CONDOLEEZZA RICE STILL CAN'T GET IT RIGHT: Condoleezza Rice's ignorance of the Middle East is persistent. Back in November 2005, James Taranto at OpinionJournal.com pointed out that in a Joint Press Conference, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice blindly repeated the pro-Palestinian line--and got the history wrong. Rice starts off:

Good morning. Two months ago, Israel and the Palestinian Authority took an unprecedented step on the road to peace with the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, returning control of that territory to the Palestinian people.

Of course control of Gaza was not returned to them, since Palestinian Arabs never had control of Gaza in the first place.

Rice goes on to say that:

for the first time since 1967, Palestinians will gain control over entry and exit from their territory.

Wrong. Does the US Secretary of State really believe that before 1967 the Palestinians actually had entry and exit control over Gaza?

As Taranto pointed out:

Before World War I, the entire region, including Israel and the disputed territories, was part of the Ottoman Empire. Between World War I and 1948, the British administered it. In 1948 the Arabs went to war rather than accept a U.N. partition of Palestine that would have created Jewish and Arab states. After that conflict and until 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank.

Simply put: Palestinian Arabs never controlled either Gaza or the West Bank--it has never been theirs.

So it is not surprising, considering her ignorance of the area that earlier this month Condoleezza Rice calls Hamas--whom the BBC claims "espouse a more moderate brand of Islamist politics" in comparison to Al Qaeda--a resistance movement:

QUESTION: Getting a look at the (inaudible), it seems to me in that -- if you have democracy and democratic elections in countries like Egypt and much of North Africa, you will end up with (inaudible) of power or Hamas carrying a lot of the power and that's where you get into a very different kind of problem.

SECRETARY RICE: Mort, I fully accept that there are downsides to elections in immature political systems where democratic institutions haven't quite taken hold yet. The problem is I can't figure any other way to get the democratic institutions. I think that the -- my father used to say if you're on the horns of a dilemma, choose one; don't try to hang on both simultaneously.

And here is the problem, if you don't begin the politics of contestation because you're afraid of who might contest, then you're never going to get there. So yes, there are some downsides to the fact that over this long period of time, probably the most organized forces have been radical forces, not moderate forces. But if you say, "Well, we're going to wait until moderate forces organize so that they can contest the politics," you will -- you'll never get moderate forces because authoritarian regimes, authoritarian politics will continue to squeeze out the development of moderates. So I fully admit you may go through some rather uncomfortable transition, but I could make an argument to you about what happened in the territories, for instance; that it has been very interesting to see Hamas trying to come to terms with no longer being, really a resistance movement, but having to deal with politics.

A moderate Palestinian friend of mine said, "You know, they used to be the great resistance, running the streets with their faces covered and going after Israel. And now, they look like a bunch of politicians who also can't make the sewer system work." And they're clearly uncomfortable in that framework, which is part of why I think you see the military wing of Hamas trying to make this again about Israel and the Palestinians, not about the contestation of politics inside the Palestinian territories. So I admit it's uncomfortable, but I think it's also necessary.

Imagine that, from running in the streets with their faces covered to 'a bunch of politicians' in just 10 days!

But based on Rice's mistaken notion that Gaza and the West Bank was at some point Palestinian land, Hamas--who has killed Americans--becomes a resistance movement. This gets around a point of American law as expressed in a May 2002 letter, signed by 51 members of Congress, requesting the extradition of Palestinian Arab terrorists from Bethlehem who were involved in the murder of an American citizen:

U.S. law —specifically 18 U.S.C. 2331 and 2332— makes it a crime to kill or injure, or to conspire to kill or injure, an American national outside the U.S. in furtherance of a terrorist cause—even if Americans were not the intended targets. The law further provides that prosecutions shall be undertaken only with the “written certification of the Attorney General.

If Hamas is just a resistance movement--no biggie. The US can--and has--turned a blind eye to the murder of Americans by Hamas. Here is a partial list from a site that just lists Americans murdered by Palestinian terrorists until 2002:

December 1, 1993: Yitzhak Weinstock, age 19, an American-Israeli student whose family came from Los Angeles, was murdered by Hamas terrorists in a drive-by shooting attack near El Bireh, north of Jerusalem.

October 9, 1994: Nachshon Wachsman, an American-Israeli, was kidnapped and then murdered by Hamas terrorists.

August 21, 1995, Jerusalem, Israel. A bus bombing in Jerusalem by the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) killed four, including American Joan Davenny, and wounded more than 100.

February 25, 1996, Jerusalem, Israel. A suicide bomber blew up a commuter bus in Jerusalem, killing 26, including three U.S. citizens, and injuring 80 others, among them another three U.S. citizens. Hamas claimed responsibility for the bombing.

March 4, 1996, Tel Aviv, Israel. A suicide bomber detonated an explosive device outside the Dizengoff Center,David Boim Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall, killing 20 March 4, 1996 Tel Aviv Bombing persons and injuring 75 others, including two U.S. citizens. Both Hamas and the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing.

July 30, 1997, Jerusalem, Israel. Two bombs detonated in Jerusalem's Mahane Yehuda market, killing 15 persons, including a U.S. citizen and wounding 168 others, among them two U.S. citizens. The Izz-el-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing, claimed responsibility for the attack.

September 4, 1997: Yael Botwin, age 14, an American-Israeli from the Los Angeles suburb of Claremont killed in a Hamas suicide bombing attack in downtown Jerusalem.

