September 29, 2010

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

U.S. Pressing Israel to Halt West Bank Construction

Associated Press
September 29, 2010

Washington's special envoy to the Mideast is in Israel Wednesday to try and get the stalled peace process back on track and press for a halt to new settlement construction on land the Palestinians want for a future state.

Israel's own foreign minister highlighted the stiff opposition Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces within his own governing coalition to making concessions to the Palestinians.

At the United Nations on Tuesday, Avigdor Lieberman spoke of a decades-long interim agreement with the Palestinians instead of the near-term statehood they demand.

In a rare move, Netanyahu distanced himself from his own foreign minister's comments. The prime minister, himself a hardliner in dealings with the Palestinians, has committed to try to frame a final peace deal within a year.

The flap complicated a diplomatic landscape already burdened by Israel's refusal to renew a 10-month moratorium on housing starts in the West Bank, which expired Sunday. Netanyahu says his pro-settlement coalition could fracture if the construction curbs are extended.

But the Palestinians say negotiations are pointless if growing settlements keep chipping away at lands they want for their future state. And they've threatened to walk away from the talks if the settlement curbs aren't reinstated.

In an attempt to break the impasse, the White House sent George Mitchell to the region Tuesday to try to prevent the collapse of peace talks, which resumed less than a month ago after a two-year breakdown.

Mitchell is to meet with Netanyahu on Wednesday and with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday.
"We want the Palestinians to stay in the direct negotiations and we want the Israelis to demonstrate that it is in the Palestinian interest to stay in these negotiations," U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in Washington on Tuesday.
Abbas has given the U.S. until next week to find a compromise and will not announce whether he'll quit the talks until Arab foreign ministers meet in Cairo on Monday.

Should he stay in the talks without a moratorium, he would lose even more credibility among Palestinian constituents already skeptical of his ability to deliver a peace deal. The Islamic militant Hamas group that wrested control of the Gaza Strip from him in 2007 and opposes peacemaking would benefit.

On the other hand, the Western-backed Abbas is reluctant to walk away from talks because his international standing and future as a leader are tied to the quest for a peace deal.

Netanyahu on Tuesday reiterated his hope that negotiations would continue, yielding a historic framework deal by next September.

The Israeli leader, who only recently endorsed the notion of a Palestinian state under heavy U.S. pressure, has never publicly outlined a timetable for implementing any deal.

Speaking at the annual ministerial meeting of the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Netanyahu's foreign minister said Israelis and Palestinians need time to erase their mutual distrust.
"Under these conditions, we should focus on coming up with a long-term intermediate agreement, something that could take a few decades," Lieberman said.
Netanyahu's office quickly tried to extricate itself from the diplomatic fallout that Lieberman's remarks caused.
"The contents of the foreign minister's speech at the U.N. were not coordinated with the prime minister," his office said. "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the one heading the political negotiations on behalf of the state of Israel. The various subjects of the peace agreement will be discussed and set only around the negotiation table and not in any other place."

September 26, 2010

Russian Arms Sold to Syria Will Be Used Against Israel

Russian Arms Sold to Syria Will Be Used Against Israel

Haaretz Service
September 19, 2010

The Israeli defense establishment is greatly concerned about Russia's plans to go ahead with a sale of advanced arms to Syria, a defense source said on Saturday.
"Israel views [arms sale] with great concern," the senior defense official said. "The weapons will eventually be turned against Israel."
According to the official, Defense Minister Ehud Barak raised the issue in meetings earlier this month with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov.

On Friday, Serdyukov announced that Russia would go ahead with its sale of advanced anti-ship rockets to Syria, despite recent attempts by U.S. and Israeli officials to thwart the planned deal.

The arms deal, signed in 2007, involves the sale of advanced P-800 Yakhont supersonic cruise missiles to the Syrian military, weaponry which Israel considers as capable of posing significant danger to its navy vessels in the Mediterranean Sea.

Last month, Haaretz reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had tried to sway his Russian counterpart, Putin, from completing the deal, reportedly saying the missiles could be transferred to Hezbollah and used against IDF troops, as was the case in the Second Lebanon War.

Netanyahu: We Tried and Failed to Stop Russian Missile Sale to Syria

Haaretz Service
September 19, 2010

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted on Sunday that despite intensive diplomacy, Israel had failed to dissuade Russia from selling advanced missiles to Syria.

Speaking at Sunday's weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Netanyahu told ministers that Russian plans to go ahead with the delivery of P-800 anti-ship missiles to Syria was "problematic" for Israel.
"We have been aware of this deal for some time and there were discussions with the Russians at every level," Netanyahu said.
Syria signed a deal to buy the P-800 Yakhont supersonic cruise missiles from Russia in 2007. Israel says the weapons pose significant danger to its naval vessels in the Mediterranean and could upset the strategic balance in the region.
"To our regret, the deal is now proceeding in stages and that is problematic for us," Netanyahu said, adding that the Syrian missiles were part of the reason behind Israel's recent decision to upgrade its air force with new American F-35 warplanes.

"We are dealing with a new arsenal of missiles and rockets and there has to be a military response to that," he said.

September 25, 2010

Iran

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: And Now the Hit Pieces Begin

By Phil Brennan
September 24, 2010

Yesterday, at the annual United Nations General Assembly, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said in his address to the gathered world leaders that the “majority of the American people, as well as most nations and politicians around the world agree with this view” (that the attacks of September 11 2001 was an inside job).

This not only causes the vast majority of the U.S. delegates to leave the hall in disgust, but it also causes the Main Stream Media to go into fits of panic as the news spreads that someone has the guts to stand up in the United Nations and say that the American Administration, under former President George W. Bush, committed the world’s worst ever terrorist atrocity against their own citizens, and not only that, but that the majority of Americans know that they did it.

You may find the full speech on video here.

The New York Times, in an effort to lessen the import of this statement, deliberately misquoted him at the beginning of their article, saying that he said that “some” Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job, knowing full well that most readers will only skim over such an article and would only read the first two paragraphs before going off to see if Lindsey Lohan is back in jail yet.

To quote the beginning of the New York Times article:

“The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, issued a series of incendiary comments in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday afternoon, noting in particular that some people believe the United States orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks as part of a propaganda campaign to “reverse the declining American economy” and to “save the Zionist regime,” meaning Israel.”

It is only later that they quote what he actually did say, far enough down in the article that most people probably would bother reading down that far. This is what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually did say:

“In identifying those responsible behind the Sept. 11 attacks, there were three viewpoints,” he said. “First, that a very powerful and complex terrorist group able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security carried out the attack. This is the prevalent viewpoint which has been supported mainly and advocated by American statesmen.”

“Second: that some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people, as well as most nations and politicians around the world agree with this view.

“Third: it was carried out by a terrorist group but that the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.”

In the New York Times’ emergency hit piece, a rather telling sentence is written just before the quote, of which I would like to examine closer:

“Mr. Ahmadinejad framed his comments about Sept. 11 as an examination of opinions, an approach he has used in questioning the Holocaust, as well.”

This sentence is deliberately designed to make the reader equate 9/11 Truth with Holocaust Denial, a Neural-Linguistic Programming technique known as “discrediting by association”. And yet, as I myself, and many other Patriots can testify, the official accounts of what actually happened during those terrible events of the 9th of September 2001 just do not add up with the vast body of video and documentary evidence we have uncovered since the event. Even the 9/11 Commissioners and Senior former CIA Agents have grave misgivings over the official account of these events.

The British Guardian newspaper has even gone as far as doing two separate pieces on Ahmadinejad’s speech, and the proposed reaction to it by Nick Clegg, the deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, when he makes his speech at the United Nations General Assembly.

