Sbarro Bombing Victim's Mother: Do Not Free My Daughter's Murderer (In Gilad Shalit Deal)

When the deal to release Gilad Shalit was announced, I spoke of the gut wrenching pain that was felt by people who were in favor as well as those not in favor of the deal. No one feels more pain from upcoming release of terrorists then Arnold and Frimet Roth whose 15-year-old daughter Malka Chana Roth, was murdered at the Sbarro bombing in Jerusalem, a little more than ten years ago.

One of the terrorists to be released in the Shalit deal, Ahlam Tamimi, was a key player in the murder of her Malka Chana Roth.

As Malka's dad, Arnold explains, while Tamimi is described in the MSM as simply the person who drove the terrorist to Sbarros she was a very involved key player in the terrorist attack.  On the day of the massacre (9th August 2001), she personally transported the bomb (10 kg) from a West Bank town into Jerusalem, concealed inside a guitar case. Taxi cabs brought her and an accomplice by the name of Al Masri, a young, newly-religious fanatic, to an Israeli security checkpoint and from there into Jerusalem.

To reduce suspicion, they dressed as Israelis and the bomb was not detected. Tamimi, who inspired, planned and engineered the Sbarro attack, personally led her "weapon" - Al Masri - to the target she had carefully selected at Jerusalem's busiest intersection. The target was a pizza restaurant, selected because it was located in the heart of Jerusalem and on a hot summer vacation afternoon it would be teeming with women and children. Tamimi instructed Al Masri to wait fifteen minutes before detonating the explosives to give her sufficient time to flee the scene safely. He followed her orders.

As to this being (as some journalists have implied) an act of momentary madness or lack of sound thinking, take into account that a short time prior to Sbarro attack, Tamimi carried out a 'dry run', placing an explosive inside a downtown Jerusalem supermarket (Hamashbir Lazarchan) which exploded causing damage but resulting in no injuries. According to a journalist I met who had interviewed her some years ago, she is a charismatic and influential woman who played a central role in Neve Tirza, until now the prison for Palestinian Arab female security prisoners. And, he told me, a monster.

Malka's Mom, Frimet Roth wrote this in Haaretz today:

I am writing these words moments after belatedly watching a recorded video that went to air on Israel’s Channel 2 News on Friday night.

It shows the Hamas terrorist, Ahlam Tamimi, being asked: “Do you feel sorry for what you did?”

She answers her interviewer without a trace of hesitation:. “No. Why should I feel sorry?”

The interviewer persists: “Would you do it again if you had the chance?” Her unwavering response: “Yes.”

Tamimi was reaffirming the declaration she made originally in 2006: “I do not regret what I did”, is the way she put it then.

One summer vacation day in August, 2001, Tamimi murdered my fifteen year old, daughter along with 14 other innocent men, women and children who were having lunch at the Jerusalem Sbarro pizza restaurant.

I wonder whether PM Netanyahu has heard Tamimi’s statements. Could he possibly have agreed to free an unrepentant, cold-blooded murderer, sentenced to 16 life terms after she publicly committed to murder again? Perhaps he simply hasn’t seen the interview.

Or perhaps the Prime Minister did see it and wasn’t moved. After all, several months ago my husband and I sent him a letter detailing the crimes of which Tamimi was convicted and pleading with him to refuse to release her.

In that letter, we reminded him that she is generally described mistakenly as the “driver” or “helper”. We noted that she was actually the planner and engineer of the attack. She personally transported the 10 kg bomb concealed in a guitar case in a taxi from Ramallah to Jerusalem, met up with Al Masri, the suicide bomber, and handed him the case.

The two then walked together, disguised as tourists, to the center of the city. They stopped at the target Tamimi had selected. She instructed Al Masri to wait fifteen minutes before detonating the explosives. She wanted him to give her enough time to escape the scene safely, she explained later.

Prime Minister Netanyahu never responded to our written plea. He did not attempt to explain to us why he decided to include Tamimi in this horrific deal despite her uniquely demonic credentials: a mass murderer who has served nine years and has publicly proclaimed her lack of remorse and intention to murder again.

Now the day nears when we fear Tamimi will board the bus to a free life in Jordan, when her own prediction of 2006 - “I will be free again” - is realized.

We feel desperate.
We beg Mr Netanyahu to grant us a few minutes of his time and hear us out. In any sane country with a fair judicial system, even paroled murderers are not released without granting the victims’ loved ones a chance to address the parole board.

I thought Israel is such a state. I pray that I was not wrong.

Frimet Roth

 Whether he is willing to change his mind regarding the release of this terrorist or not, it seems to me that Bibi Netanyau should meet with the Roths. Either to convince them of the correctness of his decisions, or to change his mind based on their logic. Whichever way, the incomprehensible pain of the pain of these parents has been increased by this murderers release as part of the Shalit deal, the Prime Minister should be doing what he can to try and comfort the Roth family.

May the memory of Malka Chana Roth always be for a blessing.

The Roth's have set up a petition asking that Tamimi be removed from the list of terrorists to be release. I am number 4564. If you want to join me in signing the petition please click here.

The Middle East Today: Ha, Ha, Ha! Stop! It’s Too Funny! I Can’t Take It Any More!

By Barry Rubin

There’s a saying that goes something like this: When things are bad, a Jew cries. When they get even worse, a Jew cries more. And when they even get worse, a Jew laughs. As indelicate as this may seem, the current situation makes me want to laugh.

That’s so because things are more ridiculous than they are scary. As the advice and claims of others get increasingly absurd, you have no desire to listen to them. You just have to do what you know is right and stop having any doubts about it precisely because the arguments on the other side are just so historically inaccurate, factually false,.and illogical.

For those joining the story late–a group that seems to include Western politicians, media and academic “experts”–here’s a little background. In 1993, Israel made an agreement with the PLO to try to achieve peace. It turned over the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank to a Palestinian government. Israel accepted the establishment of large security forces, the supply of guns, and the transfer of billions of dollars of aid.

Israel made major offers of territory and concessions to Syria and the Palestinian Authority in 2000, after almost a decade of negotiation. The other side rejected those compromise solutions. The Palestinian leadership instead launched a five-year-long war of terrorism. They lost. Then Israel was attacked by Hizballah. The world intervened and made promises to Israel. These were broken. Then Israel was attacked by Hamas. It defended itself. Again it won, but the world rushed in to save Hamas and to condemn Israel.

Of course, you can say that Israel did mean things and didn’t keep every commitment it made. Yet any balanced and honest assessment has to acknowledge the basic accuracy of the preceding summary. And any that doesn’t is basically worthless as a guide to policy or education.

Now, what are the latest developments? Well, let’s see:

–Turkey’s government has gone beserk (in fact, a product of its Islamism and a celebration of breaking the armed forces that posed the last barrier to their total control of the country) and has started acting as if it is at war with Israel. There is a real possibility that Turkish naval vessels will escort ships organized by terrorist groups to violate a legal blockade to strengthen a regime in the Gaza Strip that openly talks about killing all of the world’s Jews. That government, behaving as if it is at war with Israel, is simultaneously being used by the U.S. government to help direct Syria’s future and lead its main new counterterrorism project.

Feel the chuckles coming on yet?

–The Palestinian Authority, allied with the aforementioned antisemitic, genocidal Hamas, violates all of the agreements it made during the last 18 years—after refusing to negotiate for 2 years—by seeking unilateral independence in the UN. This would mean it will never have to negotiate with Israel or compromise in any way. Thus, this stratagem will kill any chance of negotiations.

Nevertheless, countries are lining up to vote in favor of this proposal. It’s the ultimate embodiment of “social justice” and endless entitlements. The Palestinians “deserve” a state and don’t have to do anything at all to obtain one except to demand it.

–Egypt’s revolution is baying for Israel’s blood. Palestinian-Egyptian terrorists cross Israel’s border and kill Israeli civilians; a mob attacks the Israeli embassy as the authorities stand by and do nothing. Hysteria returns to the country as if the Camp David peace agreement never happened. The Muslim Brotherhood—which we were told is weak and not Islamist—is now heading toward either a takeover or at least becoming the country’s most powerful force.

–What is the reaction in much of the Media, Universities, and Governments? Let’s use the appropriate acronym for this trio—MUG. Guess who is getting mugged?

