The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease

Two cases of charges of police brutality in Israel.
In one case the charges are being investigated.
In the other case, the charges are being dropped.

And therein lies the tale.

Last month I wrote a post ("Fear of the Arab Street") about the commission that was charged to investigate the police handling of the riots of Israeli Arabs in October 2000--which included the murder of an Israeli motorist killed by a rock--as opposed to investigating the Arab leaders who actually instigated the violence.

In the end, the commission did not bring charges against the police.

But then Israeli Arabs said they would appeal the decision to the courts, and as a result, the Justice Ministry has announced that it is going to go back and reopen the investigation.

Contrast this with a more recent charge of police brutality--which is being dropped:

The head of the department, Herzl Shviro, informed the Land of Israel Task Force that all complaints against policemen involved in the expulsion from the synagogue in Kfar Darom were being erased.

In a letter dated Sep. 29, Shviro wrote, "After I studied the complaint and the material that has been gathered, I have decided - for reasons of public interest - that the construct of circumstances of the incident does not correspond with a criminal indictment... However, I have decided to transfer the material for a check by the Public Complaints Department of the Police Department."

This in spite of documentation of the charges, as the Arutz7 article lists. But charges are in fact being brought, just not against the police:

On the other hand, the State Prosecution has filed at least 17 indictments against demonstrators on charges of violence against policemen during the Kfar Darom expulsion.

Aviad Visuly, head of the Land of Israel Task Force, is not happy:

"This is a scandal of the highest magnitude," Visuly said. "Citizens are charged with violence against policemen, but when dozens of policemen hit and abuse citizens, against all semblance of law, lie in court, make up evidence and violate dozens of laws - here, Shviro decides that the public isn't interested. Let me emphasize: He didn't close the files for lack of guilt, or for lack of evidence. The Department knows that there is plenty of evidence against them, but closes its eyes on purpose and refuses to accept it." [emphasis added]

The Israeli Arabs are 'interested,' so the charge of police brutality is reopened.
The Israeli public 'isn't interested,' so no charges against the police are made.

So does justice boil down to 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease'?

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Palestinian Killer Candidates

Arutz7 has an article about "Terrorists Running in Palestinian Authority Elections":

The PA demands the release from Israeli prison of Marwan Barghouti, accused of murdering 35 Israelis. So says PA official Saeb Erekat. Barghouti wants to run in the upcoming PA parliament elections.

Getting on the ballot may not be so easy for Barghouti, even from the PA side:

Barghouti and other Al-Aksa Brigades terrorists are pressuring the PLO's Fatah, its mother organization, to be included on its list of candidates for the upcoming PA parliamentary election. The election is scheduled for late January 2006.

But what catches your eye is the background of the prospective Al-Aksa candidates:

Topping the list of aspiring Al-Aksa candidates is Barghouti, who has been in Israeli prison for three and a half years and is serving several life terms. The arch-terrorist is considered the founder of the Al-Aksa Brigades. Others on the list of potential PA lawmakers are Nasser Awis, a subordinate of Barghouti who dispatched suicide terrorists; Yasser Abu Baher, currently serving three life terms plus 40 years for various murders; and Jamal Hawil, responsible for many attacks against Israelis in the Jenin area.

So just how are these 'candidates' better than having Hamas participating in the election?

Technorati Tag: Israel.

List of Islamic Terror Attacks Since September 11th, 2001

TheReligionofPeace.com is keeping an updated list of Islamic Terror Attacks Since September 11th, 2001

It's an amazing project, tracking incidences that--not surprisingly--are not being tracked by the media. It is also amazing just for the sheer number of attacks it records. According to the list, there have been Islamist attacks today--October 10--and every day, going back without a break, to September 12.

Also, the attacks are not limited to those in Israel, but also those in Thailand, Chechnya, Bangladesh, the Philipines, and Kosovo--among others.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah's al-Manar is entertaining its viewers with the 29-part Ramadan special "Al-Shatat, The Diaspora," where a rabbi orders his young son to kidnap a Christian friend so that his throat can be slit and the blood drained into a bedpan to be used to make food for Passover. The rest of the series tells the usual anti-Semitic plot of alleged Jewish aspirations for world domination.

While Islamist terrorists feed this to their co-religionists to both horrify and delight them, the simple unadorned facts of the death and destruction they themselves have brought--especially upon their fellow Moslems--stand as a daily condemnation of everything they claim to stand for.