The first piece, entitled “Ahmadinejad accuses US of ‘orchestrating’ 9/11 attacks to aid Israel“, even goes as far as to say that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the U.S. government of ‘orchestrating’ the September 11 attacks, when in fact he did no such thing. As we have already seen above, he merely put forwards three opposing views of what occurred that fateful day, and offered to set up an independent investigation of all the available evidence.

Another thing you will notice about the Guardian article is that it keeps deliberately jumping to and from other subjects while dealing with what he actually said. This is unusual, as the Guardian are known for putting relevant background information at the end of their articles within a couple of paragraphs, and not for inserting these titbits of (dis)information right in he middle of the main story. This is another Neural-Linguistic Programming technique known as “muddying the waters” or “distraction”. Here are the first three paragraphs to illustrate what I mean:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has accused the US government of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks to prop up Israel.

Speaking at the UN general assembly, just a few miles away from the still open wound of Ground Zero, he prompted a walkout of the US and UK delegations from the chamber. US diplomats dismissed his comments as “abhorrent and delusional”.

At a time when Iran is being squeezed by sanctions imposed through the UN, Ahmadinejad showed no desire to extend a placatory hand and instead opted to repeat several old conspiracy theories relating to the terrorist attacks on September 11 2001. One theory of what happened on that day, he said, was “the US government orchestrated the attack in order to save the Zionist regime in the Middle East”.

The first paragraph I have already dealt with. The second paragraph gives four pieces of information, one of which is deliberately emotive as we really didn’t need to be reminded that the UN Headquarters is only a few short miles from ‘Ground Zero’. The third paragraph mentions the current situation with Iran, which again, we really didn’t need to be reminded of here, but rather, would have usually been left as a footnote at the bottom of the article. Again, using the term ‘conspiracy theories’ is a deliberate attack on the opinions he was expressing, as many people from architects to physicists to former US Senators and senior CIA agents also believe that 9/11 did not happen quite the way the discredited 9/11 Commission said it did. Finally, it deals with what Ahmadinejad said unfairly, by again deliberately misrepresenting his words through misquotation.

Now we get onto the Guardian’s next piece, entitled “Nick Clegg to denounce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at UN“. The opening salvo is as follows:

“Nick Clegg will today issue a strong condemnation of the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, telling the UN that his claims, made yesterday, that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks on New York are ‘bizarre, offensive and attention-grabbing’.
So his comments were ‘bizarre, offensive and attention grabbing’? They are only bizarre to those who have not bothered to look at the wealth of evidence available, offensive to those with guilty consciences who know that 9/11 was an inside job, and no more attention grabbing than President Obama’s claims that he will sort out the Middle East by this time next year, which is an even wilder claim to make.

“[Nick] Clegg will say: ‘I was ready today to welcome the progress made in this week’s meeting of the E3+3 group on Iran. I was ready to straightforwardly reiterate our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme. But instead, once again, an issue of grave global concern has been overshadowed by the bizarre, offensive and attention-grabbing pronouncements by President Ahmedinejad from this podium yesterday. His remarks were intended to distract attention from Iran’s obligations and to generate media headlines. They deserve to do neither’.”

Again, this second hit piece goes on to confuse the issues and muddy the waters, as does the first. It appears that the Guardian are toeing the official ‘discredit at all costs’ line to the letter. Their masters at Whitehall and the White House must be really proud of them.

The Independent’s sole article on the subject is a little more reasonable. “EU chief slams Iran’s 9/11 attack claims” deals mostly with the official reaction to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments from the EU and U.S. Administrations, while only barely mentioning what all the fuss is about.

The Telegraph has one article on the subject as well – “Nick Clegg hits back over Ahmadinejad’s 9/11 comments“. Again, certain techniques are being deliberately used to pull the agenda away from what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said to Nick Clegg’s reaction to it.

The Daily Express’ article, “UN Fury at Iran’s 9/11 Claim“, is a total hit piece from beginning to end, and would take too long to dissect here. Needless to say it uses disinformation and distraction to confuse the issues in the minds of its readership.

The one concern that I have about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s coming out for 9/11 Truth at the United Nations General Assembly is how the American and British Administrations can now conflate 9/11 Truth with domestic extremism more easily than they could before.

Never-the-less, Main Stream Media publications like the New York Times and the Guardian, as well as all the major TV news channels, are going to attack rather heavily Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statements. The only problem with this is that many other world leaders are also coming out for 9/11 Truth, including President Fidel Castro of Cuba, along with several Arab, South American, and European leaders.

So be wary of the Main Stream Media trying to put their spin onto everything. They do it all the time…

September 24, 2010

Iran

Freed U.S. Hiker Meets with President of Iran

The Associated Press
September 24, 2010

Sarah Shourd, one of three Americans arrested last year while hiking near the Iran-Iraq border, met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday to plead for the release of her still-imprisoned fiance and their friend.
"I'm just going to keep pushing every minute for their release on humanitarian grounds," Shourd told ABC News outside a hotel after she and her mother, Nora Shourd, met with the president.
Shourd, 32, called the encounter "a very gracious gesture and a good meeting," said Ahmadinejad seemed friendly and that it was "a very human encounter, very personal."
Family spokeswoman Samantha Topping confirmed the meeting with Ahmadinejad, who was in New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly. Topping declined to say what was discussed.

Shourd came to New York to advocate for the release of her fiance, Shane Bauer, and their friend Josh Fattal, who remain imprisoned in Tehran after 14 months.

Shourd told The Associated Press on Thursday of the monotony, cramped quarters and fears for her future during her 410 days in an Iranian prison, mostly in solitary confinement.

In one of her first interviews since her Sept. 14 release from Tehran's notorious Evin Prison, she said that she chooses to savor the few moments of joy she found in her imprisonment.

One of her happiest days, she said, was the celebration of her 32nd birthday last month. Somehow the men, who remain in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison, had persuaded a guard into bringing her the cake and even found a way to give her a whiff of liberty.

They talked her through a whole imaginary day that they called a "freedom walk" — from waking up and having pancakes, to going to a lake, then walking to her mother's apartment. When they came to the part of their story where the apartment door opened, Bauer and Fattal spun Shourd around.
"They had brought all the pictures we had of our family and put them on these boxes, so everyone was there, and it was a surprise party. It was beautiful," she said, her voice catching. "I cried."
But most days in prison were far more monotonous — or terrifying.

She recalled how the three made a vow while blindfolded in a prison van shortly after their capture: If they were separated, they would go on hunger strike until they were reunited.

Shourd starved herself for four days, lying alone in her cell and growing weaker. In prison, she kept reviewing her last day of freedom. What could they have done differently? What if, when they asked a tea vendor near a waterfall for advice on a hiking path, they had gone another way?

On the fourth day, the hikers were reunited for five minutes. Shourd began eating again, but their captivity was just beginning.

Alone in her cell, Shourd began going over multiplication tables in her head. It was the only way she could keep out thoughts of her mother. Of whether she knew where her daughter was. Of how worried she must be. Of whether they would see each other again.

If she thought of her mother, she began to fall apart, Shourd recalled.

Video courtesy of ABC News. For more visit ABC News.com
"I just had to be sure that I was strong when I went into the interrogation room because I wanted to make sure that I didn't, that they didn't manipulate me into saying anything that I didn't want to say," she said.
She wondered whether she'd be hurt. If suddenly the door might open and she'd be dragged away.

Instead, a few times a day, a female guard would come bearing layers of extra clothing and a blindfold, so when Shourd arrived at the interrogation room she couldn't see the faces of her questioners.

She was amazed at their "good cop, bad cop" approach, just like on TV shows back in the U.S.

They had her write down what felt like every detail of her life, from her childhood in Los Angeles to her time living with Bauer in Syria, where she taught English and Bauer, a native of Onamia, Minn., was a freelance journalist. Fattal, who grew up in Pennsylvania, had come to the Middle East to visit them.