Let me limit myself to one example of the genre. The former failed and minor Jewish organizational politician Seymour Reich writes in the NewYork Times:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gained nothing—except placating his right-wing coalition — by rebuffing President Obama’s proposal in May for negotiating Israeli-Palestinian borders based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, although some reports indicated that he may have later softened his stand.”

This is an amazing paragraph, if only for the fact that Reich attacks Netanyahu for taking a position that Reich admits he didn’t actually take! And after many occasions on which Netanyahu did precisely what Reich wants failed. Of course, there’s no mention about years of Palestinian intransigence or of the previous risks and concessions made by Israel and even by Netanyahu.

I do not mean this as a direct reference to Mr. Reich but as an observation to the current institutional set-up. In Biblical times, one sold out for a bowl of stew (“mess of pottage”) while today one does so for a New York Times op ed piece, or perhaps a tenured professorship, or admiring media coverage of oneself. Christians speak of “the wages of sin.” Well, those salaries are at all-time highs, with great fringe benefits, and extremely low unemployment.

Reich continues. “Mr. Netanyahu must step back from the brink. He should cast aside his far-right coalition members, form a government with moderate parties and add a freeze on settlement construction to an offer to negotiate without preconditions. This would demonstrate seriousness.”

Why does Israel or Netanyahu need to show at this date that they are serious? Doesn’t the virtually daily efforts of Netanyahu to restart negotiations show seriousness? The nine-month-long settlement freeze? The quick acceptance of Obama’s proposal for a summit conference at the end of 2009?

I will pay no more attention to these people. They are not serious. They are deaf to what we say and blind to what we do. They are not dealing with reality. As our next-door neighbors say: Let them go drink the Nile!

They only have one note: It’s all Israel’ fault! If it only had offered more and accepted a Palestinian state everything would be fine. If it gave everything and demanded nothing—since the PA is unwilling to make any concession—then everything would be fine.

As to everything else in the region from Palestinian intransigence to the alliance with Hamas to events in Egypt and Turkey, there only response is to say that it’s not really happening! The Muslim Brotherhood was real sorry about the attack on the embassy (then how come it endorsed the assault?) The moderate secularists will win everywhere. Turkey is just miffed that Israel didn’t capitulate totally.

Israel is isolated! So rather than be isolated it should make every concession demanded of it? And then everyone will love it and give up the war against it.

The fact that this is what we have been told repeatedly and it hasn’t happened means nothing! Oh, no. This time, once Israel goes back to the pre-1967 borders, recognizes the Fatah-Hamas regime, and doesn’t make trouble over little things like the Palestinians refusing to end the conflict even under those conditions; the military build-up in Palestine; and the demand that a few million Palestinians can come live in Israel then everything will really be great!

Are we supposed to take this seriously? Starting to understand why I’m laughing?

Let me take one example out of hundreds to show the absurdity of the situation. The sufferings of which Palestinians so upsets and animates Egyptians, Turks, and the Western left? Those in the Gaza Strip. What is the strategy of the Gaza Strip’s government? Kill the Jews. It is more openly radical than the policy of the PLO in the 1960s and1970s. How many Israeli soldiers and settlements are in the Gaza Strip? Zero. How many rockets from the Gaza Strip are in Israel? Thousands! So this is why I’m laughing.

First, the claims, arguments, and demands being made against Israel are ridiculous.

Second, they have become so ridiculous that maybe people should start to notice.

Third, since there is no alternative in the face of this nonsense, we know that our course is a correct one. We know that more risks, concessions, and apologies will have no positive effect for Israel’s interests or security. We know that courting death and disaster will not even win applause or sympathy.

Please listen very carefully and I will put the following conclusions in boldface:

The Palestinians and Arab regimes have given us no reason to believe that more concessions and risks will bring us any closer to a stable and secure peace. They have given us every reason to believe that they will quickly forget what Israel has done and go back to their default goal of wiping Israel off the map.

The Western democracies have given us no reason to believe that more concessions and risks will bring us greater support and more help from them if and when those actions backfire against Israel. They have given us every reason to believe that they will quickly forget what Israel has done and go back to their default position that it is all Israel’s fault

Today, Israel gives up south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, and most of the West Bank as well as offering all of the Golan Heights to Syria. Tomorrow they will say that Israel has done nothing. The radicals claim that Israel does not want peace; the relative moderates that Israel hasn’t shown that it wants peace.
Consequently, with full good conscience, we can justify our laughter on pragmatic realpolitik or on spiritual terms. Regarding the former, an idiotic analysis fails; the truth comes out; those who follow foolish policies fall.

And for those of you who are spiritually inclined: “The wicked plot against the righteous, and threatens him with his teeth. The Lord doth laugh at him; for He sees that his day is coming.” –Psalm 37

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

Specifics Released About the Gilad Shalit Deal

Last night Israel's Cabinet approved the deal with Hamas for the release of Gilad Shalit by a vote of 26-3. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered some hints about  why a deal was finally made.

“With everything that is happening in Egypt and the region, I don’t know if the future would have allowed us to get a better deal -- or any deal at all for that matter,” Netanyahu said on Israeli television. "The window appeared following fears that collapsing Mideast regimes and the rise of extremist forces would make Gilad Shalit's return impossible."

My friend and teacher Barry Rubin has provided me with more specific information about the deal to release kidnapped Israeli Gilad Shalit.

• The number 1000 is impressive but most will be chosen by Israel, meaning they will be prisoners with the lightest sentences an crimes, in other words, people who would have been released anyway during the next year or two.

• Israel rejected Hamas’s demand to release those being called “arch-terrorists” who were major organizers of attacks or responsible for a larger loss of life.

• Of the most serious terrorist prisoners only a bit over 96 will be released into the West Bank and 14 to east Jerusalem where they could cause direct trouble for Israel The rest will be sent to the Gaza Strip or deported altogether. Those with lighter sentences who live in the West Bank would have been sent there anyway when their sentences were finished.

• Hamas did a politically clever thing by demanding that half of the named prisoners be non-Hamas people. The goal is to make Hamas more popular among Fatah supporters and on the West Bank.

The plan is as follows:

• After a 72 hour wait following the issuing of a list of those to be released–to let families of victims to file petitions against it–the minister of justice will signal readiness to carry out the deal Gilad Shalit will arrive in Cairo. At that point, Israel will release about 450 terrorists under heavy sentence.

Of these 450 prisoners:

• 131 Gaza Strip residents will go there.

• 163 West Bank residents will be expelled from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip.

• 40 will be expelled overseas

• 96 will return to their homes in the West Bank 

• 14 will return to their homes in east Jerusalem 

• 6 Israeli Arabs will be released to their homes.

• At this point Shalit will be released in Cairo and can return to Israel. After Shalit arrives. 550 prisoners with lighter sentences, chosen by Israel, will be released.

Based on the description it does not seem that either Marwan Barghouti or his cousin who combined are responsible for 50+ deaths are included  in the deal. 

There seems to be  divide between Jews in the diaspora and Israelis regarding this deal.  As predicted yesterday, many Jews outside of Israel are complaining that Israel gave up too much, but the vast majority of Israelis are supporting the deal.  While most Israelis agree that it is a high price, they believe there is a moral imperative to bring Gilad Shalit home.

Breaking News! Gilad Shalit Coming Home

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has confirmed that a deal with Hamas, brokered by Egypt has been reach that will free Gilad Shalit.   Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas five years ago, and the terrorist group has refused to allow the Red Cross to visit him so no one can be sure of his condition. There was a short video of Shalit released by Hamas in Oct. 2009 but nothing since.



Information is still coming in but the outline of the deal includes the release of 1000 Palestinian prisoners by Israel, 300 of them are serving life sentences for terrorist attacks.

Also, according to sources one of those 300 convicted of murder to be released is Marwan Barghouti, who was sentenced in 2004 to five life sentences for planning and carrying out the murder of five Israelis, and involvement in the murders of another 33.

Among the terror attacks that Barghouti planned and participated in were a June 2001 attack in Maale Adumim in which a Greek monk was murdered as his beard made him look Jewish as he drove by the terrorists, a January 2002 terror attack on a gas station in Givat Zeev, a March 2002 attack at Tel Aviv's Seafood Market restaurant, in which three people were murdered, and a car bomb attack in Jerusalem.