Technorati Tags: Islamist and Terror.

The Cat in the Hat Does Gaza

(Bruchim Ha'baim to visitors via Haveil Havalim. Please take a moment to go to the home page and take a look around. Thanks to Biur Chametz and Soccer Dad. Chag Sameach, Bennett)

I remember Dr. Seuss' Cat in the Hat as a character that invites himself into the home and, starting with a small mess, adds to it and multiplies it until finally at the end, somehow everything is put right.

So let's see:

Israel, in the interests of peace with the Palestinian Arabs, brings in Arafat.

As a result, terror attacks increase and the situation in Gaza get dramatically worse.

So Arafat was isolated and eventually replaced with the moderate Abu Mazen.

Abu Mazen turns out to be weak, so Hamas grows in strength and influence.

In order to consolidate Israel's position and set up secure borders, Sharon disengages from Gaza.

Now with no one to stop it Al Qaeda is making itself at home in Gaza.

Now, according to Powerline blog, some good may come of this latest development:

When it becomes clear that al Qaeda intends to use Gaza as a base for international terrorism, the administration will have no choice but to face up to the dangers posed by the Palestinians' failure to develop a normal civil society, and to think seriously about what can be done to mitigate those dangers.

Maybe.

And maybe the Cat in the Hat is not quite done yet.

Or maybe I should stick with Chad Gadya...

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Oh, THAT Hamas

IMRA is carrying an article from Geostrategy-Direct, entitled "U.S. warning allies of Hamas takeover of Palestinian Authority". It turns out that maybe backing Abu Mazen might not have been such a great idea after all:

During a Sept. 20 meeting, the Quartet - officials from the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States - discussed a Hamas takeover of the PA. Officials said the Quartet, which plans to allocate $3 billion to the PA over the next three years, concluded that the international community could not prevent such a prospect.

It's interesting that following that meeting, Secretary of State Rice said:

SECRETARY RICE: This is going to be a Palestinian process and I think we have to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process. (I wrote in another post my impressions of Rice's overall comments)

I imagine that the evolution that will take place will be the replacement of a group of terrorists that pays occasional lip service to a relationship to the US by one that offers no such illusion.
But that won't stop the State Department.

Of course, US concerns about Hamas go beyond concerns just about Israel:

The prospect of a Hamas takeover of a Western-funded PA has alarmed Congress. Members of the House subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, who have been receiving frequent closed-door briefings on the decline of the PA, warned that Hamas could eventually use Western funding and weapons to fight the United States.

And then of course there is the sticking point that if Hamas were to be in control, the US would be unable to deal with them:

Under U.S. law, Washington would be unable to deal with any foreign government controlled by groups deemed by the State Department to be terrorists.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been designated terrorist organizations, and the former intends to run in elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006.
"Hamas has already been in government in the Palestinian Authority," [Assistant Secretary of State David ] Welch said. "Under American law, we can't deal with them. I don't see that law changing after January."

The closing of the article, though, is problematic:

Still, neither Congress nor the administration plans to offer an alternative to the current PA leadership. Officials and congressional sources said that despite growing PA instability, the United States did not have any near-term alternative to Abbas.

"Let's be honest," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, a senior member of the House International Relations Committee. "On its good day, the Palestinian Authority is rife with corruption and riddled with political hacks and thugs. It is never one news cycle away from political emasculation. Yet, this is the horse we're betting on. And truth be told, it's the right bet. There's no one else to bet on."

There was a time not so long ago that the US policy was a hands-off, wait-and-see policy, one that was roundly criticized by the world leaders even while it contributed to the growing insignificance of Arafat.

But by giving in to the pressure and becoming more involved and promoting the idea of elections which produced Abu Mazen, the door was opened for Hamas. Maybe not so different than the error Israel made in opening the door that led to Arafat's gaining control (and according to Sidney Zion led to the loss of Gaza).

Rather than claiming that Abbas was the best bet around, perhaps it would have been wiser to just stay away from the racetrack.

The criticism that democracy cannot be introduced into Iraq may or may not be valid, but it surely applies to the Palestinian Arabs, who have never had a country--and now is hardly the time to make one up for them.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

If I Will Not Do PR For Myself...

There is a common complaint about hasbarah and pro-Israel PR. We are critical of Israel's apparent lack of willingness to put together a concerted PR effort, especially when compared with what the pro-Palestinian camp is able to accomplish.