Over two months, she wrote hundreds of pages, she said. When she would finish writing an answer to a question, an interrogator would tell her "this is not good enough" and tear up her words. She would write again, and again hear the pages tear.
"I would just write it the same every time," she said.
They questioned her about her e-mails and about her Skype contacts, looking for any indication she had intended to come to Iran.

Shourd says she'd been missing the green mountains of the U.S. after a year in Syria. She and Bauer had heard from friends that the lush lands of northern Iraq had been largely untouched by the war, so they and Fattal traveled to Ahmed Awa waterfall, where they found hundreds of Kurdish families eating at restaurants and camping.

The first indication they were near the Iran border was three hours into their hike when they met Iranian officials on a trail leading from the waterfall. By then, it was too late.

Shourd tried to resist her imprisonment at first. She constantly yelled, cried or begged her captors for a phone call. She was confined to her 10-foot-by-5-foot cell. At night, the bit of sunlight from the window would dim, but the lights stayed on.

Eventually, the interrogations ended. The two men were moved into a cell together. The three Americans were allowed to see each other, at first for 30 minutes each day, then for an hour, then for two.

The trio had local TV, including 15 minutes of English-language news every day. They received a bundle of letters from their parents and siblings about once a month. And they had books in English. Shourd read the Quran, using her basic Arabic to communicate haltingly with some Farsi-speaking guards about religion.

Shourd would spend all day saving up details to tell the other two. At first, the three went over what they called "reruns" — reviewing every memory of their lives in tremendous detail. When those ran out, they started to dream of the future and what they would do on the outside.

Some plans were bigger than others.

On one evening, Bauer asked Fattal to stay in their cell during their allotted time outdoors, so that the couple could have a moment alone.

The two sat on a rough wool mat, cockroaches skittering around them and dust filling the air. They held hands, and Bauer asked her to marry him. He made them engagement rings from two thin pieces of string.
"It's not what every person thinks of as romantic, but it was romantic for me," Shourd said.
And now, she is back on the outside, appearing on "The Oprah Winfrey Show," preparing for a tour of TV studios, a bit of string tied around her finger.

She feels some guilt, she said, but she pushes that aside. She learned in prison how to ignore negative emotions.

She thinks of the men, of the strong, supportive faces they put on when they learned only she would leave. She still doesn't know who paid her $500,000 bail, though she said an Omani official told her of an Iranian citizen who attempted to mortgage his home to pay it.

Ahmadinejad had told the AP that he hoped Bauer and Fattal would be able to provide evidence that "they had no ill intention in crossing the border" so that they can be released.

Iran has issued espionage-related indictments against the three of them, which could bring trials for the two men and proceedings in absentia for Shourd, although she says she hasn't ruled out returning to face trial.

She wants the world to see Bauer and Fattal, who are passing long days in a cramped space not much larger than a towel.

Shourd said they exercised to stay sane. There were days she would force herself to run or do jumping jacks despite the tears streaming down her face.

The men got even more inventive. They would lift their beds. They would stockpile water bottles, fill them with water, pile them into bags and lift them. They were intent on staying strong.

Part of her wishes she were still with them. Out here she can't protect them. She doesn't know that the books are still available or whether the guards are still being kind.
"The only thing that gives my freedom meaning is that I have this work to do, because honestly if I felt like there was nothing to do out here, if I wasn't needed in so many ways, I would have rather stayed with them," she said.
But out here, she can be their voice. She can do her best to make sure the world doesn't forget. She will be tireless, she said.
And until they're at her side, "my life will not resume."

AP Interview: Hiker Talks of Year in Iran Prison

Associated Press
September 24, 2010

Her 410 days of solitary confinement in an Iranian prison were mostly cramped quarters and endless monotony, but Sarah Shourd chooses to savor the few moments of joy: a proposal from her boyfriend and a birthday celebration complete with a chocolate cake.

Shourd, her boyfriend Shane Bauer and their friend Josh Fattal were captured in 2009 while hiking near the Iran-Iraq border. Shourd talked about her experiences Thursday with The Associated Press in one of her first interviews since her release on Sept. 14 after officials in Oman mediated bail.

One of her happiest days, she said, was the celebration of her 32nd birthday last month. Somehow the men, who remain in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison, had persuaded a guard into bringing her the cake and even found a way to give her a whiff of liberty.

They talked her through a whole imaginary day that they called a "freedom walk" — from waking up and having pancakes, to going to a lake, then walking to her mother's apartment. When they came to the part of their story where the apartment door opened, Bauer and Fattal spun Shourd around.
"They had brought all the pictures we had of our family and put them on these boxes, so everyone was there, and it was a surprise party. It was beautiful," she said, her voice catching. "I cried."
But most days in prison were far more monotonous — or terrifying.

She recalled how the three made a vow while blindfolded in a prison van shortly after their capture: If they were separated, they would go on hunger strike until they were reunited.

Shourd starved herself for four days, lying alone in her cell and growing weaker. In prison, she kept reviewing her last day of freedom. What could they have done differently? What if, when they asked a tea vendor near a waterfall for advice on a hiking path, they had gone another way?

On the fourth day, the hikers were reunited for five minutes. Shourd began eating again, but their captivity was just beginning.

Alone in her cell, Shourd began going over multiplication tables in her head. It was the only way she could keep out thoughts of her mother. Of whether she knew where her daughter was. Of how worried she must be. Of whether they would see each other again.

If she thought of her mother, she began to fall apart, Shourd recalled.
"I just had to be sure that I was strong when I went into the interrogation room because I wanted to make sure that I didn't, that they didn't manipulate me into saying anything that I didn't want to say," she said.
She wondered whether she'd be hurt. If suddenly the door might open and she'd be dragged away.

Instead, a few times a day, a female guard would come bearing layers of extra clothing and a blindfold, so when Shourd arrived at the interrogation room she couldn't see the faces of her questioners.

She was amazed at their "good cop, bad cop" approach, just like on TV shows back in the U.S.

They had her write down what felt like every detail of her life, from her childhood in Los Angeles to her time living with Bauer in Syria, where she taught English and Bauer, a native of Onamia, Minn., was a freelance journalist. Fattal, who grew up in Pennsylvania, had come to the Middle East to visit them.

Over two months, she wrote hundreds of pages, she said. When she would finish writing an answer to a question, an interrogator would tell her "this is not good enough" and tear up her words. She would write again, and again hear the pages tear.
"I would just write it the same every time," she said.
They questioned her about her e-mails and about her Skype contacts, looking for any indication she had intended to come to Iran.

Should says she'd been missing the green mountains of the U.S. after a year in Syria. She and Bauer had heard from friends that the lush lands of northern Iraq had been largely untouched by the war. So they and Fattal traveled to Ahmed Awa waterfall, where they found hundreds of Kurdish families eating at restaurants and camping.

The first indication they were near the Iran border was three hours into their hike when they met Iranian officials on a trail leading from the waterfall. By then, it was too late.

Shourd tried to resist her imprisonment at first. She constantly yelled, cried or begged her captors for a phone call. She was confined to her 10-foot-by-5-foot cell. At night, the bit of sunlight from the window would dim, but the lights stayed on.

Eventually, the interrogations ended. The two men were moved into a cell together. The three Americans were allowed to see each other, at first for 30 minutes each day, then for an hour, then for two.

The trio had local TV, including 15 minutes of English-language news every day. They received a bundle of letters from their parents and siblings about once a month. And they had books in English. Shourd read the Quran, using her basic Arabic to communicate haltingly with some Farsi-speaking guards about religion.

Shourd would spend all day saving up details to tell the other two. At first, the three went over what they called "reruns" — reviewing every memory of their lives in tremendous detail. When those ran out, they started to dream of the future and what they would do on the outside.

Some plans were bigger than others.

On one evening, Bauer asked Fattal to stay in their cell during their allotted time outdoors, so that the couple could have a moment alone.