Barghouti is also seen as a political rival to PA President Abbas.

Speaking to Reporters Netanyahu said

"In the coming days we will return Gilad to the bosom of his parents, Aviva and Noam, to his brother Yoel, his sister Hadas, his grandfather Tzvi and the entire people of Israel," Netanyahu said.

"Two and a half years ago, with the forming of [my] government, I took it upon myself as my most significant task to return Gilad to his people and his family and return him alive and well," the premier said, adding: "Gilad has spend five years in the most horrible of captivities, without us knowing what was his condition."

"I do not know if the near future would have allowed us to achieve a better deal, or a deal at all, since it is very likely that this window of opportunity created in these circumstances would have finally closed, and we wouldn't have freed Gilad at all," he added.

'Those circumstances which Netanyahu speaks is the radicalization of Israel's neighbors, certainly Egypt, for example, will not be as willing to mediate a deal, once the Muslim Brotherhood takes over.

There will be those who will rant about how horrible this deal is, especially the release of Barghouti and people who are responsible for even more deaths than him.

Allow me to respond in advance to those rants. For those of us living outside of Israel, it is none of our business. Until you live on the front lines of the war against Palestinian terror you have no right to complain when Israel makes a prisoner exchange. It is their child being released, and it is their arses on the line should any of these released prisoners return to terrorism.

While I haven't spoken to my Israeli friends since the deal was announced, I guarantee you that for Israelis this deal is a gut wrenching experience after five years a young man with a boyish face returns home, and at the same time they may be condemning others to death by these terrorists hands.  One could argue both ways, but the real difference between Israel and the terrorists is that they value each human life, and each one of their soldiers is like their child. Unlike the terrorists no life, on either side is expendable. The deal is gut wrenching, but as Israelis and as Jews there was no other choice.

UPDATE Carl In Jerusalem is reporting 

Israel Radio is reporting that Marwan Barghouti, Abdullah Barghouti and Hassam Salameh - all leaders of the intifadeh - will not be freed (The New York Times says Marwan Barghouti will be freed). But Amana Mona and Ahlam Tamimi will be freed. Israel Radio also reports that Hamas supporters in Gaza are disappointed that Hamas didn't get more.

Why Is Iran’s Influence in the Arab World Declining? A Look at the New Regional Line-Up

By Barry Rubin

Often, coverage of the Middle East in the mainstream media is beyond belief. Even when the article has good information it often misses the main point. Such is the case with an article in the Wall Street Journal, “Arab Spring Turns Up Heat on Iran.” The article correctly reports that Iran is losing popularity in much of the Arab world:

In Egypt, favorable views of Iran declined from 89 percent in 2006 to 37 percent today. In Saudi Arabia those holding such beliefs declined from 85 percent to 6 percent; and in Jordan from 75 percent to 23 percent. That’s an incredibly steep decline. Incidentally, in these countries, attitudes toward the United States remained highly unfavorable and only got worse under President Obama.

A reader who doesn’t have any understanding of the region–a category probably including most Western leaders, academic “experts,” and journalists–would think: Aha! Democracy is triumphing over radical Islamism. Iran is no longer much of a threat These are great things! This is how the media is presenting this development and no doubt that’s what Western policymakers think.

Such an analysis, however, is ridiculous so I’m glad you are reading this article. Don’t stop now. Here comes the good and original part.

So Egyptians, Jordanians, and Saudis are turning away from Iran. Now what do these three countries have in common? Answer: they all have big Sunni majorities, 90 percent in Saudi Arabia, 100 percent in Jordan, and 100 percent of the Muslims–who form about 90 percent of the whole population–in Egypt.

So where is Iran losing popularity? Among Sunni Muslim Arabs. Why? Because now they have their own Sunni Muslim Arab Islamists and don’t need Iran’s Shia Persians to be their patrons, leaders, or hope for the triumph of Islamism. Thus, this development shows the deepening schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims and Islamists, not declining support for radical, anti-Western, and Islamist politics.

Read this paragraph from the article:

“Iran and Syria—together with Shiite political and militant group Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas—have for years banked on their anti-Israeli, anti-American posture as a guarantee for popular support in the Arab street as well as a shield against domestic unrest. Iran saw itself as the leader of this resistance group.”

Notice that only Hizballah is identified as Shia Muslim. Actually, the sentence is so poorly constructed one might well think that Hamas is Shia, too, which it isn’t!

True, the article notes in passing: “Its allies supported Iran’s growing influence while rival Sunni Arab countries including Saudi Arabia viewed it as a threat.” But that’s hardly making the point clear.

There’s one more complicating factor: a deep split in the Sunni camp, though, since a radical nationalist and semi-Islamist Egypt headed by Amr Moussa (and aligned with Hamas) is the Saudis worse nightmare. Moreover, Sunni states will not give strong backing to the Palestinian Authority because they’re angry due to its past behavior, despite their general backing for the “Palestinian cause” (including unanimous support for a Palesitinian unilateral declaration of independence).

So here’s the likely line-up:

Shia:

• Radicals: Iran, Hizballah, Syria, Bahrain opposition radical faction

• Moderates: Iranian opposition, Iraqi government; Bahrain opposition moderate faction.

Sunni

• Radicals: Egypt, Hamas, Libya?, Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and Jordan, Sudan, Turkish regime.

• Moderates: Algeria, Jordan, Lebanese, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, moderate forces in Syrian opposition, Tunisia, Turkish opposition.

This line-up tells us precisely what needs to be done. The United States should take leadership and work with Europe, Israel, and the moderates of both the Sunni and Shia variety. As for the radicals, none of them are “good guys” who can be allies in the battle against revolutionary Islamism.

A good strategy would not side with Sunni against Shia or vice-versa, nor would it have any illusion about moderating the radicals through appeasement, flattery, or concessions.

What is worrisome is that few Western leaders understand any of these points.

A final note, I didn’t mention the Palestinian Authority (PA). That is partly due to the fact that it isn’t very important in regional politics. While it is Sunni, it doesn’t get real support from either the radicals or the moderates in that camp. The radicals prefer their fellow Islamists in Hamas; the moderates are mostly angry at past backstabbings by the PA leadership. Everyone pretends to love the Palestinians and they will all vote for unilateral Palestinian independence at the UN, badmouth Israel, and compete for control over the Palestinian card. Yet in terms of genuine material support or patronage, the PA is very isolated while Hamas is in a much more favorable position regionally.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com> 

Ten Years After September 11: Who’s Really Winning the War On Terrorism

“And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!”

–Francis Scott Key, “Star-Spangled Banner”

By Barry Rubin

Ten years after September 11, when the very phrase “war on terrorism” is barred from U.S. government usage by the president, we are told that the United States has won or is already victorious. After all, there has been no major attack on U.S. soil in a decade and al-Qaida is weaker with many of its leaders, including Usama bin Ladin, dead.

“Where is that band”? According to the official line, pretty much destroyed. We won, perhaps except for a few “lone wolves.” But before the victory parades are held, let’s understand this: The war on terrorism, like that phrase itself, has been largely defined out of existence, not won.

Let’s be clear. Al-Qaida attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon to achieve several goals:

–To become the leader in a worldwide jihad.

–To persuade Muslims that America is weak and can be defeated.

–To stir far more Muslims to jihad, that is a Holy War that today can be defined as an Islamist revolution.

–To mobilize forces in order to challenge and eventually to overthrow all of the existing regimes in the Sunni Muslim areas, replacing Arab nationalism in many of those countries with Islamism as the main ideological force.

I would suggest that al-Qaida’s September 11 attacks largely succeeded in three of those four goals. Only in the first did it fail, and for a very good reason. Precisely because it carried out the attacks, al-Qaida became the main target for U.S. efforts and repression by leaders in Muslim-majority countries. Consequently, it has suffered greatly from losses.

By the same token, however, other Islamist forces have largely been left alone by the West or faced far less pressure. Such groups include the Muslim Brotherhood groups, Hamas, Hizballah, and the pro-Islamist regimes in Syria and Iran. In fact, Islamist groups and Islamism as an ideology have advanced impressively, especially in the last few years.

