Doc's Talk: The interior minister of the de facto Hamas administration describes the support his office gives the terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza St

Sunday, November 01, 2009

The interior minister of the de facto Hamas administration describes the support his office gives the terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza St

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

The interior minister of the de facto Hamas administration describes the support his office gives the terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip. His description contradicts the claim the Hamas administration made to the Goldstone Committee, according to which it had no direct or indirect links to the terrorist organizations.

Upper inscription (red): “[Fathi] Hamad: We work in coordination with the resistance factions to make it easier for them to carry out their missions” (Safa News Agency website, October 28, 2009). 1. On October 28 Fathi Hamad, interior minister of the de facto Hamas administration, gave a speech at a conference in Gaza City sponsored by the Association of Factions and [Trade] Unions. In his speech he described the close ties between Hamas’ interior ministry and the terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip (“the resistance factions”), and the support it gave to the various organizations. The conference was attended by commanders of Hamas’ internal security forces operating in the Gaza Strip.

2. The following were the main points quoted by the Hamas-affiliated Safa News Agency, October 28, 2009:1

i) The [Hamas] interior ministry “coordinates with all the factions of the resistance in [the] Gaza [Strip]” [i.e., the terrorist organizations].

ii) The ministry makes every effort “to protect them and make it easier for them to carry out every aspect of their jihadist missions.”

iii) There is routine coordination between the interior ministry and the various organizations: “We routinely meet with the commanders of the factions [i.e., the terrorist organizations] to remove obstacles between us. We have ended the security coordination with the occupation [i.e., the Palestinian Authority’s security coordination with Israel] and have replaced it with jihadist coordination” [i.e., operational coordination to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel].

3. Fathi Hamad, as Hamas’ interior minister, has a great deal of influence on the implementation of Hamas’ terrorist attack policy. That is because the internal security forces are subordinate to the ministry and serve as Hamas’ main tool for enforcing its policies, and are used by Hamas to supervise the extent, nature and number of terrorist attacks. His statements were intended to deflect Fatah’s accusations that once Hamas won the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006, it abandoned the “resistance” and has since prevented the military-terrorist networks of Fatah and the other organizations “from resisting the occupation” (Safa News Agency website, October 28, 2009).

Similar statements made in the past by senior members of the de facto Hamas administration and the Hamas movement

4. Senior figures in the Gaza Strip and in the Hamas movement have repeatedly stated that the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip and its security forces are committed to supporting the terrorist organizations [the “resistance”] and their attacks against Israel from the Gaza Strip. For example:

i) Ismail Haniya, head of the de facto Hamas administration, said in an interview that the administration reserved the right to use “resistance” [i.e., terrorism] to establish a Palestinian state. He said the administration was trying to conduct the civilians’ daily lives but without running the risk of waiving the Palestinians’ so-called “rights,” and was backing the “resistance” project (Hamas administration publication Al-Ra’i, July 13, 2009).

ii) The late Sayid Siyam, former interior minister killed by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead, when chosen as minister stated that he would not hinder the “resistance” operatives [i.e., terrorist operatives]. He said that the “resistance” [i.e., the terrorist organizations] was “a legitimate right of the Palestinian people” (Ma’an News Agency, March 24, 2006). Fathi Hamad, who inherited the position of interior minister, listed his predecessor’s “achievements:” “One of his greatest achievements,” he said, “was creating cooperation and coordination between the current security forces and the Palestinian resistance...and [creating] collaboration against the Zionist enemy...That is why [the enemy] bombed the headquarters of the security forces [during Operation Cast Lead]” (Hamas police website, May 7, 2009).

iii) At a meeting with Egyptian intellectuals and diplomats, Musa Abu Marzuk, deputy head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, was asked about the claim that following the establishment of the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, there was a decline in the “resistance” [i.e., terrorist attacks]. He answered that the opposite was true: “This is the first time since the Oslo agreements that a Palestinian government has supported the resistance [i.e., terrorism], does not persecute resistance activists, does not detain them and does not make it difficult for them to operate.” He boasted that since the establishment of the de facto Hamas administration, there had been showcase attacks against the “Zionist entity,” one of which entailed the capture of a “Zionist soldier” [Gilad Shalit]. He was asked about the decline in suicide bombing attacks during the same period, and answered that “there is a difficulty in carrying them out because of the separation fence and the gates surrounding the residents of the West Bank” (Ikhwan Online website, June 2, 2007).2