August 9, 2001, Jerusalem, Israel. A suicide bombing at Sbarro's, a pizzeria situated in one of the busiest areas of downtown Jerusalem, killed 15 people, including a 31-year-old tourist from New Jersey, Shoshana Greenbaum and wounded more than 90. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

July 31, 2002, Jerusalem, Israel. Seven people including four Americans, Marla Bennett (24) of Marla Bennett David Gritz Benjamin Blutstein Janis Ruth CoulterSan Diego, California, David Gritz (24) of Peru, Massachusetts, Benjamin Blutstein (25) of Susquehanna Township, Pennsylvania and Janis Ruth Coulter (36) from New York were murdered when a remote-controlled bomb detonated in the Frank Sinatra Cafeteria on Jerusalem's Hebrew University Mt. Scopus campus. Eighty-six others were injured. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Of course, according to Hamas they are a resistance movement aiming not only to control Gaza and the West Bank--but all of 'Palestine.' Hamas defines themselves as a resistance movement vis-a-vis all of Israel.

So if according to Rice, Hamas is a resistance movement, does she then not only recognize Gaza and the West Bank as having been Palestinian land--but Israel itself as being created illegally?

Maybe someone should ask Rice that at her next interview.

UPDATE: From World Net Daily:

A State Department spokesman could not explain why Rice called Hamas a "resistance movement." The spokesman confirmed the State Department had not changed its policy of classifying Hamas as a terror organization.

Rice's Daily News interview was the second recorded time in recent months she called Hamas a "resistance movement."

WND reported Rice, speaking to reporters in Berlin Jan. 18 about the situation of Palestinians prior to 2000, commented, "You had Hamas, of course, sitting out as a resistance movement, not at all, by the way, involved in the politics at all."

Technorati Tag: Israel and Condoleeza Rice and Hamas and US.

RICE CONFUSES IRAN WITH PA: AllahPundit writes that Condi wanted to release the Iranian agents held by the US. But it will happen.

Technorati Tag: Condoleezza Rice and Iran.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE GETS RESULTS:

Rice:

Just as Israelis and Palestinians must clarify a political horizon together, the Arab states must clarify a political horizon for Israel. These paths do not substitute for one another; they reinforce one another. The Arab states should begin reaching out to Israel – to reassure Israel that its place in the region will be more, not less secure, by an end to the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state; to show Israel that they accept its place in the Middle East; and to demonstrate that the peace they seek is greater than just the absence of war.

The New York Sun reports:

As Secretary of State Rice called on Arab countries to reassure Israel about its future, Saudi Arabia made clear that there would be no diplomatic openings toward the Jewish state and warned of the likelihood of war if Israel does not fully accept Arab terms.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Condoleezza Rice and Saudi Arabia.

RICE'S REVOLUTIONARY APPROACH: Saul Singer, posting on Contentions--Commentary Magazine's blog--writes approvingly of Rice's new strategy for peace in the Middle East: the Arab countries should serve as better role models for the Palestinians.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Condoleezza Rice and Palestinians.

ABBAS--IN HIS OWN WORDS AND DEEDS. ZOA has a Press Release that gives a list of statements and actions of PA president Mahmoud Abbas which demonstrate his lack of a desire for peace--and the results of Palestinian opinion polls that contradict the rosy picture Condoleezza Rice persists in foisting on the public.

Technorati Tag: Israel and ZOA and Condoleezza Rice and Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinians and Morton Klein.

CAROLINE GLICK:

Indeed, it seems almost axiomatic that when the going gets tough for US administrations, administration officials get tough on Israel.

Technorati Tag: Caroline Glick and Condoleezza Rice.

US CUTS DOWN AID TO PA: The New York Times reports that the amount to be given Abbas has been cut 40% from $86 million to $50 million.

“I have reformulated the plan,” Ms. Rice said. “It will request less money, precisely because some of the money I would have requested, I could not fully account for.”

Technorati Tag: Palestinians and Abbas and US and Condoleezza Rice.

WHAT'S OLD IS NEW: David Ignatius' ingenuous article Rice's Mideast Minefield is summarized as:

Condoleezza Rice is trying to broker the creation of a Palestinian state even if she has to differ with the Israelis to do it.

Is this really news, considering how Rice has been forcing concessions out of Israel till this point anyway?

In the article itself Ignatius reveals:

Rice's position is that she won't refuse to talk to Palestinians just because they have become members of the Hamas-dominated government, if their past public statements have recognized Israel's right to exist.

If their past public statements have recognized Israel's right to exist? If this position is adhered to honestly, Rice really has limited who she can talk with.

But somehow, I don't think we need worry about Condoleezza Rice--we know she'll find a way.

Technorati Tag: Condoleezza Rice.

Olmert and Abbas: Matching Bookends?

Arutz Sheva notes that at the December 23 meeting between Olmert and Abbas, Israel made a number of concessions--including the transferal of $100 million of frozen tax revenues, the easing of travel restrictions, and the increasing of the number of work permits for Palestinian Arabs who want to enter the pre-1967 areas of Israel.

And Abbas?

There were no apparent concessions offered by Abbas, other than to reiterate his full support of the November 26th ceasefire between Israel and the PA, which has thus far been violated more than 70 times by Arab terrorists.

Where would Israel be without Abbas' full support of the ceasefire?

It is common to think that Abbas is a clever negotiator who is holding back from conceding anything, while taking advantage of Olmert to get the maximum number concessions.

Could it be that Abbas, is inept and incapable of doing anything but parrot the same talk of wanting peace and making ceasefires, while Olmert for his part just repeats the same 2 lines of how serious Israel is about peace and how serious Israel is about reacting to aggression.