Another reason for al-Qaida’s relative eclipse is its own rigidity. Al-Qaida has been a purely terrorist group. It doesn’t carry out social welfare programs or participate in elections. As a result, being so tactically intransigent, al-Qaida is at a major disadvantage in comparison to its more flexible competitors. After all, Islamist groups have won elections in Iran, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Turkey. The Brotherhood is set to become the largest single party in Egypt.

Even having said all that, al-Qaida is not dead yet. Its ally, the Taliban, is making a comeback in Afghanistan and has spread to Pakistan. Al-Qaida’s affiliates still carry out attacks in Iraq, Morocco, and Algeria. It now has small but deadly forces in the Gaza Strip. And it plays a major role in Yemen and Somalia, not to mention its terrorist affiliates in Asia, with Islamist terrorist activity especially significant in southern Thailand, the southern Philippines, and Indonesia.

What’s most important of all is to remember that terrorism is a tactic to achieve a goal. The goal is that of Islamist revolution. There might not be a single Arabic-speaking country where Islamists aren’t in a stronger position now than they were on September 11, 2001. The same applies to Turkey (though terrorism isn’t an issue there) and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan. Here are some examples:

Today, the Gaza Strip is under the Islamist rule of Hamas, which is also a terrorist group. The U.S. government pressed for Hamas to participate in elections, and then more recently pressured Israel to reduce sanctions. The world helped save Hamas from being overthrown by Israel in 2009, and the UN produced an anti-Israel report that basically rationalized Hamas’s behavior. Many groups in Europe have participated in sanctions-breaking activity that has objectively helped Hamas. Hamas, a terrorist and Islamist group, is much better off than a decade ago.

Lebanon is under the rule of a regime whose most powerful single component is Hizballah, a revolutionary Islamist and terrorist group. When Hizballah launched several cross-border raids against Israel in 2006, leading to a war, a lot of the international community was objectively acting in a way that benefitted Hizballah. Hizballah, a terrorist and Islamist group, is much better off than a decade ago.

The Muslim Brotherhood, a pro-terrorist group, and Salafist organizations often willing to use terrorism (a few of which are close to al-Qaida) is far stronger in Egypt and might dominate the country politically. It is also stronger in Syria, though its precise influence over the opposition is hard to gauge.

Where is terrorism weaker? Other than Algeria, where it was defeated in a bloody civil war, it is hard to find any such example though in other places—like Morocco and Saudi Arabia—terrorism has not made gains.

n many places in Europe, the Brotherhood and even more radical groups have made important strides in gaining hegemony in neighborhoods and over Muslim communities. Governments have not combatted this and even have encouraged it, arguing that the organizations are not presently using terrorism. But with growing radical Islamist ideas, the level of terrorism and intimidation also increases.

A key factor is the failure of the U.S. government, which basically defines anything that isn’t al-Qaida as not being a threat. Within the United States, a major terrorist attack has been averted, though luck seems to play a role here (underpants bomber; Times Square bomber). At the same time there have been many more small-scale attacks. One way the U.S. government achieves good-lucking statistics is to redefine specific events—a shooting at the El Al counter in Los Angeles, an attack on a Jewish community center in the Pacific Northwest, the murder of a military recruiter in Arkansas, and even the Ft. Hood killer—as non-terrorist, non-Islamist criminal acts.

So are things much better a decade after the September 11 attacks? Aside from the very important aspect of avoiding a huge successful terror attack on the United States, the answer is “no.”


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com> 

Middle East Terrorist Scams and the Western Naivete that Empowers Them

By Barry Rubin

Rockets from the Gaza Strip continue to pound Israel. And much of the Western media blames: Israel. I want to explain again how this system works.

What follows is a seven-point pattern that goes something like this: Someone shoots at your spouse, you punch the attacker, he yells, “Ceasefire!” then kicks you in the groin and takes some more shots at your spouse. You try to defend yourself. The police stand by doing nothing and then declare you to be the aggressor for breaking the ceasefire.

If this sounds like an exaggeration, I sincerely wish that it was! (Scholarly disclaimer: Of course many politicians and media outlets do see through this but the pattern discussed below is a very widespread one.)

1. Terrorist group attacks Israeli civilians.

2. As Israel seeks to retaliate, the group declares a ceasefire.

3. Western media announce ceasefire.

4. But rockets continue to be fired into Israel against civilian targets. Responsibility is usually taken by smaller groups allied with Hamas, like Islamic Jihad. This allows Hamas–and Western media–to deny that Hamas has any responsibility and thus there is no need to take actions against it. Nobody notes that Hamas is now allied with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the latter does not condemn the attacks but only condemns Israel.

(Note: Western media only report it when the PA condemns a terrorist attack and that at times gets more coverage than the attack and the Israeli victims.)

(Additional note: In late 2008, Hamas launched a war of rockets, missiles, mortars, and attempted cross-border attacks on Israel, breaking an existing ceasefire. When Israel retaliated, many accused Israel of aggression.)

(Another additional note: It is generally forgotten that because of Israel’s self-defense against the Hamas attacks the PA broke off negotiations with Israel and three years later, despite constant missreporting that the lack of talks is Israel’s fault, that policy continues.)

5. Israel retaliates against rocket-firing teams, weapons’ workshops, arms-smuggling tunnels, rocket storage places, and leaders of groups firing rockets. Some civilians are killed and this becomes the main point of Western media stories. Since the numbers and identities come from Hamas, they maximize numbers and civilians, concealing terrorists’ being killed and at times reclassifying terrorists as civilians. Note that when civilians are killed by Western airstrikes, as in Afghanistan or Libya, it is emphasized that these are regrettable accidents. With Israel it is implied that such action is purposeful or at least careless.

6. Western media report that Israel “broke” the “ceasefire.”

7. Continued attacks on Israel are thus blamed on Israeli action.

Think that’s an exaggeration? Here’s the Washington Post:

“A tenuous cease-fire between Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip was punctured Wednesday by a deadly Israeli airstrike that triggered rocket and mortar fire at Israel.”

Political result:

Anti-Israel politicians, media, and experts blame Israel for being aggressive and using “disproportionate force,” a phrase that only seems to be applied to Israel in the world.

More moderate politicians, media, and experts decry the cycle of violence for which both sides are responsible.

Coming soon to a UN Near You: The September UN Scam! Here’s a wonderful indication of what’s going on:

A pro-Palestinian Oxford University law professor has warned the Palestinian leadership that it must do the unilateral independence declaration at the UN properly so it can claim all of Israel later.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.gloria-center.org 

Norway And Terror: Repressing Discussion Doesn’t Make The Problem Disappear

By Barry Rubin

“I do not understand Norway’s position, and I say that as a friend of Norway. If they shoot, if they fire rockets, why doesn’t Norway believe that they are terrorists? What else do they need to do? Let us not forget that Norway and the other Scandinavian countries called in Yasser Arafat and said: ‘If you want a deal, you must first renounce terrorism. You must recognize the State of Israel, and you must commit yourself to peace.’ Why is all this forgotten? What is the difference between the PLO at that time and Hamas today?” – President Shimon Peres, May 2011

“We want Palestine in its entirety – so there will not be any misunderstandings. If our generation is unable to achieve this, the next one will, and we are raising our children on this. Palestine means Palestine in its entirety, and Israel cannot exist in our midst... We liberated Gaza through resistance. We want to conduct resistance in the West Bank as well.” – Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, July 2011, a few days before members of Norway’s ruling party expressed enthusiastic support for helping Hamas.


Ironically, the reaction to my article “The Oslo Syndrome,” published in The Jerusalem Post last Monday, proved its thesis, the same point that Peres made. If terrorism is empowered, terrorism is more likely to occur. That uncontroversial point has been blown up into something controversial by deceit.

Essentially, the position of Norway’s media and government is this: Hamas isn’t terrorist, but I’m pro-terrorist.

The Norwegian government and media establishment is not ready to have an honest discussion of these issues. Instead, my article was misrepresented in order to stir up a frenzy that closed ears and shut eyes to what I was saying. Indeed, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet falsely claimed that I had endorsed the terrorist attack there. Not a single Norwegian reporter or editor made any attempt to contact me since the beginning of this issue to hear my side or to ask my views.