These days it seems that terrorists of all stripes are getting more and more media savvy. Michael J. Totten writes in his Middle East Journal about meeting a member of Hezbollah, and quotes a friend who writes, in part:

We know that Hezbollah is undermining Lebanon. We know Hezbollah carries out atrocious operations to kidnap and kill Israel soldiers defending an international recognized border, which even the Lebanese and Syrian governments recognize. We know that Israel has a right to exist. But that's not the issue here.

The issue is Michael's visit to Hezbollah press officers. Ask yourselves this, Why would an organization intent on killing random foreign journalists have an English language press office? To lure them in? Or to try to indocrinate them and have them write pro-Hezbollah articles in the Western press?

Hezbollah was very successful with Helena Cobban (see her article DA). Why shouldn't they try to recruit more Western cheerleaders?

If these terrorists are learning the benefits of smiling for the camera instead of kidnapping people and chopping off heads while earning recognition as the voice of Lebanon, this raises the question of how are we doing with our own cheerleaders.

In England, according to The Jerusalem Report, the answer seems to be that we are not doing too well. Their article describes the efforts of StandUp4Israel--described as a young group of media professionals--to overhaul the current pro-Israel PR efforts in England:

StandUp4Israel's thesis is that British Jewry has utterly failed to address the anti-Zionism bordering on anti-Semitism they say has become institutionalized in both British media and society throughout five years of the intifada... And all this time anti-Semitism has been soaring, with 532 incidents recorded last year, a 42-percent increase from 2003.

So StandUp4Israel has been engaged in the PR battle. But their battle has turned out to be against other Jews, led by Marc Cave, an advertising executive:

The 40-year-old Cave, whose Drugstore agency represents clients like Napster and Coca-Cola, wants to see hard-hitting ads in national newspapers, pro-Israel billboard posters and a 60-second cinema clip, all designed free of charge by the award-winning ad men he has recruited. But communal leaders remain convinced that such an in-your face approach - previously tried in the United States on cable TV, with debatable success, by Jewish advocacy groups - is entirely inappropriate in the United Kingdom.

...The real reason for such community negativity, he charges, is a generational one - a conflict between young, proud, angry Jews and an older leadership that has so successfully integrated into the British establishment they are terrified to take a stand that might upset anyone.

..."Politics has changed," he says. "We live in a focus-group culture where the people in power make decisions based on what the bloke in the street thinks."

This kind of in-your-face approach is appealing there in the UK. What about in the US? I would be curious if there is a similar tension when it comes to hasbarah in the US. And when the article says that the an in-your-face approach in the US had "debatable success," it would be helpful to know by whose measurement and how they figured that out.

While we are used to the idea that, regardless of who is president, we can count on the Congress to back Israel, the fact is that the PR battle is being fought in the trenches, namely in the universities--where future senators, congressmen, and other leaders in the US are going to come from. Also, there is the battle for the hearts and minds of people in general, who are flooded by the words, images, and their interpretation, as presented by the media.

Plus, now with the appearance of the blogosphere, there is a whole new area of opinion in which to do battle.

Are we really aware of all of our options and pulling out all the stops?

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Bush's War

President Bush spoke today about the "War on Terror" at the National Endowment for Democracy.

Apparently the speech got a number of favorable reviews in the blogosphere. Instapundit, for one writes about

Bush giving a really first-rate speech on foreign policy and the war to the National Endowment for Democracy. Notable features -- besides its overall clarity -- are the naming of Iran and Syria, and his willingness to talk about a war against Islamic terror, not just generic "terror."

In his speech, Bush mentioned Israel twice in passing. Here is the second reference:

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

So according to Bush, the West Bank is an "excuse for violence" and "no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder."

That's all well and good as far as it goes, but Bush is not talking about Palestinian terrorism--he's talking about Islamist terrorism--and since Bush does not connect Palestinian terrorism with Islamist terrorism, he will still be putting pressure on Israel.

Actually, Bush is taking the claim of the Palestinian terrorists ('return the West Bank') and applying it to the Islamist terrorists who in fact proclaim outright that their goal is to destroy Israel. Bush does not mention Palestinian terrorism in his speech.

At the White House web site, if you do a search for "palestinian terrorism" you get 3 hits, none of which include Bush, Cheney, or any White House representative using the term--just the term being used by the the questioner. That's not a scientific survey and may not indicate anything, but I think it may be part of the distinction being made between Palestinian terrorism versus Islamist terrorism as opposed to the equating of Abbas & Company with Iraq's democractic government (which I've mentioned before)--an equation that is patently absurd.

