, (because after all, they cannot be expected to be more pro-Israel than the Israeli government that just surrendered), they will recognize Hamas. Because that’s the next step.

It would seem that Israel’s leaders should have gotten wise to this game years ago. And the fact that they haven’t can be blamed on the second factor keeping their sanity in check: the Israeli Left. The only group of Israelis directly impacted by the BDS movement is the Israeli Left. Its members—from university lecturers to anti-Zionist has-been politicians, artists, actors and hack writers—are the only members of Israeli society who have a personal stake in a decision by their leftist counterparts in the US or Europe or Australia or any other pretty vacation/sabbatical spots to boycott Israelis.

And because the movement threatens them, they have taken it upon themselves to scare the rest of us into taking this ridiculous charade seriously. So it was that last week a group of washed-up radicals gathered in Tel Aviv outside the hall where David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israeli independence, and declared the independence of “Palestine.” They knew their followers in the media would make a big deal of their agitprop and use it as another means of demoralizing the public into believing we can do nothing but embrace our enemies’ cause against our country.

The time has come for the vast majority of Israelis who aren’t interested in the Nobel Prize for Literature or a sabbatical at Berkeley or the University of Trondheim to call a spade a spade. The BDS haters have no leverage. A degree from Bar-Ilan is more valuable than a degree from Oxford. And no matter how much these people hate Israel, they will continue to buy our technologies and contract our researchers, because Cambridge is no longer capable of producing the same quality of scholarship as the Technion.

And it is well past time for our leaders to stop playing this fool’s game. We don’t need anyone’s favors. Abbas has made his choice.

Now it is time for Netanyahu to choose.





Jpost.Com Staff & Reuters
Jerusalem Post, April 27, 2011


Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement and its rival Hamas said on Wednesday they had resolved their deep divisions, opening the way for a unity government and national elections. The deal, which took many officials by surprise, was thrashed out in Egypt and followed a series of secret meetings.… The accord was first reported by Egypt’s intelligence service, which brokered the talks.…

Spokespeople for both Hamas and Fatah confirmed that “all differences” have been worked out between the long-feuding Palestinian political movements.…


Susan L. M. Goldberg
NewsRealBlog, April 28, 2011


It’s the Arab Spring and love is in the air. After a torrid on-and-off affair, rival terrorist political factions Hamas and Fatah are on again. According to mutual best-friend Egypt, things are red-hot.

On Wednesday, Hamas and Fatah engaged in forming an interim government while promising to decide on a date for general elections. According to Egyptian intelligence, “The consultations resulted in full understandings over all points of discussions,” including the color for the bridal party: blood red.

A traditional reception will follow the political nuptials, the highlight of which will be the “beginning anew of the Palestinian struggle,” hosted by Deputy Hamas politburo chief Abu Marzouk.

While details of the guest list have yet to be announced, Fatah Central Committee Member Azzam Ahmad declared that “non-partisan elements that will represent the Palestinian people” will be encouraged to attend. However, analysts speculate that one name will be notably absent from the list: Gilad Shalit, the Israeli Army soldier currently being held captive by Hamas for 1,767 days and counting.

Not surprisingly, the recently liberated Egyptian government played a strategic role in reuniting the former [allies]. Bored with their decades-old union with the Jewish state, the newer, fresher Egypt is seeking to re-brand its image; according to 54% of Egyptians, this means de-friending Israel.

Scoring mutual “Likes” in the process, the interim Egyptian military government and Hamas dictatorship used the opportunity to do a little bonding of their own; relationship-building that was initiated with the release of “scores” of Palestinian prisoners from Egyptian jails over the past few weeks. It is expected that Egypt will play best man to Hamas in the upcoming union. Planned pre-wedding activities include the re-opening of the Rafah border crossing between Sinai and the Gaza Strip, [as well as] a rumoured bachelor party promise: The establishment of Hamas’s “unofficial embassy” in Cairo.…

Speaking on behalf of Israel (the scorned woman in the scenario) Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a desperate plea for mediation, lest her already shaky union with Fatah truly comes to an end. “It’s either us, or Hamas; you can’t have us both!” the prime minister declared.…

[However], prospects for reconciliation between [Israel and Fatah] look dim. For example, Fatah has already declared a desire to dump the couple’s mediator: “An aide to Mr. Abbas stated recently he would sacrifice U.S. financial assistance if this was the price of unity.…” Israel, it would seem, is fooling herself if she thinks her mediator will step in to save the day.

According to…[journalist] Zvi Bar’el, “Even the United States will not be able to object to a united Palestinian government, in which Hamas is a partner. After all, it had agreed to accept and even support, economically and militarily, a Lebanese government in which Hezbollah was partner. Nor will the United States and Europe be able to object to general elections in the territories, or deny their results, when the West is demanding Arab leaders implement democratic reforms.” In short, “Israel could find itself isolated yet again if it objects to the reconciliation or the election.”