How’s that for constructive dialogue and healing? The blog Israel Matzav sums up my position very well: “Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a ‘normal Norwegian boy’ [not my words] ought to make Norwegians do some introspection about their government’s support for terror organizations like Hamas. Is Norway giving its youth the wrong message through its support for Hamas? Why is Norway not even willing to ask itself that question?” And the Norwegian reaction is to reiterate – as its ambassador to Israel portrayed his country’s view – that there is a rational reason to murder Israeli children (“occupation,” despite the fact that Israel has withdrawn from all of the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank, and indicated its readiness to accept a Palestinian state 11 years ago), but not to murder Norwegian children. In other words, one can only discuss the evil Norwegian terrorist in the parameters laid down by the Norwegian Left. One can talk endlessly about how his specific ideology – right-wing, allegedly Christian, and Islamophobic – but not the way he fits into a much wider pattern of rising terrorism in general.

I didn’t write about the content of his ideology but about his choice of strategy on the basis of my three decades’ of scholarly study about terrorism. Why did the Norwegian terrorist think that killing people would help – not hurt – his cause? Because like terrorists around the world, he sees other groups that use terrorism succeed politically, build a mass base of support, and gain sympathy for their cause despite their methods.

Second, nobody ever apologizes for criticizing Israel in the harshest terms after terrorist attacks, something I did not do to Norway. No newspaper in the world to my knowledge apologized for the terrible things written on its pages about the United States after September 11.

The deputy foreign minister and foreign minister of Norway, who both attacked me, have never criticized Hamas or Hezbollah by name.

Last May, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre explained, “We condemn organizations that are involved in terrorism, but Norway has considered the situation as such that having lists where we put an organization and call it a terrorist organization will not serve our purposes.”

Obviously, if Hamas was named as a terrorist group, then cabinet ministers couldn’t have its leaders to tea. But by not naming it, they are saying: You can commit hundreds of acts of terror and it will cost you nothing politically. But if Israel responds, for example, by counterattacking into the Gaza Strip, we will condemn Israel.

Yes, this is a policy that encourages terrorism and makes it look successful: It wins sympathy for the cause and antagonism toward the victims.

But while Norway won’t criticize terrorist groups by name, its officials and media are unrestrained in attacking Israel.

Alan Dershowitz has written from personal observation that in Norway, “Anti-Semitism doesn’t even mask itself as anti-Zionism.” And this behavior is carried on by public institutions and media.

Former prime minister Kare Willoch criticized US President Barack Obama for appointing Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff because he was “Jewish,” with no apology. The author Jostein Gaarder wrote an op-ed in Aftenposten titled, “God’s Chosen People” at a time when three Israeli soldiers had been kidnapped by Hezbollah and a war was on, describing Judaism as “an archaic national and warlike religion.”

Apology? In 2008, a Norwegian comedian said on national television, “I would like to wish all Norwegian Jews a Merry Christmas – no, what am I saying! You don’t celebrate Christmas, do you!? It was you who crucified Jesus.” Apology? Last year, the minister of finance spoke at a largely Islamist-organized anti-Israel rally. Apology? A person who has served as a Foreign Ministry official remarked in 2008 that she occasionally wished the UN would send “precisionguided missiles against selected Israeli targets.”

Apology? But I never said and I’m not saying now that a terrorist attack took place in Norway because of its anti-Israel policies or atmosphere. Nor am I saying that Norway “supports” terrorism itself, that it applauds the murder of civilians elsewhere. What I’m saying – as nobody has publicly acknowledged in Norway – is that to show terrorists they will get more sympathy than Israel, to reward a group such as Hamas, to say that terrorism can be ignored if directed against the “proper” people is to increase the overall level of terrorism against Israel and in the world, including in Norway itself.

You’ve never heard of Samira Munir and Norway’s establishment has swept her story away.

She was a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin who fought for women’s rights and against Shari’a law. She was found dead in November 2004, supposedly a suicide but seeming far more likely to have been a terrorist murder. She had received daily death threats by phone and while walking down the street.

Might this act, whose perpetrators were never punished, indicate that some people think they can commit terrorism, get away with it, and suffer no political damage? If others who have extremist views and/or mental disorders see every day that terrorism produces political advantage and sympathy for those who commit it, they are more likely to commit terrorism. If groups see their terrorism is no barrier to being invited to Norway and to having lunch with cabinet ministers while their enemies’ self-defense countermeasures are condemned and vilified, they are more likely to adopt terrorism as a strategy.

The underlying concept of the Norwegian response is that Norway is a country that isn’t supposed to have terrorism committed against it. But Israel is a country that deserves to have terrorism committed against it. My point is that neither country “deserves” to have this happen. That doesn’t mean Norway is guilty or should be punished or that an evil terrorist attack is justified. No, it means that Norway should be more consistently and universally against giving terrorists victories – even though it does so by ignoring their terrorism.

We are now approaching the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States. There were those then, including in Norway, who said the United States had it coming and the attack was due to its policies.

There are always those – including in Norway – who say that Israel has it coming and the attack is due to its policies.

My view is the precise opposite. I’m saying about Norway precisely the same thing I said about the United States after September 11: The attack proves the need to take a tougher stance against terrorism and against all terrorist groups. If the world thought al-Qaida won and its attack brought political gains, then there would be more terrorism. As it happened, there was tough action against al-Qaida itself, but other terrorist groups concluded that terrorism worked, increased their operations, and did reap political rewards.

The world that the Norwegian government and left-wing media want is one that accepts there are two groups in the world: those immune not only from criticism but from serious discussion of their actions, and those who can be lied about with impunity, have hatred incited against them, and then must apologize for not staying in their place as second-class people with second-class rights to express their views.

What I wrote in “The Oslo Syndrome” is that people who accept rationales for terrorism and reward those movements politically increase terrorism. Equally, those who accept double standards, slanderous lies (without apology) about themselves in the media of other countries, and the consorting of those countries with groups that want to exterminate them only increase that behavior, too.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  

The "Oslo Syndrome" Article For Those Who Want to Know--And Tell--The Truth

--Barry Rubin

Note to readers: I have written this as a preface placed at the start of my article on "The Oslo Syndrome." I am also putting it here to make sure that those of you who want to see it can do so:

This article is being distorted by various people and places into supposedly saying things that I in no way believe so let me address that.

1. Am I justifying the murders and saying they were well-deserved? Of course not.

I don't in any way believe such a thing. These were as I've said from the beginning terrible acts of terrorism. In the article you will see my explicit argument that nobody should be a victim of terrorism even if they support politically a group committing terrorism. Since my argument is that NO terrorism--defined as the deliberate murder of civilians as part of a conscious political strategy--is acceptable, why would I justify the cold-blooded murder of dozens of unarmed, non-violent people in Norway?

To justify it I would have to be saying that I supported the murder of young people because I disagree with their political views or those of their elders. That would be insane though, of course, that is precisely what actual terrorists do. And many "respectable" people wrote in various ways that the September 11 attacks on America were "well-deserved." That was precisely the kind of thing I had in mind as something dangerous and to be condemned when writing the article.

2. In short, since the entire purpose of the article is to urge a universal condemnation of terrorism and to ensure that it doesn't bear political profit, I had no intention of endorsing terrorism in this case! The point of the article can be simply stated as follows: It is a dangerous thing to empower or reward terrorism anywhere because that makes terrorism seem a successful strategy and thus encourages more terrorism. If you argue politically that terrorists are justified in the Middle East or, to put it a different way, that they aren't terrorists at all, you are making terrorism more likely to happen. It is tragic--not justifiable or deserved but horrible--that such people or such a country then becomes the target of terrorism.

3. The less murder the better. The less hatred the better. In the article I give four examples of waves of terrorism that did not gain widespread sympathy and thus were stamped out successfully, with terrorism not reappearing, at least in those places, in a major way for decades after that.

4. If Hamas uses a strategy of terrorism and then gains Western sympathy and help, then Hamas and other groups will conclude that terrorism works. Thus, more terrorism will take place and more innocent victims murdered. It is not true to say that I claimed any group in Norway applauded terrorism against Israelis. They either did not define it as terrorism, did not take it into account as a factor to be considered, or supported groups despite the fact that they used massive terrorism. Indeed, Norway's ambassador himself said that people in his country viewed terrorism as only a response to occupation while the main newspaper attacking me repeatedly denied--and denies--that Hamas is a terrorist group.

5. I never said and don't believe that the camp in Norway was a terrorist training camp. A terrorist training camp is a place where people are trained to use guns, explosives, and various methods to stage military attacks and then escape afterward. What went on in the camp in Norway was purely conversational, theoretical, and political. That's obvious.

6. So to summarize, my entire point is that one must avoid empowering terrorism. To then be accused of empowering terrorism when what I wrote was the opposite is rather bizarre.

7. There are many dishonest or ideologically blinded people who will either deliberately lie and distort arguments or simply cannot read what the text says without putting their own a priori assumptions on it.

8. As I have written many times, my view is that the problem is not Islam as a religion but revolutionary Islamist movements that draw on normative Islam but are only one of many interpretations that exist. I use the analogy of people fighting over the steering wheel of a car to get in control. The radicals who want to seize state power in the name of Islamism are the problem. Often their first victims are fellow Muslims.

9. My goal is to reduce the frequency and effectiveness of terrorism and to reduce the number of victims. This article was written in that spirit--to save lives in future.  It is based on 35 years of work on this issue and following it on a daily basis. When those who attack me--overwhelmingly one faction within Norway--insist that Hamas is not a terrorist group and thus distinguish between "justified" terrorism and "non-justified" terrorism they are doing what I'm being accused of doing. By the way, that is precisely the same way that  Norway's ambassador to Israel characterized the view of people in that country (as I quote in my article). 

10. If you wish, look at other things I've written and I'm sure you'll conclude that the mischaracterizations of this article have nothing to do with my views or record of writing and scholarship. The great journalist Eric Sevareid once said that a writer cannot prevent and is not responsible for the deliberate desire of some to distort his words. In our current era, there are all too many people who think they can profit politically by doing so. I will depend on those who are open-minded and fair-minded to make their own judgments.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

Libyan Rebels, Egyptian “Democracy” Become Main Weapons’ Suppliers for Terrorist Hamas

By Barry Rubin

As I predicted in early February, it is now clear that Egypt no longer tries seriously to stop weapons and terrorists and money from flowing into the Hamas arsenals in the Gaza Strip. Western newspaper headline statements by the military that it will keep the treaty with Israel but Egypt is already an ally of Hamas.

Haaretz reports:

“Egyptian security forces’ diminished control in Sinai has allowed the Palestinians to exponentially increase their weapons smuggling into Gaza, senior Israeli defense officials say. In the past few months, Hamas has acquired improved high-trajectory rockets, ready-made explosive devices, anti-tank missiles and possibly anti-aircraft missiles, the sources told Ha’aretz….”

“Former Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter told Ha’aretz: “The Sinai went from being an area through which they smuggle weapons to an area through which they simply transfer weapons….No Egyptian security official dares to confront the Bedouin anymore.” Dichter said parts of the steel fence on the Rafah border, which Egypt began to construct last year, were already being dismantled by the Bedouin. He said Iran and Hamas want to concentrate large stores of weapons in Gaza and, when the opportunity arises, to deliver them to the West Bank.

But there’s more! The article continues:

“After the Libyan army lost control of vast weapons stores in the east of the country, local arms dealers made contact with Gaza smugglers, and new weapons began to flow by a much shorter and easier route.”

In other words, the Libyan rebels capture Libyan army weapons, then sell them to arms dealers who sell them to Hamas.

Do you know what that means? It means that the NATO and U.S.-backed Libyan rebels have now become the main source of arms for Hamas.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
 

"Big NY Times Scoop”: Israel Claims Media Coverage is Unfair

  by Barry Rubin


Sometimes when one of the better reporters around tries to be fair the result shows up the low quality of Middle East coverage generally. In an article on the Gaza Strip, Israeli policy, and the flotilla of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas activists, the New York Times informs us:

“Israel’s relationship with the foreign news media has grown strained in recent years; the country increasingly believes that foreign portrayals of its conflict with the Palestinians are harsh and one-sided.”

Since Israelis have been quite aware of media bias since the mid-1980s and provided hundreds (thousands) of examples this should not exactly be a discovery. But American newspaper readers or television watchers are rarely informed of this fact by the very institutions that stand accused of bias, ignorance, and just plain bad reporting.

Note the way the sentence (perhaps revised by editors in New York) is written:

–This is an Israeli perception, not a fact nor necessarily a view held by anyone else in the world.

–It is just happening now (“recent,” “increasingly”)

–And the result is Israeli hostility toward the media (that is, the action involved is Israel becoming more aggressive in its treatment of foreign journalists). In other words the problem is framed as Israel challenging freedom of the media, not the media subverting the existence and well-being of Israel. The action that prompted the writing of that article–Israel’s announcing possible sanctions against journalists going on the Gaza flotilla ships–was quickly rescinded. In other words, even though Israel knows there is rampant media bias it does everything possible to give freedom to the foreign media, in sharp contrast to most of the other countries in the region which get far more favorable coverage.

–No examples are provided which thus undermines the claim. Actually, while space is of course limited, it would have been easy to mention in regard to a specific event cited–Israel banning foreign journalists from Gaza durin the 2008-2009 fighting–that Israel was concerned that it might accidentally kill foreign correspondents during operations and that reporters could tip off Hamas (inadvertently or otherwise) about Israeli actions thus causing casualties.

Thus, the hint is clearly–though it is equally quite deniable–that Israelis are irrationally and suddenly believing that the media is biased against it and this makes it take bad actions that restrict media freedom.

In other words, it’s good that this view is being reported but the framework signals the reader to disbelieve it. Here’s a parallel example:

“Israel says that its Gaza blockade is legal and that it will make sure that no boat violates it, even if that means resorting to force again.”

On the surface, this is perfectly correct. But in fact there has been no serious legal challenge to the blockade and various international authorities have said that it is quite legal. Again, the hint is that this is just what Israel claims, in other words, a partisan assertion without merit.

Especially disturbing is this passage:

“Some of the vessels planning to take part this year are bringing construction equipment and humanitarian aid, including medicine, which have been scarce in Gaza because of a siege imposed by Israel and Egypt for the past four years to isolate Hamas.”

Has medicine been scarce in Gaza because of a “siege” (a correct but loaded word)? That just isn’t true since medicine has never been subject to restrictions. Again, the reader is conditioned, this time by the inhumane nature of those evil Israelis. They won’t even let medicine in for those poor Gazans? What a bunch of barbarians! One should certainly hate such people.

Incidentally, a survey of the first flotilla’s cargo shows that the medicine brought was beyond expiration date and pretty random, not exactly saving people suffering from disease.

As for construction equipment and materials, a key factor here is that Israel has charged these have been used to build military installations. In Lebanon, where Hizballah has full access to construction equipment, a network of bunkers, tunnels and other fortifications have been built in the south. Southern Lebanon, you know, the place where the U.S. government and the UN promised Israel that Hizballah would not be allowed to return.

Or take this sentence:

“Thirteen months ago, Israeli commandos boarded a Turkish vessel whose crew and passengers were seeking to break the blockade and, facing resistance, killed nine people aboard.”

Technically accurate and better than most as it indicates there was “resistance” (which could mean, presumably, sitting in a circle and singing a song from the American civil rights movement) but:

–The “resistance” consisted of people with weapons who attacked the soldiers and took some prisoner.

–The “nine people” were members of radical Turkish Islamist groups that had previously proclaimed they intended to be martyrs and participated in chants about massacring Jews.

Even when the article includes “balancing” material the phrasing is somewhat misleading or, more accurately, leading toward a specific conclusion:

“But the real purpose of the flotilla is less to deliver goods and building supplies, which are increasingly available in Gaza now, than to challenge Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders. The American vessel, for example, will not be loaded with any goods.”

Aside from the question of Egypt opening the border with Gaza, this sentence is really a response to one of Israel’s main talking points. How can this flotilla be portrayed as humanitarian if it is bringing virtually no goods? The answer is that it is political, but the phrase used is “to challenge Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders” as if there is nothing on the other side but people short of construction materials and medicine.

Here’s the real answer: to help Hamas’s control of Gaza. The main organizers are Islamists allied with Hamas; the other organizers are people who, like Hamas, want to see Israel wiped off the map. They view Hamas–a terrorist group that is openly antisemitic and genocidal, represses women, and expels Christians–as better than Israel.