Abbas has no control on what is going on and may have placed himself in an embarrassing predicament:

The embattled PA chairman is struggling with increasing internecine violence, and in addition, he is liable not to be his Fatah faction’s chosen candidate in the early elections he himself has called. [emphasis added]

This of course has not stopped the oblivious Abbas from recently making a statement to the press:

“We have proposed the idea of back channel talks… and with the participation of members of the Quartet (U.S., Russia, United Nations and European Union)… with the aim of discussing the final phase.” [emphasis added]

Discussing the final phase when the first phase--stopping the terrorist attacks--is par for the course for Abbas.

Olmert, too, seems oblivious to the seriousness of the situation and how far things have gone out of control:

“A directive has been given to the defense establishment to take pinpoint action against rocket-launching squads,” said Olmert in a statement by his office. “Israel will continue to maintain the ceasefire and work with the PA so that immediate steps are taken to halt the Kassam firings.”

Since then, ten rockets were fired on Friday, one on Saturday, and, according to some reports, one today.

Question: When Rice held separate meetings with Abbas and Olmert back in November "during which she helped prepare them to meet with each other"--just what was she orchestrating? Was she prepping each of them for this play we are now watching?

Rice is supposedly going to be coming back to the area shortly.
What should we be expecting in the next act, now that the Road Map has become a Road Show?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Abbas and Condoleezza Rice.

Without Rumsfeld and Bolton, Who Will Keep Rice From Overcooking?

According to UPI: no one.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice now enjoys far greater clout in foreign policy-making following the fall of her arch-nemesis, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And Rice has repeatedly made clear she wants to see a revived Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The secretary of state defied powerful neo-conservative pressure at a time when the neo-cons still dominated the White House, the National Security Council and the Department of Defense to choose David Welch, a highly respected veteran Middle East hand, as her assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs.

Also, the departure of John Bolton from his key diplomatic position as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations removes a passionate opponent of any revival of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

It's not clear who is going to replace Bolton, what we do know that Robert Gates is going to replace Rumsfeld. Gates, is described as a 'traditional moderate Republican internationalist'--whatever. He is also supposed to have close ties to James Baker and was a member of the ISG until he was picked to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.

According to UPI, things will be very different for Israel in particular--and the article gives the nowadays obligatory hint at the "Israel Lobby" claim:

Under Rumsfeld, Israeli military officials had the run of the Pentagon and enjoyed unprecedented access to Rumsfeld and his top officials. They could count on the enormous clout of the DoD, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Rumsfeld himself to block any diplomatic initiatives by the Bush administration that the Israeli government did not like. But once Gates is running OSD, he appears far more likely to make common cause with Rice to pressure the Israelis to make new concessions on reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Whether this is actually true or not of course remains to be seen. Powerline, for example notes that remarks made by Gates at his confirmation do not reveal the opponent of Iraq that Bush's opponents claim Gates is:

I agreed with President Bush’s decision to go into Iraq. Our men and women in uniform and our coalition partners have served admirably there, and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with them on a daily basis to help make the future better for the Iraqi people.

...I believe that leaving Iraq in chaos would have dangerous consequences both in the region and globally for many years to come.

But on Iran, Gates does not take Iran's nuclear threat seriously, nor does he see in Iran a serious threat to Israel either. Powerline quotes Claremont's Seth Leibsohn about one exchange in the hearing:

This exchange between Lindsay Graham & Bob Gates today is disturbing, to say the least. Asked by Senator Graham if Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel, Gates responded, "I don't know that they would do that, Senator." Somewhat astounded, Graham pushed back:

Graham: The president of Iran has publicly disavowed the existence of the Holocaust, has publicly stated that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think he's kidding?

Gates: No, I don't think he's kidding, but I think there are, in fact, higher powers in Iran than he, than the president. And I think that, while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent.

As Powerline puts it, according to Gates--other religious fundamentalists higher up than Ahmadinejad are going to keep him in check and act as a moderating influence.

In any case, with Israel's greatest mortal threat reduced to the rantings of an underling, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is free to become a central theme for Rice to continue to hammer away at.

Can 2008 come soon enough?
And will it make any difference?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates and Iran and Ahmadinejad.

Condoleezza Rice: I Think I Know, I Think I Know, I Think I Know

Hat Tip: Powerline

In an interview with Condoleezza Rice, Cal Thomas asked her about her statement as the Keynote Address at the American Task Force on Palestine Inaugural Gala, where she said:

I know that sometimes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel must seem like a very distant dream. But I know too, as a student of international history, that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that, after they happened, simply seemed inevitable. I've read over the last summer the biographies of America's Founding Fathers. By all rights, America, the United States of America, should never have come into being. We should never have survived our civil war. I should never have grown up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama to become the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

Thomas asks Rice how--in the light of extremist Islamist rhetoric, propaganda, and indoctrination--she sees a Palestinian state accepting the existence of Israel.

QUESTION: I'd like to know what evidence you have — I read, and I know you do and a lot more than I do, the sermons, the editorials in the Middle East, the right of return idea, which a lot of people think is just basically overwhelming for a Jewish population with millions and millions of Arabs in the so-called Diaspora. What evidence do you have that teaching their schoolchildren at the ages of four and five to be martyrs, to show up in their little uniforms with plastic guns and their headbands, textbooks one grenade plus two grenades equals, you know, three grenades — what evidence do you have out there that if they had an independent state that they would lay down their arms and not complete the mission of killing the Jews and throwing them out?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, you can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they're perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace. And when it comes right down to it, yeah, there are plenty of extremists in the Palestinian territories who are not going to be easily dealt with. They have to be dealt with — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories — they're terrorists and they have to be dealt with as terrorists.