The contradictions between the statements of senior
Hamas figures and the Goldstone Report

5. The statements made by the interior minister in the de facto Hamas administration and other Hamas figures quoted above expose the contradiction between the Goldstone Report and the strategy and actions of Hamas. The Report rejected out of hand Israel’s position that the de facto Hamas administration (“the Gaza authorities,” according to the report) was part of the “Hamas terrorist infrastructure” (Page 11, Paragraph 32). The Report completely distinguishes between the so-called “Gaza authorities” (i.e., the Hamas administration) and the so-called “Palestinian armed groups” (i.e., Hamas’ Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and the other terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip).3

6. The Goldstone Report quotes the claims made by the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip that there are no direct or indirect connections between it and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and that it has no idea of what tactics are used by the “armed groups” (“The Mission also addressed questions regarding the tactics used by Palestinian armed groups to the Gaza authorities. They responded that they had nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with al-Qassam Brigades or other armed groups and had no knowledge of their tactics,” Page 134, Paragraph 439; and “...the Gaza authorities stated that they had ‘nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with al-Qassam or other resistance factions...’” Page 459, Paragraph 1668). Therefore, while it says that “[t]he Mission emphasizes the obligation of the Gaza authorities to respect international law..., and is of the view that this requires the prevention and prosecution of violations of international law occurring within its area of de facto governmental authority” (Page 471, Paragraph 1715), it also relieves the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip of responsibility by making it the task of the “Palestinian armed groups” which have “have failed in their duty to protect and respect civilians” (Page 473, Paragraph 1721). While the Report does condemn the indiscriminate rocket fire of the “armed groups” attacking the civilians in the south of Israel, and calls it a “war crime” which may be considered a “crime against humanity,” it does not place responsibility on the Hamas movement and the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, but rather on the “Palestinian armed groups” (Pages 473-4, Paragraph 1724).

7. The statements made above by the Hamas administration’s interior minister and senior Hamas figures clearly show that the Hamas claims adopted by the Goldstone Report have no basis in fact. They show that the interior ministry, which is part of the de facto Hamas administration, is in charge of supporting the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip and of directing their actions according to Hamas strategy. Thus all sectors of Hamas – the movement, the de facto administration and its military-terrorist infrastructure -- are fully and directly responsible for rocket attacks against Israel (“a war crime” as determined by the Goldstone Report) and for turning the Gaza Strip into a breeding ground for terrorism.

Appendix I

The Arabic version of the Hamas-affiliated Safa News Agency report
(October 28, 2009)

The Arabic version of the Hamas-affiliated Safa News Agency report

Appendix II

The statement made by Fathi Hamad as they appeared on Hamas’ Palestine-Info website

1. The title as it appeared on the website, October 28, 2009: “Hamad: Day and night, the apparatuses of the [interior] ministry act in coordination with the wings of the resistance [i.e., the terrorist organizations] and provide them with protection.”

Palestine-Info website

Translation of the first two paragraphs of the article regarding coordination between the de facto Hamas administration interior ministry and the “resistance”

Gaza – Palestinian Information Center

28/10/2009

The interior minister of the Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip, Fathi Hamad, confirmed that his ministry and all its security apparatuses work day and night in coordination with all the wings, factions and ground positions of the Palestinian resistance. He said that they operate to protect them and make it easier for them to carry out their missions, and work to remove all obstacles in their path. Thus the [interior] ministry succeeded in destroying what was known as “coordination with the Zionist entity.”

During a seminar held by the Association of Factions and [Trade] Unions in Gaza City on Wednesday, October 28, Hamad added that the interior ministry had never refused anything to members of the resistance who appealed to it. Quite the opposite, [the ministry] provided for all their needs and gave them all possible assistance. He said that the Change and Reform Faction [i.e., the Hamas faction in the Palestinian Legislative Council] had kept all the promises made to the Palestinian people during the election campaign, including that of protecting the resistance, noting that he met with them [i.e., operatives of the terrorist organizations] on a daily basis.

1 For the original Safa News Agency report in Arabic, see Appendix I. Fathi Hamad’s statements were then quoted on Hamas’ Palestine-Info website, and appear in Appendix II.

2 Thus Musa Abu Marzuk formally admitted that Israel’s security fence makes it difficult for the Palestinians to carry out suicide bombing attacks. On other occasions, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad also admitted it.

3 All the quotations from the Goldstone Report are fr

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