We thus have three groups:

–Islamists who are allies with Hamas and want to help it.

–Western leftists who think that Israel is evil and shouldn’t exist and who ignore Hamas or even supportive of it.

–Western readers of newspapers and watchers of television who are given news that ignores or systematically challenges Israel’s side of the story. Thus, they are driven toward the conclusion that Israel is wrong and the Palestinians are right.

As I said earlier, this is one of the better stories by a journalist who is consciously trying to be fair. For example, it points out that Israel defended itself in 2008 against the firing of thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip. And in another article he points out how well much of the Gaza Strip is economically.

Moreover, this is a short article whose goal is to discuss Israel’s warning to reporters not to go on the flotilla ships. But often it is the shorter pieces, that try to summarize and explain events, which most clearly demonstrate how coverage is skewed. And again, by attempting to be balanced this piece shows how unbalanced is much of the other coverage.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.

Obama Meets With Jewish Donors (The President Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks)

By Barry Rubin

Speaking to Jewish donors (or should we say possible Jewish donors?) to his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama pledged that his administration would “devote all of its creative powers” to trying to bring about Mideast peace.

This is not an art project. What is needed is not “creative powers” but to deal with the actual, real situation. To me, “creative powers” (Samantha creative Powers?) means to come up with gimmicks, to do anything possible to bring about the supposed signing of a peace of paper [pun] as fast as possible. If they know the Palestinian Authority is inflexible, then they will just demand more concessions from Israel. And they won’t bother to ask whether the “peace agreement” they are pushing would last a month or produce a more stable region and a more secure Israel.

Every time Obama says that the “status quo is unsustainable,” he’s suggesting that anything would be better than the status quo. What he would produce, then, is a worse status quo.

Meanwhile, as if to prove the point, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas said he would drop seeking UN approval of unilateral Palestinian independence if the United States offers something better: “I don’t know if the U.S. has another option, but if it does, we will not go to the U.N..”

This is a beautiful example of Palestinian leaders’ chutzpah disguised as victimhood. Let’s consider the following points:

1. The Palestinian bid at the UN will fail. Abbas knows this. Therefore, he is asking to be given a better offer to a situation where he’d get nothing.

2. This strategy breaks every previous Palestinian Authority commitment but he wants to be paid for abandoning it.

3. The Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate with Israel for 2.5 years yet has faced no pressure or punishment for its behavior. Now he wants to be given more.

4. The Palestinian Authority has partnered with Hamas, a genocidal antisemitic terrorist group that is aligned against U.S. interests and rejects peace with Israel, and the Palestinian Authority has faced no pressure or punishment for its behavior. Yet Abbas wants U.S. concessions to a PA in which Hamas is a full partner. (Whether the coalition collapses in future that is what the United States is dealing with at this time.) Does it bother anyone that the PA is ready to take on as equal partner a group that openly says that Jews have caused all major wars, seek to control the world, and should be wiped out by murdering all of them? Does it bother anyone that the Obama Administration has not cut off all relations or even support of the PA until it ends this partnership? Let’s face it, the only reason the current U.S. government isn’t dealing directly with Hamas is because of public and congressional opposition.

5. The U.S. government allows Abbas to put the blame on itself and promises to try harder, rush faster, and offer more rather than slapping him and the PA down for their intransigence, behavior, and lack of cooperation.

In other words, Abbas is acting as if he’s doing the United States a favor by taking its money, diplomatic support, and flattery when he does absolutely nothing in return, and then demands even more!

And the Obama Administration lets him get away with it.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.  

Understanding Hamas, A Detailed Assessment

By Barry Rubin

What do you have to do to be recognized as a revolutionary Islamist group using terrorism, backed by Iran (and now probably a radicalized Egypt), seeking to wipe Israel off the map and kill the Jews? It isn’t easy. People keep trying to make you into something else: incipient moderate? Multifaceted debating society? Insisting that you just don’t really mean it?

Such is the case with Hamas. Every day—in speeches, articles, violence, mosque sermons, and media, Hamas makes its positions absolutely clear. And every day someone in the West just doesn’t want to believe it.

Now Hamas has formed an alliance (of convenience?) with the Palestinian Authority (PA), run by Fatah and governing the West Bank. It’s a remarkable situation—or would be anywhere outside of the Middle East. 

After all, Hamas won an election, made a deal with the PA, and then staged a coup to take over the Gaza Strip that included shooting dead wounded Fatah fighters in hospital. Fatah and the PA regularly repress Hamas on the West Bank. So why are they “working together”? The PA wants to show unity to the world; Hamas hopes that it can take over the PA. 

Is it true that “as older leaders of Hamas claim some degree of moderation, younger radicals refuse to give up violence?” Not exactly. First, there is no real division along age lines. Nor is it all but merely some leaders of Hamas who “claim” some moderation. 

But what’s important is that word “claim.” They do not claim it in Arabic, they do not claim it when talking to their people, and they do not claim it on their television stations or their debates with the PA and Fatah. They only claim it when they are talking to Westerners, usually reporters or sometimes diplomats. In other words, it is just a public relations’ exercise. 

What about the “Salafi-Jihadist” groups? Clearly, there are some differences, often relating to external alliances. Hamas is a Muslim Brotherhood group; the dissidents sympathize with al-Qaida. Yet they don’t pose any serious challenge since Hamas is far stronger. Hamas also uses them as deniable purveyors of attacks on Israel, assaults that Hamas can allow but also deny. The most important non-Hamas group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, very much plays that role.

There has been some effort to set up a distinction between Hamas, as the relative moderates, and the new small groups as the radicals. This would legitimize Hamas as protecting everyone from the real extremists. But the problem with these other groups—and that includes al-Qaida—is that they are too tactically inflexible. They only use violence rather than base building; reject elections; and never pretend to be moderate. 

Thus, while these groups can stage terrorist attacks or violence, they are not the real threat. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, or Hamas, or Hizballah, they cannot take over whole countries. And if in the Gaza Strip they ever do challenge what Hamas wants to do, they will be slapped down without mercy. That’s not because Hamas is moderate but because it will accept no rival. 

Indeed, one reason why salafi-jihadist groups have not been successful among the Palestinians is that there is already a strong Islamist organization—Hamas—which can combine the nationalist and religious cards. Among the Palestinians, Hamas are the Salafists and Jihadists. Who needs any alternative?

The article states that “a generation of Hamas leaders, now mostly in their 60s, that wants to deal, that's willing to agree to establishing a Palestinian state within Gaza and the West Bank as defined by the Green Line, the ceasefire line that separated Israelis from Jordanian and Egyptian forces until June, 1967.”

But this is misleading, as the article goes on to explain. For whenever these Hamas leaders discuss such an idea they make absolutely and explicitly clear that this is a temporary measure, a temporary truce, designed to get a state that can be used as a platform for destroying Israel. The PLO accepted such a “two-stage strategy” more than 35 years ago but no one thought that was moderate at the time. 

Who needs “radicals” when you have Hamas. Incidentally, the same arguments can be applied to the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or any number of other militant groups. There is always someone even more radical. But the most extreme of the extreme simply are not good at building a mass organization, in part because they are so much on the edge.

There is another assumption made in dealing with Hamas that is also very dangerous. It is presumed that the PA will moderate Hamas. Yet it is more likely that Hamas would radicalize or take over the PA. Many times before, it has been seen around the world that highly disciplined groups with a clear ideology have the advantage of looser, corrupt and ill-defined rivals. 

But Hamas is also more dangerous precisely because it is more flexibly clever. The naïve super-radicals want to convert the Gaza Strip into an imitation of Taliban Afghanistan overnight. Hamas leaders understand, however, that they must go step by step so as not to antagonize the population so much as to lose power or to show the West their true intentions so much that it might do something about the danger Hamas poses.

Thus, Ghazi Hamad, Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, explains the situation in the article: "No one is more experienced in resistance than Hamas. No one has more martyrs…..Resistance has cost Gaza a lot of lives and a lot of damage. We need to evaluate each situation" before waging resistance.’