But the great majority of Palestinian people — this is — I've been with these people. The great majority of people, they just want a better life. This is an educated population. I mean, they have a kind of culture of education and a culture of civil society. I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do.

QUESTION: Do you think this or do you know this?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think I know it.

QUESTION: You think you know it?

SECRETARY RICE: I think I know it.

Just what poll is Rice refering to? She does not say.

Joel Mowbray notes, consistent with Thomas' question to Rice:

Poll after poll has indicated majority Palestinian support for suicide bombings. Even the term used for bombers, "shahids," is one of glorification, the equivalent of calling someone a saint. And whereas children across the world have posters in their room of sports stars or famous artists, Palestinian youths decorate their living space with posters celebrating "shahids."

Could it be that the 70% Rice is referring to is from a Bir Zeit University Poll published on September 20:

12. Peace Process and Negotiations

Palestinians: Yes to negotiation;, no to an immediate recognition of Israel by Hamas

67.0% support an immediate resumption of negotiations with Israel, while 29.7% are in opposition.

In addition, 64.5% support the PNA (led by Hamas) entering into immediate negotiations with Israel to reach a final status agreement.

57.8% support a two-state solution as a final settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; 39.0% oppose such a solution.

52.5% support the idea that Hamas must recognize international resolutions regarding Palestine; 41.0% are in opposition.

52.0% support the idea that Hamas must recognize the agreements signed between the PLO and Israel; 40.8% oppose such a solution.

The majority (62.3%) opposes the idea that Hamas must recognize Israel at this point of time; one-third (33.3%) support Hamas’s immediate recognition of Israel.

But that 67% only supports negotiations--they do not actual accept the existence of an Israeli state.

According to the same poll, 62.3% oppose recognizing Israel, hardly the response of Palestinians ready to live side-by-side with Israel. Also, 65.8% support a unity government led by Hamas: even though 31.6% believe Hamas will not reinforce democracy--this is the same Hamas which has pointedly rejected ceasing terrorism.

If Rice is correct that the vast majority of Palestinians are "perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace"--why does the majority support Hamas.

Condoleezz Rice's presentation of the facts goes further. While Rice may think of herself as "a student of international history," her knowledge of Israel is spotty. Last year, Rice publicly stated:

Two months ago, Israel and the Palestinian Authority took an unprecedented step on the road to peace with the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, returning control of that territory to the Palestinian people...for the first time since 1967, Palestinians will gain control over entry and exit from their territory.

A real student of the relavent history would know that Palestinian Arabs never had control of the Gaza or the West Bank--that prior to the 1967 War, these areas were illegally under the control of Egypt and Jordan; that before that, those areas were under the control of Great Britain by virtue of a mandate of the League of Nations; that before that, those areas were under the control of the Ottoman Empire--even making the jump and assuming that there is a distinctive Palestinian Arab, they never had control over a territory in "Palestine".

Rice can say over and over: I think I know.
But the truth is--she doesn't.

As the editor of the Jewish World Review puts it:

We think the Secretary of State comes off as utopian and rather naive. She needs to go.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Condoleezza Rice and Palestinians and Hamas.

Arafat and the Cynical Uses of Islam

Joel Mowbray critiques Condoleezza Rice's muddled approach to the Palestinian Arabs. In the process, he makes an interesting point on how Yasser Arafat used Islamic indoctrination to overcome the limitaions of the PLO and "breed a new generation of terrorists":

Palestinian society was Islamicized by none than famously secular Yasser Arafat. Once he was given the reins following the 1993 Oslo accords, Arafat instituted an aggressive program of Islamic indoctrination, primarily through the schools and the media. Palestinian Authority-run schools placed far greater emphasis on Islam than ever before, and every Friday PA television still broadcasts sermons of fiery and bitterly anti-Semitic imams.

The indoctrination worked. In a March 2005 poll by the Palestinian Center for Research and Cultural Dialogue, almost 70 percent of Palestinians expressed preference for living under Islamic law. And a 2003 poll by Birzeit University revealed that nearly 80 percent support the notion of punishing a thief by amputating his hand.

Most observers, including many in the Israeli establishment, refuse to acknowledge the increasing Islamic nature of Palestinian society in large part because they cannot believe that a secular Arab nationalist could have implemented Islamic indoctrination. But Arafat did so out of necessity. The original Palestinian Liberation Organization terrorists had an inherent limitation, as the prospect of their own deaths was a deterrent. Arafat thus turned to Islam, which enabled him to breed a new generation of terrorists, who were far more effective than their wiser and better-trained predecessors for one simple reason: Not only were they not afraid to die, but they actually desired death.

It's not just the kids who have been brainwashed. To make sure parents don't follow normal instincts, PA-run broadcasts and newspapers have cynically used Islam to promote the culture of death. This pernicious propaganda campaign has been meticulously detailed by the invaluable Palestinian Media Watch, yet most foreign policy elites seem unaware of the changing face of Palestinian society.

Among those elites, of course, is Condoleezza Rice.
And many, many others.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Kosher Cooking Carnival #11 Is Now Up!

The 11th Kosher Cooking Carnival is now up--
and it is the biggest one yet!

Including:

• Velveteen Rabbi's Spicy blueberry-etrog jam
• Sukkot Menu -- Asian Style
• Browned Onion Lukshen Kugel and Sweet Apricot Chicken Tzimmis.
• Mujadarra - Middle Eastern lentils and rice.

If you want to contribute to next month's Kosher Cooking Carnival, either send it to shilohmuse at gmail dot com or to to the blog carnival
If you're interested in hosting, please let her know.

Technorati Tag: Kosher Cooking Carnival.