The two sat on a rough wool mat, cockroaches skittering around them and dust filling the air. They held hands, and Bauer asked her to marry him. He made them engagement rings from two thin pieces of string.
"It's not what every person thinks of as romantic, but it was romantic for me," Shourd said.
And now, she is back on the outside, appearing on "The Oprah Winfrey Show," preparing for a tour of TV studios, a bit of string tied around her finger.

She feels some guilt, she said, but she pushes that aside. She learned in prison how to ignore negative emotions.

She thinks of the men, of the strong, supportive faces they put on when they learned only she would leave. She still doesn't know who paid her $500,000 bail, though she said an Omani official told her of an Iranian citizen who attempted to mortgage his home to pay it.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told the AP that he hopes Bauer and Fattal would be able to provide evidence that "they had no ill intention in crossing the border" so that they can be released. Iran has issued espionage-related indictments against the three of them, which could bring trials for the two men and proceedings in absentia for Shourd, although she says she hasn't ruled out returning to face trial.

She wants the world to see Bauer and Fattal, who are passing long days in a cramped space not much larger than a towel.

Shourd said they exercised to stay sane. There were days she would force herself to run or do jumping jacks despite the tears streaming down her face.

The men got even more inventive. They would lift their beds. They would stockpile water bottles, fill them with water, pile them into bags and lift them. They were intent on staying strong.

Part of her wishes she were still with them. Out here she can't protect them. She doesn't know that the books are still available or whether the guards are still being kind.
"The only thing that gives my freedom meaning is that I have this work to do, because honestly if I felt like there was nothing to do out here, if I wasn't needed in so many ways, I would have rather stayed with them," she said.
But out here, she can be their voice. She can do her best to make sure the world doesn't forget. She will be tireless, she said.

And until they're at her side, "my life will not resume."

Slideshow: Iran frees U.S. hiker
Video: Sarah Shourd on Iran Detention
Iran Video: Ahmadinejad Repeats Nuke Denial

September 23, 2010

Israel, the U.S. and the Arab World

U.S. Walks Out on Ahmadinejad's UN Speech

Associated Press
September 23, 2010

The U.S. delegation walked out of the U.N. speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday after he said some in the world have speculated that Americans were behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks, staged in an attempt to assure Israel's survival.

He did not explain the logic of that statement that was made as he attacked the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel and is deeply at odds with the United States and European allies over its nuclear program and suspicions that it is designed to produce an atomic bomb. Iran says it is only working on technology for electricity generation.

The U.S. delegation left the hall after Ahmadinejad said there were three theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:
  • That "powerful and complex terrorist group" penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses.
  • "That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view."
The Americans stood and walked out without listening to the third theory, that the attack was the work of "a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation."

Mark Kornblau, spokesman of the U.S. Mission to the world body, issued a statement within moments of Ahmadinejad's attack.
"Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people," he said, "Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable."
Ahmadinejad, who has in the past cast doubt over the U.S. version of the Sept. 11 attacks, called for establishment of an independent fact-finding U.N. body to probe the attacks and stop it from turning into another sacred issue where "expressing opinion about it won't be banned".

He said the U.S. used the attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq that led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of people, saying the U.S. should have "designed a logical plan" to punish the perpetrators while not sheding so much blood.

Ahmadinejad boasted of the capture in February of Abdulmalik Rigi, the leader of an armed Sunni group whose insurgency in the southeast of Iran has destabilized the border region with Pakistan. He said authorities did not resort to violence, but captured the suspect after trailing his movements in an operation by Iranian secret agents. Rigi was later hanged.

The Iranian leader spoke of threats to burn the Quran by a small American church in Florida to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Although that church backed down, several copycat burnings were posted on the Internet and broadcast in the Muslim world.
"Very recently the world witnessed the ugly and inhumane act of burning the holy Quran," Ahmadinejad said.
He briefly touch on the four sets of sanctions imposed on his country by the United Nations over Tehran's refusal stop enriching uranium and to prove Iran is not trying to build an atomic bomb.

Some members of the Security Council have "equated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs," Ahmadinejad said.

He accused the United States of building up its nuclear arsenal instead of dismantling it and reiterated his call for a nuclear-free world.
"The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon which must totally be eliminated. The NPT (Nonproliferation Treaty) prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear disarmament," the Iranian president said.
Ahmadinejad hinted that Iran is ready for talks on its nuclear program provided they are based on "justice and respect", suggesting that the U.S. and its allies must stop pressuring Iran through sanctions before Tehran will sit at the negotiating table.

He again rejected the U.N. Security Council sanctions as "illegal," blaming the U.S. as the power behind the measures.
"Those who have used intimidation and sanctions in response to the clear logic of the Iranian nation are in real terms destroying the remaining credibility of the Security Council," Ahmadinejad said.
Ahmadinejad has in the past called the Security Council a "satanic tool" and has called its anti-Iran resolutions "not worth a cent."

Slideshow:Iran President Ahmadinejad
Play Video Video:Obama challenges Iran at the UN Reuters
Play Video Video:Shepard Smith to Interview Iran's President FOX News

    September 22, 2010

    Israel, the U.S. and the Arab World

    'Iran on Verge of Potential US-led War'

    A top Iranian commander has warned of a potential US-led war against Iran in the near future, insisting on enduring readiness of Iran's defense forces to repel any attack.

    PressTV
    September 19, 2010

    Speaking at the fifth conference on the study of Iran's 'sacred defense' files, Deputy Commander of Iran's Armed Forces of the Islamic Revolution's Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Gholamali Rashid said that under "current threatening conditions" when the US and Israel are "daily beating on their war drums," it would not be an exaggeration to say that we are on the verge of a potential war in the [near] future.”

    Gen. Rashid's remarks came following his description of threats made by the US and Israel against countries of the region after the "suspicious September 11 incident.”

    Referring to continued US threats against the Islamic Republic in the past 10 years, he reiterated that Iran's Army and the IRGC are maintaining constant readiness for any given situation.

    The IRGC general said one of the signs of threats against the country is the four wars that Israel and the US waged in our region in less than eight years, leading to thousands of deaths, millions of homeless, and the destruction of infrastructures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine.

    He noted that despite all the death and destruction they have brought to Muslims and Muslim countries while calling Islam and Muslims their number one enemy, they have the nerve to deceitfully talk about human rights. These are the reasons behind their insult against Islam's holy book of Qur'an.

    Rashid also added that he does not think that US military commanders would commit such a strategic mistake of an all-out war, "since they are militarily incapable of waging a ground war against Iran.”

    He also expressed doubt about a US aerial or missile attack against Iran, adding that they are well-aware of Iran's great deterrence capacity, missile power, and enhanced sea defense potentials.

    September 15, 2010

    Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

    Israeli Jets Bomb Gaza Targets as Leaders Hold Peace Talks

    The Associated Press
    September 15, 2010

    Militants launched mortar shells into Israel and Israeli jets bombed targets in Gaza on Wednesday, just as Israeli and Palestinian leaders held peace talks in Jerusalem with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Gaza militants opposed to peace with Israel have threatened to derail the fledgling negotiations, and the Israeli military said eight mortars and one rocket hit Israel by mid-afternoon on the day of the talks — the highest daily total since March 2009. There were no injuries.

    Israeli warplanes responded by bombing a smuggling tunnel along the Gaza-Egypt border, the military said. Hamas officials said one person was killed and four wounded.

    In Jerusalem, little more than an hour's drive from Gaza, Clinton said Israeli and Palestinian leaders were "getting down to business" on the major issues dividing them, though there was no sign they were any closer to resolving a looming crisis over Israeli West Bank settlements.