What he’s saying here is that Hamas isn’t moderate, it just isn’t stupid. Compare Iran and Afghanistan, for example, the Islamic republic of Iran has known—even while sponsoring terrorism and subverting neighbors—how to be cautious and when to be brutal. The regime is still in power after more than three decades. The Taliban was foolhardy and adventurous, getting involved in the September 11 attacks against the United States. Its leaders are now living in caves.

At the end, the question is asked: “Which side of Hamas will prevail?” But aside from interviews given in English for the express purpose of fooling people there is no evidence that there are two sides of Hamas.

The Toronto Globe & Mail should be praised by seriously studying this issue, at a time when many newspapers in other countries increasingly “dumb down” their coverage. But the question remains how Hamas should be understood.

The advisor on counterterrorism to President Barack Obama once explained that Hizballah couldn’t be terrorists because it included lawyers. But who says that a revolutionary Islamist movement must merely be drooling terrorists saying, “Kill, kill, kill!” Even the Nazis weren’t like that and neither were the Stalinists. Of course, there are intellectuals and doctors, teachers and engineers, involved in the movement, as in all revolutionary Islamist movements. So what? 

Quickly, however, in such discussions there is a felt need to discover a spectrum of views when no significant differences exist, or at most they are purely tactical emphases. For example, an article in the Toronto Globe & Mail says that Hamas has “disavowed suicide attacks in recent years.” In fact, they have claimed many such attacks. They might disavow certain specific attacks that are inconveniently timed. That isn’t moderation it is political cleverness. 

That article notes: “Hamas-backed militias regularly rain rockets down on targets inside Israel.” Yes, but so does Hamas itself. Other militias have been used as fronts since Hamas’ defeat by Israel in 2009 so that Hamas can pretend it isn’t violating the ceasefire. Yet this is a thinly veneered trick since Hamas verbally supports the attacks, does nothing to prevent them and never punishes them afterward. Compare this to the bloody crackdowns of Hamas—as discussed in the article—when it really does feel its power and policy challenged.

Another important misunderstood point made in the same article says, “Hamas members remain the elected representatives of a large chunk of the Palestinian people, placed there by a fair exercise in democracy.” That is true as far as it goes. But many people think Hamas governs the Gaza Strip because it won an election. First, it won an election, then it made a coalition deal, then it seized power by force. 

In stating the usual juxtaposition, the article compares Hamas, “committed to the destruction of the Jewish state,” with Fatah and the PA, “moderate and secular.” While there is certainly truth in this distinction it is also dangerously misleading. For it suggests that these two groups are like oil and water. Yet while there are hardline and very pious forces in Fatah, there are no moderates and secularists in Hamas. Thus, Hamas can appeal to a lot of Fatah supporters but not so much the other way around. 

The article states, “It would be unrealistic to think that Hamas will fade away.” Absolutely right. But it is more possible that it will win control of the Palestinians altogether. True, as the article correctly states, people in the Gaza Strip have a lower living standard than those in the West Bank living under PA rule (mainly because the latter receive high levels of international aid). But is that enough to sustain Fatah?

Suppose an independent Palestinian state is established after an agreement with Israel and internationally supported. What would happen if some time later Hamas seized power by force, won an election, or formed a coalition with some younger Fatah cadre to rule. It would tear up the agreement with Israel—as is about to happen in Egypt—and return to the conflict with itself much stronger and Israel weaker than is true at present. Such a scenario is a very realistic one.

Even short of that, Hamas would maintain that it had the right and duty to attack Israelis (whether or not it publicly claimed responsibility for doing so).whenever that was politically profitable. Is a Fatah or coalition government really going to stop them from doing so? 

Meanwhile, Hamas preachers and teachers would be telling young people that being a jihad fighter or a suicide bomber is the most properly Islamic and wonderful thing they could do with their lives. How easily could moderates compete with such appeals, especially when—as we have seen elsewhere—moderates would be subject to intimidation or even assassination.

But actually the world should continue to shun Hamas for reasons having nothing to do with Israel. The Middle East today faces a huge internal conflict. That is the region’s main feature. The battle is between Islamists—be they Afghan, Iranian, Arab, or Turkish—and a much-varied set of nationalists, liberal reformers, and traditionalists. The mix is different in every country.

This battle is similar to the great struggles in Europe once caused by Communists and fascists. It is not merely a matter of Islam or Muslims because most of the people on the anti-Islamist side are also Muslims who think they are just as properly Islamic as the revolutionaries.

Giving international recognition or help or legitimacy to Hamas helps the radical Islamist side. It entrenches the Gaza Strip as a revolutionary statelet on the Mediterranean Sea, backed by Iran, using terrorism, dedicated to genocide against Israel and to subverting all of the relatively moderate Arab states.

It indoctrinates children to be future terrorists, to hate and kill Jews, expels Christians, subjugates women, and supports the murder of gays. In addition, it advocates the expulsion of Western influence from the region and opposes virtually all Western interests. A Hamas regime is bound to return to war again in the not-distant future. The group’s radicalism will kill any hope for a peace process between Israel and the PA. Hamas in power means a totalitarian state using torture and ferocious repression.

And it also furthers the revolutionary Islamist movements’ efforts to dominate the Middle East and spread their doctrine and power to Western countries.

A handful of carefully tailored English-language interviews by some Hamas leaders (while they and others speak very frankly and in a totally opposite way in Arabic) changes nothing. The group’s actions speak louder than such words. Their television shows directed at children tells more than soothing words meant to lull the West to sleep. 

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Obama Trying To Force Israel To Negotiate With PA-Hamas Govt. On Obama's Terms

According to a report in the Washington Times, President Obama is working hard to get the Israeli government  to publicly adopt President Obama’s view that Israel’s pre-1967 border should be the basis for future peace talks. And for help, he is going to leaders of American Jewish organizations, who tend to put progressive politics in front of everything else.  According to Eli Lake of the Times

The Obama White House appealed to Jewish leaders on Friday that the request of Israel was part of an effort to head off Palestinian plans to declare an independent state at the United Nations in September.

The request of Mr. Netanyahu was made Monday to the prime minister’s top peace negotiator, Yitzhak Molcho, at a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the National Security Council, according to an Israeli diplomat based in Jerusalem.

.....Steven Simon, the new White House National Security Council senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, told representatives of the Jewish Community Friday during a conference call that the White House was looking to get both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government to adopt Mr. Obama’s “principles as a basis for negotiation,” according to a recording of the call played for the Washington Times.

Mr. Obama’s position is “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Interestingly Obama's position  does not make demands of Palestinians. He is trying to force Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. And a government where neither of the ruling parties Hamas or Fatah are willing to recognize Israel as the Jewish State.

According to Jennifer Rubin, Israel supporters in Congress are fuming.

A spokesman for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) conveyed the senator’s view: “The president’s insistence last month that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders represented a significant departure from past U.S. policy and has been roundly repudiated by members of both parties. Given this lack of support, even from his own party, it is inconceivable why the President would continue to undermine the position of our democratic ally Israel in its negotiations with a hostile neighbor.”

I spoke to Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who plainly was angry over the continued effort to bully Israel. He said in a phone interview, “President Obama never learns. His real instinct is to weaken Israel. You don’t treat an ally this way.” He said he has never seen this sort of behavior from any U.S. president. After the apparent “rapprochement” following the Arab Spring speech, King says the current posture is “shameful.” Given the strong support in the Congress for Israel, will there be resolutions or a cutoff of funding for the Palestinians? He said firmly that it is time to start “fighting fire with fire.” In other words, as much as Obama seeks to pressure Israel while whispering vague promises to the American Jewish community, the Congress may very well try to recalibrate the balance. We should at least have one branch of government in our ally’s corner, right?

According to Jpost Obama has given Netanyahu an ultimatum:

The United States gave Netanyahu an ultimatum on renewing negotiations with the Palestinians, according to reports cited by Israel Radio Sunday morning.

According to the ultimatum, Netanyahu has to decide within a month whether he agrees to accept US President Barack Obama's platform and resume talks based on 1967 lines.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu was expected to travel to Italy on Sunday where he will meet his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi.

Let's see if the leaders of Jewish organizations join in on criticizing Obama's anti-Israel stance or, like Abe Foxman of the ADL, will the put progressive politics in front of doing the right thing when it comes to protecting America's only ally in the Middle East.