Abbas: We Don't Have To Actually Recognize Israel

From Arutz Sheva:

Abbas Tells US PA Will Recognize Israel, Says Opposite on PA TV
15:22 Oct 06, '06 / 14 Tishrei 5767
by Hana Levi Julian

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said this week he would ‘fire Hamas’ if the terror group won’t recognize Israel, but sang a different tune on PA TV.

Abbas convinced U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he is sincere in his commitment to force the PA government to formally acknowledge the Jewish State’s right to exist, said the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) Thursday.

On PA TV, however, Abbas said “It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel.” Abbas is the head of the Fatah party and terror organization, which is currently the minority faction in the PA legislature.

“I do not demand of Hamas nor any other to recognize Israel,” said Abbas in Arabic, “but from the government that works with Israelis in day to day life, yes.”

Rice said she was impressed with the PA leader’s political acumen after their meeting this week. “We have great admiration for you and your leadership,” she said, and committed the U.S. to “redouble efforts” to help PA Arabs.

The PMW is a watchdog organization that monitors Arabic-language media throughout the world and issues a report once a week on its findings.

To go to the PMW website and view the entire report, click here. [emphasis added]

Just what does that mean, when he says

“I do not demand of Hamas nor any other to recognize Israel,” said Abbas in Arabic, “but from the government that works with Israelis in day to day life, yes.”

Palestinian Media Watch has a quote that is much clearer:

Abbas said on PA TV that Hamas does not have to recognize Israel – nor does his own Fatah faction: “Hamas is not required to recognize Israel… It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel.”

He went on to say that government officials must “recognize their counterparts” in order to “solve people’s problems,” indicating that this does not constitute an inherent recognition of Israel, just a functional recognition that allows the PA to get what it needs:

“I do not demand of Hamas nor any other to recognize Israel. But from the government that works with Israelis in day to day life, yes.” [emphasis added]

This is the 'moderate' leader that Rice wants to give weapons to.
With such naievete, the US deserves whatever they get from the Palestinian Arabs.
Unfortunately, it is Israel that pays the price.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Abbas.

You Can Never Give A Terrorist Too Many Weapons

According to WorldNetDaily:

In his meeting today with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas requested a large shipment of weapons from the United States purportedly to arm his group against Hamas following recent intense clashes with the rival group, a senior Palestinian Authority official told WND.

Rice apparently told Abbas that the US will consider it. A PA official went so far as to claim that "she said an answer to our requests would likely be affirmative."

Back in May, the US did provide arms to support Abbas against Hamas. Result--

In June, WND broke the story about how assault rifles that were part of a cache of weapons transferred by the U.S. made its way to members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, some of whom are also officers of Force 17. The weapons may have been used in a string of shootings, including an ambush against a busload of Israeli school girls here, Al Aqsa members told WND.

Maybe the US can get Abbas to guarantee that won't happen again...

Technorati Tag: Israel and Abbas.

Maariv: Homemade Genocide in the Muslim World

The summary below comes from The Daily Alert, prepared for the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Homemade Genocide in the Muslim World - Ben Dror Yemini (Maariv)

• Dozens of publications and websites are dedicated to the purpose of portraying Israel as a state that ceaselessly perpetrates war crimes. The tragedy is that in Arab and Muslim countries a massacre is happening that has no connection to Israel, Zionism, or Jews. It is a genocide of mainly Arabs and Muslims, by Arabs and Muslims.


• In Algeria between the years 1954-1962, the French (who do not stop preaching to Israel) killed nearly 600,000 Muslims. In addition, the civil war begun in the 1990s has claimed 100,000 victims so far.


• In Sudan, a civil war during 1955-1972 claimed 500,000 victims. In recent years fighting there has claimed between 200,000 and 600,000 victims. In Afghanistan, the Soviet invasion, which began in 1979 and ended in 1989, left about a million dead. Since 1977 Somalia has been immersed in an unending civil war with the number of victims estimated at about 550,000.


• When Bangladesh aspired to gain independence from Pakistan, Pakistan reacted with a military invasion during which one to two million people were systematically liquidated in 1971. In Indonesia, the biggest Muslim state in the world, as many as 400,000 were killed in 1965-1966 after a communist uprising. After East Timor announced its independence from Indonesia, Indonesia invaded and during 1975-1999 about 100,000 to 200,000 people were killed.


• In the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, between 450,000 and 650,000 Iraqis, and between 450,000 and 970,000 Iranians were killed. During Saddam Hussein's reign in Iraq, between 200,000 to 300,000 Kurds were killed in a genocide throughout the 1980s and 1990s. In 1991-1992, between 40,000 and 200,000 were killed in a Shiite uprising in Iraq. An estimated 100,000 people have been killed since the coalition forces took control in Iraq in 2003.


• In the Lebanese civil war in 1975-1990, 130,000 were killed. In the civil war in Yemen in 1962-1970, 100,000 to 150,000 were killed. In Chechnya since 1994 there have been 80,000 to 300,000 fatalities. From Jordan to Zanzibar, there have been smaller confrontations that have cost the lives of tens of thousands of Muslims and Arabs, killed by Muslims and Arabs.


• What would have happened to the Palestinians if they were under Iraqi occupation? Or Sudanese? Or even French or Soviet? The genocide that Israel is not committing hides the real genocide, the silenced genocide that Arabs and Muslims are committing mainly against themselves.

This just makes stuff like this all the more amazing:

Scowcroft, in his interview, discussed an argument over Iraq he had two years ago with Condoleezza Rice, then-national security adviser and current secretary of state. "She says we're going to democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. The article stated that with a "barely perceptible note of satisfaction," Scowcroft added: "But we've had fifty years of peace." [emphasis added]

Right.