Bottom line, Bush is still buying into the politically correct version of terrorism shared by the world--he may refer to Iran and Syria by name and talk about Islamic terror instead of just terror, but he uses the world "militant" 11 times while using the world "terrorist" 7 times.

In a prepared speech that is supposed to clarify who the enemies of the US are, I think that is odd.

And there is nothing to indicate that Bush is recognizing the mess that is the PA.

Bush is not clarifying, just repackaging.
And putting the same old wine into new bottles isn't making it taste any better.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

This Isn't Basketball

The headline on one of the articles from this past Monday's Ynetnews.com article reads: Sharon: Ball in Palestinian court

Out of curiousity, I did a quick check on Google:

"The ball is in the Palestinian's court": about 62 times
"The ball is in Abbas' court": about 72 times
"The ball is in the PA's court": about 16 times
"The ball is in Arafat's court": about 75 times
("The ball was in Arafat's court": about 20 times)

As far as metaphors go, the phrase is supposed to imply a sense of responsibilty, that it's their move...the pressure is on...the clock is running.

Baloney.

This tired old turn of phrase is not merely deceptive; it's comical. If anything, rather than being under pressure, the Palestinians are consistently given the initiative and allowed to control the tempo. They are given every allowance and benefit of the doubt, with minimal responsibilty.

Besides, I don't think the Palestinians are much for basketball.
It's more like...dodge ball.

Oh and by the way--
According to Google "the ball is in Israel's court": about 777 times.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

So What Did Rice Say About Hamas?

When Secretarty of State Condoleezza Rice speaks about the Middle East, we pay attention.

Now if we could just figure out what she said...

On September 30, Rice spoke at Princeton. After she spoke, Rice answered some questions. Here is the first question, with her response:

QUESTION: I'd like to thank you for coming, first off. I've just been curious -- seems to me that there's been some sort of disconnect with a lot of the rhetoric that you've been presenting here today and with a lot of our actions in the Middle East. One example is that it seems that we've started to take a lot of a softer line with Hamas in Palestine, which is an organization that I think really doesn't fare with the ideals that you've been promoting here. I was wondering if you could try and explain that disconnect we've been seeing.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. It's a very good question. We've been very clear that Hamas is a terrorist group and it has to be disbanded, both for peace and security and in the Middle East and for the proper functioning of the Palestinian Authority. After all, it is a roadmap obligation of the Palestinian Authority to disband militias and armed resistance groups. There are periods of time of transition in which one has to give some space to the participants, in this case the Palestinians, to begin to come to a new national compact. But I cannot imagine, in the final analysis, a new national compact that leaves an armed resistance group within the political space. You cannot simultaneously keep an option on politics and an option on violence. There simply isn't a case that I can think of internationally where that's been permitted to happen.

For instance, in the Good Friday Agreement it was understood that when Sinn Fein came into politics and eventually the IRA would disarm and perhaps, hopefully, that process is now underway. We did not permit the Afghan warlords to keep their weapons and participate as candidates in politics. They had to make a choice. And so it is absolutely the case that you cannot have armed groups ultimately participating in politics with no expectation that they're going to disarm. But we are very clearheaded about Hamas.

Hamas stands for one-state solution, not a two-state solution. Hamas, therefore, stands for the destruction of Israel. Hamas is an organization that asks Palestinian mothers and fathers to give their children up to make themselves suicide bombers. And it is a real detriment and block to further peace in the Middle East, so we're not at all confused by this. We do, I think, need to give the Palestinians some space to try and reconcile their national politics, but they're going to eventually have to disarm these groups. They can't have it both ways.

So what did she say?

Well, she said that--
a) Hamas is a terrorist group
b) Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel
c) Hamas promotes suicide bombings
d) Hamas is a detriment to peace
e) Hamas must be disarmed

Pretty good, no? So what didn't she say?

Well, according to Arutz7:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that Hamas "eventually" will be disarmed but did not state that the terrorist group should be banned from running in the elections. The U.S. has outlawed Hamas, and one of its principles is the destruction of the State of Israel and replacing it with an Islamic state.