    The American secretary of state was in Jerusalem for a second day of talks aimed in part at ending the impasse, a day after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at a summit hosted by Egypt.
    "They are getting down to business and they have begun to grapple with the core issues that can only be resolved through face-to-face negotiations," Clinton told reporters. "I believe they are serious about reaching an agreement that results in two states living side by side in peace and security."
    Abbas has threatened to walk out of the talks if Israel resumes construction in the settlements after a 10-month slowdown expires at the end of the month. Clinton and President Barack Obama have called on Netanyahu to extend the slowdown.

    Netanyahu has signaled he is looking for a compromise. Earlier this week, he said the current curbs won't remain in place after the end of this month, though he will continue to restrict building activity to some extent.

    The Palestinians oppose the settlements because they eat up land they want for their future state. Some 300,000 Israelis live scattered among the West Bank's 2.5 million Palestinians. An additional 200,000 Israelis live in east Jerusalem, the section of the holy city the Palestinians claim as their capital.

    President Barack Obama has made his pursuit of a Mideast settlement a centerpiece of his foreign policy. After months of U.S. shuttle diplomacy, he summoned the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to Washington early this month to formally launch the first direct negotiations since talks collapsed in 2008 following Israel's military offensive in Gaza. Obama hopes to forge a deal within a year.

    Negotiators will have to tackle a series of issues that have undermined talks in the past: the location of the border between Israel and a future Palestinian state, the fate of Palestinian refugees, and the competing claims to the holy city of Jerusalem.

    But they will have a hard time addressing those disputes if they cannot resolve the disagreement on the settlement slowdown.

    Under intense international pressure, Netanyahu declared curbs on West Bank settlement construction last November, seeking to draw the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. At the time the Palestinians dismissed the move as insignificant, an irony Clinton pointed out ahead of Tuesday's talks in Egypt.
    "Now we're told that negotiations cannot continue unless something that was viewed as being inadequate continues," she said.
    The slowdown is set to expire on Sept. 26, and Netanyahu is being pressed by many of his religious and nationalist allies in Israel's coalition government to resume construction. Members of his own Likud Party have taken out ads in Israeli dailies in recent days demanding an end to the slowdown.

    Both Netanyahu and Abbas share a common enemy: Hamas. The Islamic group took over Gaza in 2007 after ousting Abbas' forces, and it has threatened to unleash new violence as the peace talks move forward.

    Following Wednesday's airstrike, Hamas said its security forces had evacuated their installations in preparation for further Israeli retaliation.

    A senior Israeli military officer forecast further violence in the coming days.

    The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity under military guidelines, said Hamas has become increasingly involved in the violence, turning a blind eye to the attacks and occasionally giving its permission to "proxies" to carry out violence.

    Hamas has largely refrained from directly carrying out attacks since a devastating Israeli offensive early last year, and has at times even reined in other armed groups from attacking. But with the resumption of peace talks, the militant group has threatened to change its policy.

    Early this week, the head of Israel's Shin Bet security agency warned that Hamas would try to torpedo the new talks, and when negotiations were officially launched early this month, Hamas militants killed four Israelis in the West Bank.

    Israel's Settlements Key to Peace Talk Progress

    The Associated Press
    September 16, 2010

    Two days of Mideast peace talks appear to have brought Israel and the Palestinians closer to a deal that would allow those talks to continue, but even if the negotiations move forward far more difficult issues lay ahead.

    Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak suggested a compromise over Israel's plan to lift its partial ban on construction on the West Bank later this month, while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday he sees no alternative to continuing negotiations in search of peace with Israel.

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in Amman, said she is convinced that Netanyahu and Abbas are trying to seek common ground.
    "They are committed and they have begun to grapple with the hard but necessary questions," she said, shortly before leaving for the U.S. "I am convinced that this is the time and these are the leaders to achieve the result we all seek."
    Abbas' comments came as Israel was coming under increasing pressure to extend its curb on Jewish settlement construction, and aides to the Palestinian leader suggested there might be movement toward a compromise on that issue.

    Abbas had said previously that the talks could not survive if the Israeli building restrictions were lifted as planned.
    "We all know there is no alternative to peace through negotiations, so we have no alternative other than to continue these efforts," Abbas said Thursday, speaking through an interpreter in Ramallah, where the headquarters of the Palestinian National Authority is located.
    It was unclear from Abbas' remarks whether he was signaling that the Palestinians would remain committed to the talks even if Israel does not extend the limits on building.

    Egypt's leader said in a radio interview that he urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to extend the restrictions for three more months to give peacemaking a chance.

    Mubarak said he told Netanyahu the delay could give the two sides time to draft their future borders. After those lines are agreed, Mubarak reasoned, Israel can build within its future borders and the Palestinians within theirs.

    In comments to Israel's Channel 10 before she left the region, Clinton said for the first time that the U.S. would back a limited extension of the partial construction moratorium, calling the idea "extremely useful."
    "I don't think a limited extension would undermine the process going forward if there were a decision agreed to by both parties," she said.
    Netanyahu's office said Thursday that Israel doesn't plan to extend the current limits, which are due to expire in late September.

    But Israeli officials said they hoped to reach a compromise well before the current restrictions expire on Sept. 26 in hopes of avoiding a major crisis. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because no formal decisions have been made.

    Aides to Abbas said no deal had been reached on the settlement issue, but said they accept Mubarak's proposal and expect that a compromise will be found. Previously, the Palestinians have said they would walk out on the talks if any construction resumes.

    The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a sensitive diplomatic matter.

    Michele Dunne, a Mideast expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Thursday the talks appear to have edged the process forward, although bigger challenges lay ahead.
    The discussions in Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem "got the talks rolling toward a possible compromise on the settlements moratorium issue, which probably will be reached over the next week or so," she said. "But once again the parties are spending weeks dealing with a short-term issue to avert a crisis rather than getting down to the larger problems."
    On Thursday, Clinton and Abbas met at the Palestinian Authority's West Bank headquarters.

    Abbas thanked the Obama administration for its efforts to broker the current talks, the first in two years.
    "I know that this time is difficult and the circumstances are difficult, but the Americans are exerting active efforts to achieve this peace," he said.
    Later, Clinton traveled to Amman for lunch with Jordan's King Abdullah, whose country already has a peace treaty with Israel and is a strong supporter of efforts to work out a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

    Dates for the next round of top-level negotiations are supposed to be determined during consultations next week.

    Gaza militants opposed to the peace efforts have sent mortars and rockets crashing into southern Israeli communities in recent days, drawing retaliatory Israeli airstrikes.

    Overnight, Israeli aircraft hit two Gaza targets that the military described as weapons storage facilities. No casualties were reported.

    Palestinian official Raed Fattouh, who coordinates the flow of goods into Gaza with Israel, said the Israeli military also canceled plans to let new cars enter Gaza on Thursday for the first time in four years. The Israeli military had no immediate confirmation.

    George Mitchell, the Obama administration's envoy for Middle East peace, traveled to Syria on Thursday for talks with President Bashar Assad and the Syrian foreign minister about starting a separate Syria-Israel peace negotiation.

    He told reporters the U.S. administration was determined to achieve comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
    "It is true that the parties still have profound differences ... but we are determined to see it through," he said.

    The U.S. and Israeli Ruling Elite Are Enemies of Ordinary Jews in the Middle East

    What If Hamas and Fatah Are Not Really Enemies?

    By Francisco Gil-White, Historical and Investigative Research
    Originally Published on June 30, 2007
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Article 27 of the Hamas Charter states:

    “The Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO = Al Fatah] is the closest to the heart of the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]. It contains the father and the brother, the next of kin and the friend. The Moslem does not estrange himself from his father, brother, next of kin or friend. Our homeland is one, our situation is one, our fate is one, and the enemy is a joint enemy to all of us.”[1]

    “To think that Palestinians will attack Palestinians is a rotten idea”

    ...said by Jibril Rajoub, head of the PLO’s security service, when asked, right after the Oslo Accord was signed, whether his forces would suppress the terrorists in the Hamas organization, where his brother Nayef Rajoub is an important religious leader.[2]

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Short Preface

    How to interpret the supposed fight between Hamas and Al Fatah (also known as ‘the PLO’)?