Update:
Israel Matzav blogged about this article too, and noticed something in the actual article that I missed:

Towards the end, he throws in this curious fact:

Another fact: Since WWII, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the national conflict with the lowest number of victims, but with the world’s highest number of publications hostile to Israel in the media and in the Academia.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Moslems and Arabs.

Scowcroft and the Myth of Israeli Responsibility for Mideast Unrest

The Best of the Web notes that on October 25 last year, the following appeared in The Washington Post about Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and H. W. Bush:

Scowcroft, in his interview, discussed an argument over Iraq he had two years ago with Condoleezza Rice, then-national security adviser and current secretary of state. "She says we're going to democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. The article stated that with a "barely perceptible note of satisfaction," Scowcroft added: "But we've had fifty years of peace." [emphasis added]

In response to Scowcroft's satisfaction that there have been 50 years of peace among the autocratic rulers in the Mideast, James Taranto points out:

Now let's see. Between 1953 and 2003, here are the Mideast wars we can think of off the top of our head: the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, the two Palestinian intifadas against Israel, the Algerian Civil War, the Yemen Civil War and two Sudanese civil wars. That doesn't even count acts of terror against non-Mideastern countries, from the Iranian invasion of the U.S. Embassy to the attacks of 9/11.

Now you can argue that Scowcroft was speaking only in terms of Arab conflicts and not those based on wars with Israel, which brings the number of conflicts down, but Raphael Patai, has his own list--which does not include Israel--counting just from 1970 to 1983, which he lists in a chapter he added to an updated version of his The Arab Mind in 1983:

1. Intermittent disputes involving border warfare and assassinations between South Yemen on the one hand, and North Yemen and Saudi Arabia, on the other since the early 1970's. A brief but fierce border war between the two Yemens took place as recently as March, 1979.

2. A major and bloody, albeit brief, conflict between Jordan and Palestinian guerillas in 1970, complicated by Syrian intevention.

3. Fighting between the Kurds and the Iraqis, which lasted several yesrs.

4. A bloody conflict between Northern and Southern Sudan, 1956-1972.

5. Clashes between South Yemen and Oman, linked to the Dhofar rebellion, 1972-1976.

6. A tripartite confict between Algeria on the one hand and Morocco and Mauritania, on the other, over the control of the former Spanish Sahara, beginning in 1976 and subsequently transformed into guerrilla warfare against Morocco by the Polisario, the freedom fighters of the Western Sahara, supported by Algeria and Libya, which was still in progrss in 1982.

7. Intermittent hostility, and actual border fighting, including air attacks, between Egypt and Libya in 1977.

8. The Lebanese civil war, which began in 1975, involving two outside parties, Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization, still unresolved in early 1982.

9. The invasion of Chad by Libya in 1980.

10. The war between Iraq and Iran, wich began in the fall of 1980, in which Iraq is supported by Jordan and Iran by Syria, making it in effect, an inter-Arab conflict. It was still in progress in early 1982.

11. In February, 1982, a conflict flared up between the Syrian government and Muslim fundamentalists in the Syrian city of Hama, in which several thousands were killed and major parts of Hama were destroyed. [p.357-358]

Now on July 30, Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and H. W. Bush, wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post about the potential opportunity for resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs based on the current war in Lebanon.

Besides some debatable assumptions about what Israel and the Palestinian Arabs can come to agreement on--unless Scowcroft is relying on international pressure on Israel to paper over their differences--Scowcroft still thinks Israel is the initial domino that will set everything else aright:

The benefits of reaching a comprehensive settlement of the root cause of
today's turmoil would likely ripple well beyond the Israelis and the
Palestinians. [emphasis added]

History clearly shows the capability of the Arab world to generate massacres and enormous bloodshed among themselves without recourse to Israel as a spark. Currently, the source of instability in the Mideast is Iran's drive towards Muslim leadership, now manifesting itself through its Hezbollah proxy attacking Israel, with whom Iran has no border and no real issue. This, as part of the growing Islamist threat, should direct the world's attention away from attempts at simplistic solutions focused purely on the Palestinian Arabs and instead towards the genuine threat to world peace.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Arabs and Brent Scowcroft and Jihad and Iran and Islam.

Endgame

Insight on the News--published by the same company that publishes the Washington Times--had an article just a couple of days ago that Bush and Rice were divided on how to deal with Israel and the war in Lebanon:

The U.S. response to the Israeli-Hezbollah war was said to have divided both the administration as well as the family of President George W. Bush. At the same time, it marked the first time since Ms. Rice became secretary of state that the president has overruled her.

The issue boils down to a choice--as it often does--between the military and diplomatic options, and the ramifications of those choices:

The disagreement between Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice is over the ramifications of U.S. support for Israel's continued offensive against Lebanon. The sources said Mr. Bush believes that Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah would encourage Iranian adventurism in neighboring Iraq. Ms. Rice has argued that the United States would be isolated both in the Middle East and Europe at a time when the administration seeks to build a consensus against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Instead, Ms. Rice believes the United States should engage Iran and Syria to pressure Hezbollah to end the war with Israel. Ms. Rice has argued that such an effort would result in a U.S. dialogue with Damascus and Tehran on Middle East stability.

Of course what Rice considers 'stabilizing' others might refer to as 'empowering'.
Now, just a couple of days later, Rice's position has won out
And whatever effect it may have, it will not be empowering Israel:

With the UN Security Council on the verge of passing a cease-fire resolution, the IDF understood on Thursday that Operation Change of Direction was ending, for better or for worse.

