Doc's Talk: Hamas operatives were responsible for the two rocket attacks on Eilat and Aqaba

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Hamas operatives were responsible for the two rocket attacks on Eilat and Aqaba

The Meir Amit
Intelligence and Terrorism
Information Center

Overview

1. According to Israeli information and reports from Egyptian and Palestinian sources, a squad of Hamas' military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, was behind the two rocket attacks on the southernmost Israeli city, Eilat and the Jordanian city of Aqaba carried out this past year from the Sinai Peninsula. Hamas did not admit responsibility for either attack, denying it outright in the last incident to moderate the damage done vis-à-vis Egypt and Jordan. 2. The two rocket attacks on Eilat and Aqaba:

A. On August 2, 2010, six 122mm Grad rockets were fired at Israel from the Sinai Peninsula. Three fell on the city of Eilat (one in a drainage pool in the northern part of the city). There were no casualties (IDF Spokesman, August 2, 2010). Two rockets fell in Aqaba in front of the Intercontinental Hotel. A Jordanian civilian was killed and five were injured, one of them seriously. One rocket fell into the sea.

B. On April 22, 2010, three 122mm Grad rockets were fired at Eilat and Aqaba from the Sinai Peninsula. One was identified as falling into the sea south of Eilat and another fell in Jordanian territory. Two days later the third rocket was found by divers at a depth of 30 meters, or 33years, and brought up out of the sea about 70 meters, or 76 yards, from the Eilat shore (IDF Spokesman, April 24, 2010).

3. In both instances Hamas fired 122mm standard Grad rockets, which in our assessment were provided by Iran. For the most part, rockets are smuggled into the Gaza Strip through the network of tunnels between the Strip and Egypt. The Egyptian media accused Iran of responsibility for the attack, carried out by Hamas and a series of subcontractors exploiting Iranian funds and whose income comes from smuggling.

4. It can be assumed that rocket-launching squads are sent from the Gaza Strip to the Sinai Peninsula to fire rockets at Eilat and Aqaba for the following reasons:

A. Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades want to extend their terrorist activities beyond the borders of the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria to challenge Israel, Jordan and Egypt while adopting a policy of restrained attacks from the Gaza Strip. That is because of Israel's deterrent power and Hamas' administrative concerns, while in Judea and Samaria Hamas finds it difficult to operate because of the counterterrorism activities carried out Israel and the Palestinian Authority's security services.

B. Hamas wants to disrupt the peace process, especially the possibility of direct talks, and to take revenge for Israel activities. In a speech made by Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, on the last day of a summer camp run by Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, he stressed the importance of jihad and the armed struggle, and rejected the legitimacy of Israel's existence and negotiations with it.

5. In our assessment, the glaring contradiction between rocket fire carried out by Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and the denials of the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip reflects an internal schism in Hamas concerning the advantages of carrying out such attacks from the Sinai Peninsula (and perhaps also regarding the advantages of the restrained rocket fire policy adopted in the Gaza Strip since Operation Cast Lead).

6. The Hamas rocket fire from the Sinai Peninsula is a clear violation of the sovereignty and interests of Egypt, with which Hamas has no desire to worsen its already tense relations (it was not by chance that Egypt strongly criticized the rocket fire). Hamas treats the Sinai Peninsula like a no man's land. Jordan, beyond the casualties, also suffered damage to its economy and image: large amounts of money have been invested in tourism have been invested in Aqaba.

Reactions to the Rocket Fire from the Sinai Peninsula

Israel

7. Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu stated that Israel had investigated both attacks against it and determined that without a doubt both had been carried out by a Hamas squad belonging to the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing (Israeli Foreign Ministry website, August 4, 2010).

Egypt

8. Immediately after the incident, the Egyptians rushed to deny that the rockets had been fired from the Sinai Peninsula (Al-Nahar website, August 2, 2010). However, they later admitted that seven rockets had been fired simultaneously from the Taba region, accusing Hamas (with Iranian instigation) of responsibility.

9. In an exceptional move he Egyptian media, especially the establishment media, attacked both Hamas and Iran strongly and extensively. For example:

A. According to an August 5 editorial by Muhammad Ali Ibrahim, editor-in-chief of Al-Gomhuriyya (quoted by Al-Quds Al-Arabi on August 6), the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have the right to behave as they please toward Hamas, even when its operatives have been proved to be "uncontrolled butchers." However, Egypt will not agree on any terms to have Hamas operatives trespass its borders "on the orders of their Iranian masters" to fire rockets at Israel. Their infiltration into the Sinai Peninsula violates Egyptian interests, sovereignty and national security. Egypt will not agree that its sons are again martyred by the "loathsome gang" which pretends to be a "resistance movement." Egypt has the right to strike with an iron fist those disreputable individuals who were nurtured in the bosom of treachery and back-stabbing. "Anyone who sprays us with water will be sprayed in return with blood."