    The media has always represented Hamas and Fatah as great enemies, but this has always flown in the face of the facts (consider the love letter to the PLO contained in the Hamas Charter, at top).

    In the pages of the New York Times and other such publications Hamas and Fatah would snarl at each other, but in the real world there was a dramatic contrast: leaders of Hamas would become leaders of Fatah and vice-versa, and they cooperated closely when it came to repressing the Arab civilian population of the West Bank and Gaza, and when it came to attacking Israel.
    [2]

    We are told that Hamas is supported by Iran because they are ‘Islamist extremists,’ but not Fatah because they are ‘secular moderates.’ In fact, however, Fatah has a long tradition of advocating Islamism to its Arab audiences (though not to the Western press), and it also has a very long relationship with the Iranian mullahs who took over that country in 1979, because Al Fatah in fact helped put them in power.[1a]

    The truth is that, as this history would lead us to expect, Iran is supporting both Fatah and Hamas.

    Is anything at all consistent with the supposed fight between Hamas and Fatah?

    Let me take you back a few months, so that we may take a look at how the ‘fight’ between Hamas and Fatah came to be, and then played out. Then I will examine its consequences.

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Before the ‘fight’

    Go back a number of months, and what you have is Al Fatah and Hamas as the two main groups disputing the leadership of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs in the ‘Palestinian Authority’ government.
    Hamas wins big in the parliamentary elections and then refuses to say anything even remotely moderate: “Death to Israel” is all that Hamas can pronounce.

    Fatah also wants to destroy Israel, but it occasionally tells the Western press that it has abandoned this goal.
    Seems like a small difference: why can’t Hamas, like Al Fatah, just make believe? They could then jointly get the Israeli concessions that will make the destruction of Israel easier and ride together into the genocidal sunset. But Hamas will not. Why not? It is an interesting question, because Islamic law explicitly allows lying to infidels in order to be in a better position to kill them.[3] But Hamas, in an apparently counterproductive move, chooses (prematurely, it seems) to fire one gleeful rocket after another at Israeli civilians.

    Now, since, according to election results, Hamas now represents a majority of the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, even the façade of a ‘peace’ process is already dead. Ethically, therefore, what should the Israeli government and the Western sponsors of the Oslo process do? They should declare it dead and give this problem a military solution, to protect Jewish -- and, incidentally, Arab life -- from the Hamas and Fatah gangsters (the Arab residents of Gaza have been calling the Palestinian Authority police the ‘death squad’ for years).[4]

    But the Western powers won’t do the ethical thing. What they do is freeze the monies they have been sending to the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority -- because it is just too embarrassing to be sending money to a body that openly says “Death to Israel” while firing rockets at Israeli civilians. And the Western powers rush to try and get Hamas to stop firing rockets and say that it will recognize Israel so that the funding can resume and a final ‘peace’ agreement can be signed.

    On the face of it, this is truly desperate stuff. Even if Hamas complies, there can be no reason to believe that their ‘recognition’ of Israel will be sincere, and yet US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and European Union Foreign Secretary Javier Solana appear quite concerned to produce this statement. Why? Do they actually want a phony ‘peace’ agreement so that Jews can be cleansed out of Judea and Samaria like they were cleansed out of the Gaza Strip (which brought nothing but increased violence for both Arabs and Jews)? Do they actually want to give Hamas or Fatah or both total control over strategic high ground overlooking a tiny 11-mile wide strip of concentrated Jews with their backs against the sea?

    Their behavior would appear consistent with that hypothesis.

    It does not appear consistent with the hypothesis that the US is an ally of Israel
    .
    [5]

    But surely Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will react against this blatant attempt to destroy the Jews? Surely not! Olmert would like to go forward with the cleansing of the Jews from Judea and Samaria, and he seems worried that until Hamas cooperates with the charade of ‘peace’ he cannot. But doesn’t this mean he is in full agreement with Rice and Solana’s radically anti-Israeli approach?

    His behavior does appear consistent with that hypothesis.[6]

    Olmert gets a lucky break in late November 2006. There is a ‘truce’ between Hamas and Israel, and he renews the charge:

    “On Sunday, a truce ending five months of violence took effect on the Gaza-Israel border, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert urged the Palestinians to discuss a final peace deal, complete with significant Israeli territorial concessions in the West Bank.”[7]

    So we have that the ‘Israeli government’ withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and gave it to the Fatah and Hamas terrorists without asking anything in return, meanwhile cleansing the territory of all Jews. The terrorists then used this territory to shower Jewish civilians for many months with unprovoked violence, at the end of which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert became eager to make peace on their terms. And this, mind you, before Hamas has even bothered to say that it will recognize Israel. What is the message and lesson? It is obvious: terrorism works.

    If only Hamas will now say that it recognizes Israel, Olmert can clinch his deal. But no deal.

    “[On] Thursday…Abbas announced the failure of months of negotiations with Hamas over setting up a moderate government that could win international recognition and help end a foreign aid boycott. Talks deadlocked over the distribution of key portfolios and the government’s platform, with Hamas rejecting international demands that it renounce violence and recognize Israel.”[8]

    Again, this is very interesting. Islamic law allows for the lies that Hamas simply will not say. So why doesn’t Hamas just say it and conclude the ‘peace’ deal that will give the terrorists so much in exchange for nothing, really? Why so much ‘honesty’? What is going on?

    Rice and Solana seem crestfallen: Hamas’s refusal, they say, means they cannot resume funding of the Palestinian Authority. They really would like to subsidize these terrorists, it seems, but a minimum of cooperation with the theater of ‘peace’ is necessary and they cannot even get that. “Very sadly, I have to say the chance has been lost,” Solana tells reporters.[9]

    Later we will be told, of course, of the great “economic hardship” that the Western ‘embargo’ is imposing on the suffering Arabs.[10] But is the Hamas-dominated PA government really strapped for cash? It seems not. One week later we read that “Hamas, however, appears increasingly confident it can keep its government afloat without Western aid, mainly with help from the Arab world.”[11]
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    The ‘fight’

    The disagreements between Hamas and Fatah turn violent as armed battles break out in late December 2006.

    The reports of the initial battles were quite interesting because “despite the intensity of the fighting, no one was wounded.” Read that again. There is intense fighting and yet nobody is even wounded. What were they doing? Shooting into the air? But when two of Hamas’s notoriously inaccurate rockets are at the same time fired at the Jews (because the fighting among the Arabs somehow produces an end to the ‘truce’ with the Jews) they manage to injure “a 2-year-old boy.”[12]

    Doesn’t this all laugh in the face of the laws of probability? And just as the Arabs see an opportunity in their internecine ‘fighting’ to attack the Jews, so does Olmert see an opportunity, and in mid January he announces that he will “free $100 million in frozen tax funds to boost moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.”[13] (So Mahmoud Abbas is not strapped for cash either.)

    The emerging story? That Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah chief, is the “moderate Palestinian President,” and good people everywhere -- certainly the ‘well-meaning’ Israeli Prime Minister! -- ought to boost him and Fatah against Hamas (to save ‘peace’).

    I suppose that Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas are the moderates because Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a component of Fatah, is considered “the deadliest Palestinian militia.”[14] And when Yasser Arafat died, the Brigades were chanting in the street for continuing the violence against Israeli civilians and also for Mahmoud Abbas to succeed Arafat as Fatah chief.[15] (Because Abbas is a moderate, you see, and so is Fatah.) Never mind that “Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] is...one of the founders of Fatah, one of the original Arafat band of brothers.”[16] And never mind that this “original Arafat band of brothers,” brought together in Egypt to become Al Fatah, was trained by Hajj Amin al Husseini, who before this had been one of the top leaders -- if not the top leader (at least according to Adolf Eichmann’s lieutenants, and they should know) -- of the German Nazi Final Solution.[17] Never mind: Mahmoud Abbas is a ‘moderate’ so Ehud Olmert rushes to defend him against the ‘true extremists’ in Hamas.