The IDF was disappointed. Senior officers said they had been looking forward to the fight. Reaching the Litani and eliminating Hizbullah from the villages on the way could have provided, senior officers believe, the victory that Israel has been trying to obtain since July 12. By Thursday night, the chance of that happening was drifting away.

In the end, Israel will have nothing to show for this.
No international force can really be expected to stop Hezbollah.
The chances that Israel will get her soldiers back without having to give something up is unlikely.
Nothing will stand in the way of Hezbollah re-arming itself.
Nasrallah will claim victory--for Hezbollah and by implication Syria and Iran as well.
And what at first was viewed as an opportunity to change the region for the better, will weaken the way Israel is viewed by its enemies.
Whether this is Bush's idea of Olmert's, the fact remains that Israel will be the worse for it.
No one will see this as a draw.

If a cease-fire is really put into place, if there is a bright side--please feel free to point it out.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and Lebanon and Hizbollah and Hezbollah

How Reliable Is HRW In Lebanon?

Hat tip: Israel Matzav

On Saturday, Human Rights Watch has a revelation:

Hezbollah must immediately stop firing rockets into civilian areas in Israel, Human Rights Watch said today. Entering the fourth week of attacks, such rockets have claimed 30 civilian lives, including six children, and wounded hundreds more.

“Lobbing rockets blindly into civilian areas is without doubt a war crime,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. ”Nothing can justify this assault on the most fundamental standards for sparing civilians the hazards of war.”

...Some of the rockets, such as those that killed eight rail workers in Haifa on July 16 and two young brothers in Nazareth on July 19, have warheads packed with thousands of metal ball bearings that spray out from the blast. Launched on civilian areas, the ball bearings are intended to inflict maximum harm. [emphasis added]

HRW has also been busy tracking Hamas war crimes too, as they relate to the their indiscriminate use of Kassam rockets and kidnapping soldiers.

HRW is also accusing Israel of war crimes as well, not only discounting the warnings that Israel gave to civilians to leave the area, but denying that Hizbollah uses human shields:

The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk. Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack. [emphasis added]

There is a very real question whether HRW is doing its homework. The National Post (Canada) manages to report on 4 examples of Hizbollah using human shields--using hospitals:

The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell.

"Look what they did to this place," Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. "Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?"

The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.

Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel.

"What choice to we have? We need to fight back from somewhere," he said, tapping his foot on the ground.

"This is Hezbollah's heartland."

using border villages:

"We've been preparing ourselves for this fight for the last five years. We can fight this for much longer," said Abu Ismail, a local Hezbollah leader near the village of Bint Jbeil who uses a nom de guerre, like most of his fellow fighters.

Residents of the cluster of villages closest to the Israeli border, Hezbollah's most loyal supporters, helped stow the weapons away.

But as the conflict continues, there is an undercurrent of anger among some residents.

"Hezbollah are using [us] as human shields," said Rima Khouri, gesturing overhead as Israeli warplanes sliced through the sky.

The Lebanese Christian woman fled from her village of Ain Abel to one of the swelling refugee shelters in the city of Tyre.

She was one of few people to speak freely about her anger at Hezbollah and their strategy of firing rockets into Israel from civilian areas.

and using homes:

Nasser Kareem shared her sentiments.

During a pitched battle in his village of Bint Jbeil last Thursday, the 48-year-old dentist watched from his kitchen window as Hezbollah fighters dragged a rocket launcher across the torn street in front of his house.

A few minutes later, he heard four successive blasts. Kareem barely managed to cover his four-year-old son's ears before the rockets were fired. His own ears are still ringing.

"Five minutes after they fired the rockets, the Israelis started bombing," he recalled from the safety of a shelter in Beirut.

"They are making us magnets for the Israelis," he said.

And in a village near Qana:

Anger boiled over last week when a shelter in Qana was hit, killing 29 people, most of them children.

"What have they done to deserve this? Is this a military target?" wept Mohamad Chaloub, clutching the lifeless body of his daughter.

Local officials said there were no weapons or rockets in the house where the children slept in Qana, no warning before the bomb fell.

But the next day, the same Lebanese Red Cross team that dug out the children's bodies stumbled across the shreds of more rocket launchers in a village nearby.

One was found deep inside a fruit orchard. Another was found wedged between two houses.

Rich Lowry of The Corner noted during his visit to Israel that Hezbollah had an observation post right next to a UN post on the Lebanon-Israel border.

In the same report, HRW has also accused Israel of attacking ambulances:

Two Israeli air strikes are known to have hit humanitarian aid vehicles. On July 18 the IDF hit a convoy of the Red Crescent Society of the United Arab Emirates, destroying a vehicle with medicines, vegetable oil, sugar and rice, and killing the driver. On July 23, Israeli forces hit two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances in the village of Qana.

Elder of Ziyon has a post that raises substantial questions on the accuracy of that claim.

According to Human Rights Watch, Hamas, Hizbollah, and Israel are all equally guilty of War Crimes.

Is the term "War Crime" going to be used indiscriminately, going the way of the term "holocaust"--and robbing it of any meaning?

The other question is: who is watching the watchers?

Tom Gross reports on how Hizbollah has manipulated journalists.

Israel Insider has a report on how UNIFIL officers have been bribed by UNIFIL officers who stood by and allowed IDF officers to be kidnapped.

Without independent confirmation, why should HRW's claims about the results of Israeli attacks in Lebanon, under the watchful eye of Hizbullah be believed?

Technorati Tag: Israel and HRW and HIzbollah and Hezbollah and Lebanon.