Could a Hamas-Fatah union reveal the true nature of [both movements] for the world to see? If so, would that make a difference to the 100 nations now on [their] side? Or will the international community continue to turn a blind eye to what has become the obvious truth in the melodrama: The violent, [newly-minted] partner[s] want [their] victim dead, for good.…

[O]nly one adage can offer any reassurance: “Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.”


Barry Rubin

Pajamas Media, April 27, 2011


Suddenly, after years of persistent failure, Fatah and Hamas—which means the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas—have signed a detailed reconciliation agreement. Why now?

It’s preparation for the [upcoming] UN [General Assembly, where the PA will undoubtedly] claim that it is sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinians. [This will greatly increase the probability that the UN will vote in September] to unilaterally create a Palestinian State.…

[And] why is Hamas going along with this? Because the deal gives it a lot, including the promise of elections in a year. Hamas won the last elections and presumably is confident—especially as it looks at electoral successes for Hezbollah in Lebanon and probably soon for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt—that it will win again.

But there’s also another reason. Hamas is probably quite happy with the idea that many countries—and perhaps the UN—will recognize an independent Palestinian state unconditionally. In other words, there will be a widely, or internationally, accepted Palestine without the need to make peace with Israel. No concessions need be made. The Palestinians will get everything and give up nothing. They will not be bound in any way by border changes or security guarantees. The struggle to wipe Israel off the map can continue.

It’s Hamas’s dream come true.

Anyone who thinks this helps the peace process is deluded. Hamas will never accept any peace agreement with Israel and will radicalize Fatah’s negotiating position out of competition between the two rivals to prove their militancy. The race to commit the most bloody terrorist acts w[ill] intensify.

Make no mistake. Whether or not this development has any direct effect on the ground, it’s another step toward the death of any real Israel-Palestinian peace process.

(Barry Rubin will be speaking at the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research’s upcoming Gala, scheduled for June 15, 2011.)


Jackson Diehl
Washington Post, April 27, 2011


It’s not yet certain that a political deal announced Wednesday by the long-divided Palestinian Fatah and Hamas factions will stick—similar pacts have been proclaimed and then discarded several times in the last four years.

But one thing is sure: If Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas moves forward with the reconciliation with the Islamic Hamas movement, it will mean he has written off the Obama administration and the peace process it has tried to broker, once and for all.

Negotiations between Abbas and the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu have been dormant since last fall—as has the administration’s diplomacy (When was the last time George Mitchell was seen in public?) But lately the administration has seemed to be preparing for another push. At a conference in Washington this month Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton promised “a renewed pursuit of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace by the administration” and said Obama would make a major speech on the subject. Obama himself told Jewish leaders at a White House meeting in March that he believed Abbas was ready to make peace with Israel. But now it seems the Palestinian leader was headed in another direction entirely.…

For Israel and the Obama administration, the reconciliation spells a disaster. According to reports Wednesday, it probably will mean the end of the West Bank administration headed by Salaam Fayyad, a technocrat highly respected by both Americans and Israelis. If so, Congress will almost certainly suspend $400 million in annual U.S. aid. It could mean the reorganization of Fatah’s U.S.-trained security forces, which have worked with Israel to keep the peace in the West Bank for the last several years, and their eventual integration with the cadres of the Iranian-backed Hamas.

The deal will also end any serious prospect of peace talks—since Hamas is most unlikely to accept longstanding Western demands that it accept Israel, renounce violence and abide by past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. In recent weeks Hamas’ fighters have returned to firing mortars and missiles from Gaza at Israeli cities—including one missile that was aimed at a yellow Israeli school bus.

Netanyahu has been working on a new peace initiative that he planned to unveil before the U.S. Congress next month, and that could have involved withdrawals of Israeli troops from parts of the West Bank. [However], the Palestinian [unity] deal will [undoubtedly force Netanyahu to] “slam on the brakes,” an Israeli official told me. “Any effort to move forward [on this front] would be completely stopped.”

Abbas apparently doesn’t mind. For some time he has been working on a different initiative: a plan to seek an endorsement of Palestinian statehood by the UN General Assembly at its meeting in September. The Obama administration has publicly opposed the idea, and Netanyahu has warned that Israel might respond with unilateral steps of its own.

But Abbas seems deeply disillusioned with Obama. He recently trashed the U.S. president in an interview with Newsweek, saying he had mismanaged the issue of Israeli settlements. And the Palestinian leader wrote Netanyahu off as soon as he took office two years ago.…

The Palestinian announcement took the Israelis by surprise; likely the Obama administration was also blindsided.… [Accordingly], the Obama administration will have to scramble to adjust to a radically new situation in yet another Middle Eastern land.


Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield Blog, April 26, 2011


The State of Israel spent the first 30 years of its modern existence reclaiming its territory, and the next 33 years negotiating the terms on which it would be returned to the neighboring countries which had made war on it, as well as an entirely new terrorist state created in the name of peace and maintained in the name of war.

Thirty-three years after the country’s first “hawkish” conservative PM allowed himself to be browbeaten by Jimmy Carter into turning over territory three times its own present size to an Egypt whose new leaders are now disavowing the accords—its current “hawkish” conservative PM is readying himself to offer a whole new raft of concessions in the hopes of preempting a unilateral solution by [U.S. president] Obama or [Palestinian Authority president] Abbas.

For all the furious New York Times articles, there is little to distinguish Israel’s hawks from its doves once they take up their residence in Beit Aghion on the corner of Lord Balfour’s street. Like their American counterparts, they rapidly trade in the rhetoric about an “Undivided Jerusalem” and “War on Terror” for the burden of realpolitik built on a copy of the Art of Appeasement.

The governing mandate of every Israeli PM since 1992 (and perhaps even earlier) has been to try and make a deal with the Palestinian Arabs work. The folly of this has been amply demonstrated time and time again, filling Israel’s cemeteries and hospitals, destroying its security and international standing, and dividing its people against themselves. And yet all these factors have only spurred on the perception that the deal must be somehow made to work. Somehow.

The doves have tried multilateral negotiations. The hawks tried unilateral concessions. The sum total of their efforts is the creation of two terrorist states, one recognized by the international community…and both at war with Israel inside its own borders.

The first state is run by the KGB trained funder of the Munich Massacre and backed by the international community. The second state is run by the local affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and funded by the Muslim world. These two states, popularly known as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas run Gaza, differ only in their tactics, not their aims.…

Almost two decades of negotiations have led to nothing but eighteen years of terror. A state of affairs ignored by everyone except the people living on the firing line, their family sedans scarred by bullets, their kindergartens equipped with bomb shelters and their children equipped with emergency cell phones to check in after every attack.… Year after year, and leader after leader, the Israeli response has been to push forward in the hopes of finding light at the end of the tunnel. But the tunnel has only gotten darker and narrower. And it is growing obvious to even the dimmest observer that the tunnel of peace is really a dead end. Talk of a “breakthrough” keeps alive the hope that Israel can slim down enough to squeeze through a pinhole that simply doesn’t exist.

Israeli leaders are surrounded by technocrats and diplomats who favor retreating from territory, rather than from bad policies. So the land goes, the people die and the bad policies remain. Though Rabin had remained dubious about the…Oslo Accords, the inevitability of an agreement has been adopted by the entire [Israeli] political establishment. Even the “hawks” spend most of their time moving border lines on a map to find some acceptable formula for a Palestinian state. No one asks anymore whether there should be a Palestinian state. Only how big it should be. And how many Israelis should be evicted from their homes in the name of a lasting peace.

But few Israelis believe in a lasting peace anymore. Instead they expect that some form of negotiated separation will keep their sons at home and away from the firefights in Gaza and the West Bank. Never mind that such a separation is even more of an illusion. Barak’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and Sharon’s unilateral pullout from Gaza put Hezbollah and Hamas into power and brought on the Second Lebanon War and the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit.…

Even fewer in Israel’s political establishment believe that terrorism will ever end. The obligatory Rabin festivals and video clips have taken on the air of a hippie festival, charmingly idealistic and completely unrealistic.… All it takes to make your own terrorist group is a dozen friends and a Dubai bank account. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas are umbrella groups supported by numberless militias, any of whom can form their own terrorist group at any time.…

Israeli leaders search for some magic formula that will either achieve a peace agreement or convince the world that the gangs of suit-decked Palestinian…terrorists are not serious about peace. This futile brand of alchemy, with the goal of turning hate into gold, is futilely perverse.…

The “1967 borders,” [for example], are as legally and demographically random as any other. The “Green Line” is nothing but a convenient talking point. [Even if] all the territory back to the 1967 borders [were transferred to] terrorist hands, their attention would [simply] turn to the territory beyond it. 1967 would give way to 1948. New terrorist attacks would be carried out in the name of claiming even more land for the “refugees”.… And the international community would demand new concessions. And eventually a One State Solution.…

The Israeli flag is the symbol of the House of David, a lad who built a nation by standing up to Goliath. To be worthy of the flag, is to be worthy of the act. Israel survived [the first thirty years of its existence] by standing up to the armies of Islam. Not willingly, but reluctantly, [and only after] all other options had been exhausted. Now, [ however], it faces a political war in which all the diplomatic options will never be exhausted, until its enemies overreach themselves with a full invasion.

And by then, Israel may no longer be capable of defending itself.