    This is an old story: the Western and Israeli ruling elites have been selling us this story ever since the diplomacy of the Oslo ‘peace’ process got started: it is central to the representation of a supposed ‘rivalry’ between Hamas and Fatah, because, according to the cover story, it is the refusal of Hamas to be moderate, like Al Fatah, that creates conflict between them (and hence the fight). But the representation of Al Fatah as the ‘moderate’ organization is a complete phony: Al Fatah means to repeat Hajj Amin al Husseini’s achievement and exterminate the Israeli Jews.

    So is the fighting between Hamas and Fatah also a phony?

    Consider for a moment the Israeli-government withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. This move was celebrated around the world as a positive step for the Gaza Arabs, and yet it has been a disaster for these Arabs: “Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, the area has experienced a wave of infighting, armed robberies, deadly family feuds and kidnappings.” [21] This was perfectly predictable, because Hamas and Fatah are both gangster organizations.

    So what was the point of the withdrawal that abandoned the Gaza Arabs to these gangsters? In my view, to answer this question is also to answer what the Hamas vs. Fatah ‘fight’ is all about.

    The Associated Press reports a number of very interesting things about the withdrawal from Gaza:

    “Israeli troops withdrew from Gaza in September 2005, enabling Hamas to build and expand its militia...

    ...Since winning parliamentary elections a year ago, Hamas has invested heavily in its Gaza paramilitary unit, the so-called Executive Force, with millions of dollars in support, mainly from Iran.

    The militia currently has 5,500 members, but thousands more sympathizers can easily be mobilized...

    Hamas has also established its own arms industry in Gaza, building anti-tank rockets, mortar shells, land mines and hand grenades. Smuggling tunnels running under the Gaza-Egypt border help refresh supplies. Some of Hamas’ weapons engineers were trained abroad.

    The Executive Force has also bought SUVs and German-made minivans and set up training camps throughout Gaza.

    On the West Bank, by contrast, Hamas militants remain underground or only appear in public without weapons, for fear of being targeted by Israel.”[18]

    Of course, the Egyptians initially pretended to oppose the Hamas takeover but, according to DEBKA, have been clandestinely assisting Hamas.[19]

    Now, who is responsible for arming the Egyptians to the teeth? The US government!
    [20] So the evidence is at the very least consistent with the idea that the point of the Israeli withdrawal -- a policy endorsed by the US government -- was a US-sponsored theater to help the Iranians and Egyptians prepare an attack against Israel.

    It matters, to this hypothesis, that the US has done this sort of thing before: immediately after Egypt failed in its genocidal war against Israel, in 1948, the US government sent German Nazi specialists -- whom it had recruited for the CIA -- to train the Egyptian military and security services; they also trained Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, and helped them create Al Fatah.
    [22]

    So is the Hamas vs. Fatah fight another US-sponsored theater to help prepare a Muslim attack against Israel?

    The least you can say about the US government is that it is consistent. Its reaction to the violence between Hamas and Fatah is this: “President Bush asked Congress to provide $83 million to train and equip Abbas’ force.”[22a] So the 'fight' becomes an excuse to send more US training and weaponry to Abbas, who, though heir to Hajj Amin al Husseini’s German Nazi Final Solution, is once again represented as the supposed ‘moderate.’

    Now, we have already seen that even intense fighting between Hamas and Fatah can result in zero wounded. Notice how the fighting is reported towards the end of January:

    “Neither side is using all of its firepower because they are giving coalition talks another chance and because they fear risking defeat in an all-out confrontation, said Mouin Rabbani, a Jordan-based analyst for the International Crisis Group, an independent think tank.”[23]

    So the fighting is restrained. This is the pattern throughout. And there are repeated truces, and even announcements of an impending unity government. Then they go back to pinprick fighting. Almost civilized. This means that neither side is seriously depleted. Since the 'hostilities' are used as an excuse for outside powers to arm both sides to the teeth, it follows that, if the fight is eventually decided without a very big clash, the amount of weaponry in both Gaza and the West Bank will have increased tremendously.

    Should the ‘fight’ be decided without an actual battle, therefore, we may conclude that it is indeed a phony, there merely to consolidate forces under unified commands in both Gaza and the West Bank, preserving the theater of a supposed rivalry, and also the theater of a ‘moderate’ Fatah. From this point of view, the sprinkling of killings that do take place may be nothing more than the Hamas and Fatah leaderships using each other’s forces to conduct high-level purges in order to streamline the leadership in advance of a major attack against Israel.

    Lo and behold, the fighting in Gaza is decided without an actual battle, and Hamas takes over.
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    The battle that never was

    The New York Post expresses in amazement:

    “Fatah had some 60,000 armed men in Gaza, a strip of land covering some 65 square miles. It also had heavy cannons and rocket-propelled grenades, which Hamas lacked. Yet even Fatah’s four chief bases of al-Hawa, al-Muntadam, Sarayah and al-Safineh, claimed to be impregnable, fell in just a few hours, as their defenders fled.”[24]

    Not only that. In January the press was explaining that “the security forces loyal to Fatah in Gaza still outnumber the Hamas militia by several thousand.”[25] They were not exaggerating but understating: if “Fatah had some 60,000 armed men in Gaza” and “Hamas last year set up its own 5,600-man militia,”[26] then the word “several” is a huge distortion. When speaking of “several thousand” the numbers that come to mind are 5, 6, or 7 thousand. Here the difference is more than 54 thousand in favor of Fatah.

    There were almost eleven Fatah soldiers for every Hamas soldier, and Fatah was much better armed. How could Hamas take over so easily?

    In an article titled Fatah Never Fought, Charles Levinson, Middle East Correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph, has shared on his blog some of his interviews with the Fatah soldiers, conducted before he fled Gaza in a Red Cross aid convoy. What these soldiers say is that they were ordered to give up. For example, 23-year-old Abu Qusay shared his confusion as follows:

    We handed Gaza over to Hamas. We don’t understand why our leaders betrayed us like this. We fought back against orders because if we had followed orders, we would have given ourselves up… [Our leaders] received orders from Abbas to give up bases but some military commanders couldn’t accept this.”

    Abu al Majd, another 23-year-old fighter, corroborated those statements as follows:

    “It was a story of surrender. The bases were given up. I feel psychologically destroyed. It really hurt. I understood that there was an order to evacuate the bases. We were betrayed.”

    Levinson explains further:

    “The presidential guard were the most highly trained and professional soldiers in the security services’ ranks and they were dismayed when rudimentary and repeatedly drilled steps to respond to the Hamas onslaught were never taken.

    No state of emergency was ever declared, curfews were never imposed, no contingency counter attack plans were ever drawn up, heavy weapons were never mounted on the roofs of the security bases, and extra ammo stocks were never dragged out of storage.”[27]

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    The consequence

    This is the key point: Because the Fatah soldiers were ordered to give up, all their arms and ammunition and all those heavy weapons that Hamas didn’t have, Hamas now has.

    As World Net Daily explains, “the U.S. in recent years reportedly transferred large quantities of weaponry to build up Fatah forces against rival Hamas.”

    According to what Hamas members told WND, they have seized “hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. weaponry and equipment” from Fatah -- in fact, over $400 million, Hamas said.
    [28] So the United States ruling elite has armed Hamas, indirectly, via the cover story that Fatah are the supposed ‘moderates’ who must be armed against the ‘real extremists’ in Hamas, plus the theater of a supposed rivalry between Hamas and Fatah that was decided without an actual fight. Those are US weapons that Hamas will now use against ordinary Israelis.