Statement by Ambassador Gillerman Before UN Security Council on Qana

"We mourn at the deaths of civilians in Kafr Qana. If there were no Hizbullah this would never have happened. Israel has never targeted - and in this particular case did not target - innocent people "

Statement by H.E. Ambassador Dan Gillerman
Permanent Representative of Israel

Before the Security Council

During the open debate on "The Situation in the Middle East"

(30 July 2006)

Mr. President,

I thank the Secretary-General for honouring us with his presence.

This is a horrible, sad and bloody Sunday. This is a day on which we mourn and grieve, together with the people of Lebanon, at the deaths of the innocents and civilians in Kafr Qana. Those people, including women and children, who were killed in this horrible, tragic incident may have been killed by Israeli fire, but they are the victims of Hizbullah: they are the victims of terror. If there were no Hizbullah, this would never have happened. If Lebanon were free of the stranglehold of that monster, this would never have happened. And, while we mourn the deaths of those people, we must stress that Israel has never targeted — and in this particular case did not target — innocent people.

Kafr Qana has been a hub for Hizbullah for a long time. Hizbullah has been launching missiles and rockets at Israel from Kafr Qana. We will make available to the Security Council a film that shows Hizbullah launching a rocket from right behind a three-storey house: a civilian residence very similar to the one that was hit today in Kafr Qana. That is the sad reality.

Israel has repeatedly beseeched the residents of Qana to leave. I would not be surprised if Hizbullah made them stay. We are dealing with a ruthless, cynical, cruel enemy, one of the most monstrous terror organizations that this world has ever known. They have no regard for Israeli life, and they have no regard for Lebanese life. They do not care about the people of Lebanon. They have infiltrated every fiber and every cell of that country, so that, in the words of my esteemed Lebanese colleague who appeared on United States television only last week, “You cannot distinguish in Lebanon between Hizbullah and the Lebanese.” In his words, Hizbullah is everywhere; in is words, Hizbullah has infiltrated and become part of Lebanese society.

But there is a huge moral disequivalence between the two sides. While our enemies — who only today have launched more than 100 missiles at Israeli towns and villages — specifically target women and children in order to kill them, we are defending ourselves in this brutal war. And sometimes, tragically, as happened today, women and children get hurt, because they are used as human shields by Hizbullah. Hizbullah has homes in Lebanon that house missiles — in which the family sleeps with a missile. When you sleep with a missile, sometimes you do not wake up in the morning. In Israel, we have homes that are equipped with air raid shelters to save people from bombs; in Lebanon, they have homes that they equip to launch missiles, taking into account that those people could be killed.

Today, we say that we are truly sorry for the people of Lebanon and for the people who were killed. I have never heard Hizbullah say that they are sorry for a single Israeli — woman, child, elderly person, civilian or innocent — who has been killed. Never. Why? Because they target us specifically. That is their declared aim, and that is what we are fighting. And while for us every dead Lebanese child is a horrible mistake and a tragedy, for them every dead Israeli child is a victory and a cause for celebration.

I am saying emphatically at this table that I would not be surprised, because of their cynicism and brutality and total disregard for human life, if this is exactly what Hizbullah wanted to happen. I would not be surprised if this is something that they wanted and wished for precisely today, the day when Secretary Rice is in the region trying to reach a settlement. Because members of the Council know better than I that on any given day when we are so close to reaching a settlement, the terrorists, the extremists, the fundamentalists snatch it away from us, because they do not want a settlement.

And I must say that I feel that what is happening around this table today is exactly what they wanted to happen. Today, while there is mourning in Israel and in many other places around the world, there may very well be jubilation in Tehran, in Damascus and in the Hizbullah strongholds, because this is exactly what they want to happen. They want the Council to be called up to arms and to seize the fire. They want it to do exactly what it is being asked to do today. They want the Council to react the way in which it does.

I know that these are harsh words, but I believe them with all my heart. I beseech members not to play into their hands, not to provide them with what they seek while they sacrifice their own people as human shields and as victims.

And today, of all days, I would like to ask my Lebanese friend: tell your people, the brave people of Lebanon, the Government that you represent and your brave Prime Minister, for whom we have a lot of respect, that the demonstrations held today in Beirut should not be against the United Nations; they should be against Hizbullah. Hizbullah is the one that has caused you all this pain. Hizbullah is the monster that you have allowed to grow. If you had taken care of it before, if you had deployed your forces in the south, this would never have happened. And if the Security Council had enforced resolution 1559 (2004), this would never have happened. Tell your people to demonstrate not for blood, but for peace and for hope.

If we want to live together in this tough neighbourhood and in this blood-ridden region, we need to create a culture of hope rather than a culture of violence. We need to create a culture in which the children who were hurt in Qana would have been at school today rather than huddled together as hostages for Hizbullah — a culture in which the children of Qiryat Shemona would have gone to school today instead of being scared and huddling in bomb shelters because of Katyusha rockets. We need to change the culture of hatred. We need to teach our children about hope. And we should not let what happened today — tragic and horrible as it is — change the facts and the truth. And that is that Hizbullah must be totally disarmed. Otherwise, if there is a ceasefire today and if Hizbullah remains with its capabilities and its huge arsenal of arms, it will raise its ugly head again. And it will rise not just against us and against the people of Lebanon, but against the whole region and civilization as we know it. Do not let Iran and Tehran, the sponsors of Hizbullah, have their day. Make it clear that this must end — not that hostilities and fire must end, but that terror and Hizbullah must end, because until they do, there will be hostilities and there will be fire, and more innocents will pay the price.

Thank you Mr. President

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hizbollah and Hizbullah and Lebanon and Qana and UN.