Rice, in a major address, told a questioner that it is clear that Hamas "stands for the destruction of Israel...and is a real detriment and block to further peace." But she used the Sinn Fein party, linked to the Irish Republican Army terrorist group, as an example of terrorists agreeing to disarm in order to win political acceptance. "We do, I think, need to give the Palestinians some space to try and reconcile their national politics," she explained.

The upshot of what Rice seems to have left out leaves the door open for Hamas to take part in elections, as long as it disarms. How many different definitions there are of "disarms" in the Middle East is anyone's guess, but here's one I found that I like:

"To deprive of the means of attack or defense; render harmless. "

Getting back to reality though, Rice did seem to contradict herself. While she did talk about disarming Hamas, that's not what she said at first. The very first thing she said was not that Hamas should be disarmed, but that Hamas has to go altogether:

Hamas is a terrorist group and it has to be disbanded, both for peace and security and in the Middle East and for the proper functioning of the Palestinian Authority. After all, it is a roadmap obligation of the Palestinian Authority to disband militias and armed resistance groups.

So according to Rice, in the interests of following the same roadmap that she says Israel must follow, Hamas must be dissolved and cease to exist. After all, one would assume if that applies to militias and resistance groups, it should also apply to terrorists. That being the case, then there is no question that Hamas would not take part in the elections. What could be simpler than that?
Then why did Rice change course in the middle of a single question, changing tracks from calling for dissolving Hamas to merely 'disarming' them--and leaving open the possibility for Hamas to take part in elections after they 'disarm'?

So what is called for, disarming or disbanding?

According to the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, which by its own admission, "is a performance-based and goal-driven roadmap, with clear phases, timelines, target dates, and benchmarks," the roadmap requires:

Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption. [emphasis added]

Let's face it, perhaps you could assume "dismantle" means "disband", but you could easily read just 'disarm' into this--all that is required is dismantling the 'capabilities' and 'infrastructure', but the group called Hamas would still exist. And who knows what would pass for 'disarm.'

Rice, on behalf of the US, claims "we are very clearheaded about Hamas."

Maybe they could let the rest of us in on just exactly the US--and the roadmap, for that matter--expects to do about Hamas?

Technorati Tag: Israel.

UK vs US on Israel

According to the Jerusalem Post, it might be that the British get it:

Israel's response to the recent Kassam rocket attacks on Sderot has been measured and appropriate, Kim Howells, Britain's Minister of State for the Middle East, told The Jerusalem Post, disregarding Palestinian appeals for the world to rein in the IDF.

Howells, on a three-day visit to the region, hinted in an interview Wednesday night that financial aid to the Palestinian Authority might be withheld if the PA did not seriously begin tackling the terrorism in its midst.

"The Palestinians are receiving more aid per capita than any other people on the face of the earth, and we want to see some proper response," Howells said, hinting at a decrease of economic aid if the Palestinians don't fight terror.

"I thought the retaliation this week was proportionate," said Howells about the IDF operations. "The [Palestinian] attack was a very serious one, it could have killed a lot of people. It's a miracle really there weren't more casualties."

"I think there is no excuse now," he added. "Gaza is now in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, and there are no Israeli troops there. One hopes that where tough decisions have to be made, Abu Mazen [PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas] and the PA will make them."

At the same time, Howells said, the world would carefully watch how "selective" the IDF's retaliation would be. "I don't think that any nation on earth relishes the prospect of world opinion if it retaliates by shelling indiscriminately. But it seems to me that the Israelis have targeted with great care those it believes responsible for firing those rockets."

If this care continues, Howells said, "the world will understand [Israelis] are trying to defend their citizens, which after all is the primary responsibility of any government."

To say that the world will suddenly be more understanding is a bit much, but I would have thought that the US would be more appreciative.

And I would be wrong.

According to the Jerusalem Newswire

Asked for the US government's reaction to Israel getting “a little more active,” State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack repeated what he told reporters earlier in the week: Israel must act with restraint and consider the effects of its actions on American efforts to birth a Palestinian Arab state.

“We have always maintained that Israel has a right to defend itself, but we have urged the Israeli government to be mindful of the consequences of its actions on what all share as the ultimate goal - moving down the road towards two states,” McCormack said.

The spokesman said the Bush Administration wants to see the “Palestinians” and Israelis “work together to build on what we believe was a successful withdrawal in Gaza.”

Of course it could be that Howells is merely paying lip service and that this is a personal view and not that of British government itself. But I miss the days when the US would unabashedly back Israel when she defends herself against terrorism.

Don't you?

Technorati Tag: Israel.