    Under the cover story that Hamas are the ‘real extremists,’ it made perfect sense for the Israeli government, as soon as the compound fell into Hamas’s hands, to bomb “Fatah’s major Ansar complex, where American-provided weapons were delivered and stored.”[29] And under the hypothesis that the US is an ally of Israel, the US government should have supported this. But this is not what happened. What happened instead is that the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that he would “stay out of Gaza,” and the US president supported him.[30]

    What happened, therefore, is not consistent with the hypothesis of a US ruling elite allied with the Israeli Jews, or with the hypothesis of an Israeli ruling elite loyal to the Israeli Jews. It is consistent with a different hypothesis.

    This alternative hypothesis says that:

    1) The US ruling elite is an enemy of ordinary Jews in the Middle East; and

    2) The Israeli ruling elite collaborates with the US-led attack on ordinary Jews in the Middle East.


    If the first point surprises you, please consult HIR’s documentation of US foreign policy toward Israel and the Jews since the 1930s.[31]

    If the second point surprises you, then allow me to point out that the Jewish ruling elite allied with the enemies of the Jews during the Greco-Macedonian and Roman terrorist -- in fact, genocidal -- onslaughts against the ancient Jews.
    [32] Many upper-class Jewish converts to Christianity allied with the attacks against the Jews during the Middle Ages.[33]

    The same happened in the 19th century, when the assimilated, upper-class maskilim, leaders of their self-proclaimed ‘Jewish Enlightenment,’ allied with the efforts of European governments to destroy Jewish religious practice.
    [34]

    In the 20th century, the Jewish ruling elites:

    1) Banded together to sabotage a boycott of Nazi Germany that almost destroyed Hitler right after he took power
    [35];

    2) Sabotaged the defense of the Jews
    during the Holocaust[36]; and

    3) Chaim Weizmann, David Ben-Gurion, and Moshe Sharett (Shertok), hailed as great founding fathers of the Israeli state, were in fact responsible for the murder of 800,000 Hungarian Jews, as demonstrated at a trial in Jerusalem, in the 1950s, that the government of these three characters -- despite using the resources of the state to fight the accusations of a penniless old man --
    lost.[37]

    The architect of the Oslo mess in Israel is the current Israeli president, Shimon Peres, a protégé of David Ben-Gurion; Ehud Olmert, the current prime minister, has been an enthusiastic promoter of Shimon Peres’s policies.[38]

    Hamas in Gaza now has a unified and much better equipped force with which to attack the Israeli Jews. There is the mutual buildup during all the months of ‘fighting,’ and now all of that build up, on both sides, is essentially intact in Hamas’s hands. Meanwhile, this is again an excuse for the Western powers to rapidly strengthen further the military capabilities of Al Fatah in the West Bank! (Don’t you just love this?)

    The United States will continue financing the Palestinian Authority’s presidential guard, which is loyal to PA President Mahmoud Abbas…officials in Washington said.”[39]

    Ehud Olmert of course announces that this in no way endangers his planned evacuation of the Jews from the West Bank. Why should it? The first evacuation worked out so well (just look at Gaza).

    “Olmert said that the new reality in the PA might present a new opportunity for political progress as Israel would consider a Palestinian government without Hamas as a legitimate partner for future talks.”[40]

    Why? Because Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah are the good guys, remember? So Mahmoud Abbas outlaws Hamas in the West Bank, and right away the embargo is lifted and Al Fatah starts receiving the Western millions again (which in fact never ceased because the fighting was Bush’s reason to send his millions during the ‘embargo’).[41]

    We also hear that “US President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert both gave strong backing to the cabinet appointed by moderate president Mahmud Abbas after Hamas’s takeover of Gaza.”[42] (I remind you that the “moderate president Mahmoud Abbas” is heir to Hajj Amin al Husseini, great architect of the German Nazi Final Solution, the greatest genocide of the Jewish people in absolute terms -- it really is important not to lose sight of that).

    As if US support for Fatah were not enough, the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS explains that Moscow views with approval “the Israeli intention to...transfer some of the tax and customs revenues to the Palestinian National Authority, release 250 Palestinians from custody [read: Arab terrorists who had been jailed for participating in the murder of innocent Jews], and remove a number of checkpoints [whose purpose is to prevent Arab terrorists from murdering innocent Jews].”[43]

    And Olmert is even considering releasing a multitude of Hamas prisoners in exchange for one captured Israeli soldier, which will of course teach the terrorists that they should kidnap more Israeli soldiers.[43a]

    The official point of the Oslo ‘peace’ process is that Israel makes territorial (and other) concessions in exchange for the Arabs abandoning their effort to ‘destroy Israel’ (= exterminate the Jews). This is how Israeli leaders sold the Oslo process to the Israeli Jews. It is important always to keep this in mind when passing judgment over the behavior of Israeli leaders, because the antisemitic terrorist organizations have clearly not abandoned their genocidal goals, and yet Israeli leaders have continued to make one concession after another, literally as if they were in the pay of the enemy.[44]

    The new Defense Minister of the Jewish State is Ehud Barak, who, while he was Israeli prime minister some years ago, offered to give everything to the antisemitic terrorists essentially for nothing (but the terrorists needed more).[45] The ‘opposition’ is personified by Benjamin Netanyahu, who, when he was prime minister, offered to give everything to the antisemitic terrorists in exchange essentially for nothing (but the terrorists needed more).[46]

    This is no opposition. Consider: It appears that Olmert will allow PLO terrorists now stationed in Jordan to come into the West Bank, using the cover story that these troops are needed to prevent a Hamas takeover in the West Bank as well.
    [46a] Who provided the political cover for this? ‘Opposition’ leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been calling for Ehud Olmert “to bring thousands of Jordanian soldiers into Israel to strengthen Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas.”[47]

    Check mate. It matters not which ‘leader’ ordinary Jews support, they will be burned. Manhigut Yehudit, a large faction within Likud, has at least denounced Netanyahu. Better than nothing. But even Manhigut Yehudit does not tell the Israelis the truth about Al Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas: that this organization is the continuation of Hajj Amin al Husseini’s German Nazi Final Solution.
    [48]

    The Jews are leaderless. And, once again, their ‘leaders’ are leading them to slaughter.

    Gaza is now ready for Egypt’s genocidal assault. It remains to prepare the West Bank so that Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- also armed to the teeth by the US[49] -- can attack from there, and Netanyahu is already pushing for this outcome. Once that is achieved, all that will remain is for the US government to pull its troops from Iraq, and everything will be ready.

    If you want a countdown, that's it: the US withdrawal. Because, you see, the invasion of Iraq has given Iraq to Iran (the US ruling elite really is very consistent). Iran already controls Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Syria, so once the US troops leave, Iran will have a land corridor going all the way to the northern border of Israel. They will hardly need to wait for nuclear capability.

    Don’t wait for the US to attack Iran.

    As HIR predicted a long time ago, this is not going to happen
    .
    [50]

    We have, then, that the forces that wish to destroy Israel staged a fight between Hamas and Fatah so that they could consolidate an enormous amount of weaponry in Gaza under a unified leadership, ready to launch Egypt’s final genocidal assault against Israel.

    This theater has represented the PLO, once again, as the ‘moderates,’ and this has become a renewed excuse to arm the PLO to the teeth in the West Bank, where it has consolidated its forces under a unified leadership and renewed, massive Western and Israeli funding.

    The chessboard is now almost ready for another great mass killing of Jews, a very stable process of Western and Muslim civilization, for such events have been happening repeatedly with great regularity for over two millennia.

    We are due for another one.
    _____________________________________________________

    Footnotes and Further Reading
    _____________________________________________________

    The ruling elite, spiritual wickedness in high places...Satan pulls their strings.

    “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”—Ephesians 6:12.

    “All men in power ought to be mistrusted.”—James Madison

    Is the US an ally of Israel? A chronological look at the evidence

    Back to The Lamb Slain Home Page