B. According to a two-part article by Muhammad Ali Ibrahim (published on August 7 and 8) called "Patience has its limits," Hamas, "the agent of Iran," no longer had an excuse to attack Egypt the Rafah crossing was opened following the "tragedy of the freedom convoy." Iran, which is trying to harm Egypt, instructed Hamas "or a sector within it" to infiltrate from the Gaza Strip into the Sinai Peninsula and to fire rockets at Israel. That was done to complicate Egypt's relations with Israel and embarrass Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak while he was holding talks with the of the Israeli government. In addition, Iran wants to push the Arab countries into conflicts with Israel and set the region on fire, even at the price of those countries' sovereignty. According to the article, there is a limit to Egypt's patience, and the "gang of murderers" called Hamas should be punished and revenge taken. Egyptian should also terminate, once and for all, its relations with Hamas and not discuss a reconciliation, or easing the siege and suffering.

C. The August 6 editorial of Osama Saraya, the editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram, denounces the organizations which claim they are religious and take their slogans from Iran. "The new game" of rocket fire from Egyptian territory targeting Eilat and Aqaba is a "great crime," which without a doubt will motivate Egypt to change its relations with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Hamas does not have the right to get Egypt, which supported it and the Palestinians, involved in a new military conflict with Israel. Hamas and its allies should know that they have broken all the rules and conventions and that the time has come to "settle accounts," and that the price will be high. According to the editorial, Hamas uses subcontractors operating in the Gaza Strip in cooperation with smugglers on the Egyptian, Palestinian and Israeli sides, whose income comes from Iranian funds. They were behind the recent rocket fire, and their intention was to make a statement while avoiding an Israeli reprisal. Those are not "resistance" activities but political acts whose objective is to cause tensions between Egypt and Israel, to lead to conflicts between the two and to send a message of their rejection of the [peace] negotiations.

Hamas

10. Official Hamas sources were quick to deny the movement's involvement in the rocket fire from the Sinai Peninsula, and stressed that Hamas, like all the other Palestinian organizations, only operated from within Palestinian territory:

A. Salah al-Bardawil, spokesman for the Hamas faction in the Palestinian Legislative Council, said he doubted that rockets had been launched at Eilat and denied the involvement of Hamas in launching them, saying that Hamas did not want war. He accused Israel of looking for excuses to justify what he called its "aggression" against the Gaza Strip (Hamas’ Palestine-info website, August 2, 2010). On another occasion he said that Israel's version of the rocket fire was a "lie" and that the rocket fire came from IDF forces which had been training in the area. He claimed that Hamas' strategy was not to use any Arab territory and to concentrate the efforts of its "resistance" in Palestinian territory (Hamas’ Palestine-info website, August 4, 2010).

B. Musheir al-Masri, secretary of the Hamas faction in the Palestinian Legislative Council, said that Israel had invented the incident as an excuse to attack the Gaza Strip and that Hamas did not want a confrontation with Egypt or Jordan (Radio BBC, August 4, 2010).

C. Taher al-Nunu, spokesman for the de facto Hamas administration, said that Hamas was of the opinion that no Palestinian organization was behind the rocket fire, because those organizations operated inside Palestinian territory. He added that Hamas had no intention of embarrassing Egypt (Al-Arabiya TV, August 4, 2010).

D. Abu Obeida, spokesman for Hamas' military wing, denied any connection with the rocket fire and claimed that the activities of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades were bounded by the borders of "historical Palestine." He added that when the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades fired rockets they did not hesitate to claim responsibility (Al-Qassam website, August 5, 2010).

11. Hamas' political bureau was quick to send a message to the Jordanian government though intermediaries stating that Hamas was not connected to the rocket fire, and warned Jordan against "an Israeli-Egyptian attempt to exploit the rocket fire for political objectives." Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, sent a similar message to Jordan (Al-Quds Al-Arabi, August 7, 2010).

The Hamas Daily Paper Felesteen Supports Rocket Fire from the Sinai Peninsula

12. In direct contradiction of the Hamas stance, and of the remarks of Salah al-Bardawil in particular, Mustafa al-Sawaf, former editor of the Hamas daily Felesteen, wrote an editorial for the paper praising the rocket fire from the Sinai Peninsula. He noted that it was a step in the right direction, because the "resistance" [i.e., terrorism] did not have to be carried out only from the territory of "Palestine." He said rocket fire at Eilat was an example of the support the "Palestinian resistance" received from neighboring regions and that it should continue. He mentioned four arenas where, in his opinion, the "resistance" should take place: the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the territory of the State of Israel and what he called "outside Palestine," that is, regions like the Sinai Peninsula (Hamas’ daily Felesteen, August 3, 2010).

Reactions from Sources in Fatah

13. According to Fatah sources, Ra’ed al-Atar, commander of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades for the Rafah region, was responsible for dispatching the squad to the Sinai Peninsula and for giving the order to launch the rockets. According to the sources, the rockets were launched with the knowledge of Khaled Mashaal, who authorized the attack, and Iranian intelligence, which instigated it. The sources further claimed that it was carried out without the knowledge of Ahmed al-Jaabari, commander of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in the Gaza Strip, and of senior Hamas figures who oppose firing rockets from Egyptian territory on the grounds that such activities will damage relations with it (Saqour, news site affiliated with Fatah, August 6, 2010).

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