Doc's Talk: The erosion of the lull arrangement continues

Monday, December 01, 2008

The erosion of the lull arrangement continues

IICC
Overview

1. At noon on Friday, November 28, 2008, during routine operations, an IDF force identified terrorist operatives laying an IED near the Gaza Strip border security fence in the region of Abasan, near Khan Yunis. A firefight developed between the terrorists and the IDF soldiers, resulting in the death of a Popular Resistance Committees operative and the wounding of four others. 2. In rapid response to the attack on the squad, at 1500 hours on November 28 the Palestinian terrorist organizations launched a massive barrage of 17 mortar shells directed at the Nahal Oz area. One rocket was also fired, which landed in an open area. Hamas claimed responsibility for most of the rockets fired (Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website, November 29). The Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the rocket fire (Jerusalem Battalions website, November 29). Other terrorist organizations, such as the PRC, also claimed responsibility for the attack (Sawt al-Hak website, November 28).

3. One of the mortar shells hit an IDF base in the Nahal Oz region , wounding eight soldiers, one of them critically . It was a standard 120mm , apparently manufactured in Iran and smuggled into the Gaza Strip. In several instances such shells were used to attack Israel during the first half of 2008.1

Iranian-made 120 mm mortar shell with auxiliary motor
Iranian-made 120 mm mortar shell with auxiliary motor.

Reactions from Hamas and the Other Terrorist Organizations

4. Spokesmen for the Palestinian terrorist organizations, especially Hamas, repeatedly stated that the mortar shell fire was a “legitimate” response within the equation of “responses for violations.” All the spokesmen accused Israel of responsibility for the incident, claiming that the mortar shell fire was carried out in response to Israel 's “violation” of the lull arrangement.

5. Some of the statements were the following:

i) Abu Ubeida , spokesman for Hamas's military-terrorist wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, said that Israel had violated the lull. He said that from the very beginning the lull was conditional and that the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades had said that for every Israeli violation the organization had the “full right” to respond. He also said that the attack, which followed the killing of an operative, was meant to inform Israel that “the recent crime against the Palestinians which happened in east Khan Yunis will not go unpunished” (Al-Aqsa TV, November 29).

ii) Fawzi Barhoum , a senior figure in the movement, said that Hamas's response was a clear message to Israel about the organizations' “right” to react to every Israeli “violation” (Al-Qassam website, November 29).

iii) Musheir al-Masri , another senior figure, said that the lull arrangement continued and that it was Israel that had violated it. The shelling came in response to Israel 's partial invasion of the Gaza Strip and the “defense action” was part of the equation of the resistance [i.e., the Palestinian terrorist organizations] (Radio BBC, November 29).

iv) Ismail Radwan , a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, said that Israel had not met its commitments to the lull arrangement, such as opening the crossings and lifting the siege [sic], and that the shelling of the IDF post was “the natural response to the crimes of the occupation” (Al-Aqsa TV, November 29).

5. Even as the heads of the terrorist organizations reiterated that the shelling was a pinpoint reaction to a specific event, they were required to comment on the extension of the lull arrangement, which, they have claimed, will expire on December 19. Abu Ubeida said that the Palestinian [terrorist] organizations would meet in the near future to decide on a united position regarding the arrangement's extension. He rejected the possibility that Egyptian mediation would have any influence on the organizations' decision, since Egypt had not been sufficiently strict in the demand that Israel meet its commitments regarding the agreement (Pal-today website, November 29). Senior PIJ figures said they doubted it was possible to extend the lull arrangement with Israel , because Israel did not meet its commitments (Al-Hayat, November 29).

Conclusion: the Erosion of the Lull Arrangement Continues

6. The mortar shell attack on the IDF base at Nahal Oz is another in the series which began on November 4 with the prevention of an abduction through a tunnel under the Gaza Strip border security fence. Since then, the following dynamic has been created: the Palestinian terrorist organizations try to carry out attacks (IEDs, rocket and mortar shell fire), the IDF acts to prevent the attacks (Israeli Air Force attacks, firing at terrorist squads near the fence), the terrorist organizations respond and then continue with daily sporadic rocket and mortar shell fire, Israel responds by closing the crossings.

7. The result of that dynamic over the past month has been a significance erosion of the lull arrangement. Publicly, however, at this stage Hamas and the other terrorist organizations have not announced the end of the lull and their activities are represented as responses to IDF actions, even when such actions prevent terrorist attacks against Israel . Hamas's response to the distress caused to the Gazans by the closing of the crossings is an exaggerated and distorted media campaign dealing with the suffering the “siege” has brought to the Gaza Strip, with the objective of exerting pressure on Israel to open the crossings even as rocket and mortar shell fire continue.

1 Note : This was not the first standard 120mm mortar shell attack against Israel . On February 24, 2008, such shells fell near Kibbutz Sa'ad in the western Negev , fired by Palestinian terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip. An examination of the remains showed that a shell manufactured by Iran (copy of mortar shells produced by the Israeli military industry in the 1970s and supplied to Iran ). The rockets are equipped with auxiliary motors to increase their range from six to ten kilometers (less than four to more than six miles). On June 5, 2008, a 120mm mortar shell hit a factory in Kibbutz Nir Oz, killing Amnon Rosenberg, 51, from Kibbutz Nirim, and wounding four others, two of them seriously. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk