Doc's Talk: Don't let truth get in the way...

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Don't let truth get in the way...

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center Newsletter

In a speech given by IHH leader Bulent Yildirim two months prior to the Marmara flotilla, he presented a radical Islamic ideology with anti-Western and anti-Israeli

Overview
1. IHH, the Turkish organization behind the last flotilla to the Gaza Strip, holds a radical
Islamic worldview with anti-Western and anti-Israeli characteristics, close to that
espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas’ parent movement).
2.IHH’s radical Islamic ideology was reflected in a speech given by its leader, Bulent
Yildirim, at a large support rally in one of the suburbs of Istanbul two months prior
to the flotilla (March 31). In his speech, Yildirim described the conflict between
Israel and Hamas as part of a so-called “attack” on Muslims worldwide. Yildirim
lashed out against Western countries and other countries for killing Muslims, praised Hamas,
ignored the Palestinian Authority, and slammed Israel and its government. In the last part of
his speech, Yildirim presented possible scenarios for which IHH was to prepare
during the flotilla, stressing the organization’s determination to reach the Gaza
Strip under any scenario, even if Israel used force against one of the ships. 3.The main points of his speech included (for more details see appendices):
a.Hamas is under attack from Israel, which aims to hit it due to Hamas’
election victory and “democratic” rise to power.
2
b.Israel’s attack in the Gaza Strip (i.e., Operation Cast Lead) is part of a global
attack on the Muslim world: “Let us take a look at a picture of all the wars in the
world. The US is killing Muslims. Where? In Afghanistan. NATO forces are killing
Muslims. Where? In Iraq. Russia is killing Muslims. Where? In Chechnya. China is
killing Muslims. Where? In northern Turkistan. Israel is killing Muslims. Where? In
Palestine” (Yildirim then goes on to accuse Thailand, the Philippines, and India of anti-
Muslim actions).
Yildirim accusing China of genocide in East Turkistan (IHH website, July 1, 2010)
c. “The Muslim man cannot be defeated by the oppressors and the infidels;”
“The day we agree to become slaves to the West [is the day] we taste failure. That is
the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Chechnya, but Allah willing, we shall not allow it
in Palestine.” He further added, “If Al-Quds [Jerusalem] will be in Muslim hands,
the whole world will be in Muslim hands.”
d.The aim of the flotilla is to end the siege on the Gaza Strip and to isolate Israel
(i.e., a political goal rather than a humanitarian one). Yildirim said that the goal would
be achieved under any scenario as soon as the flotilla was launched (“Plan A is
to get in [the Gaza Strip]; plan B is to get in; plan C is to get inside. Is there a chance of
it happening? We will get inside”). In Yildirim’s view, the organizers of the flotilla
only stand to gain from it (“Look, Israel is losing Turkey, Jordan, and it will be left
with no friends in the region”).
e.Yildirim listed three possible scenarios: the first—Israel would “act smart” and let
the flotilla reach the Gaza Strip; the second—Israel would stop the ships and the
passengers would be forced to spend a long time on board (several weeks), causing
political and propaganda pressure on Israel; the third—Israel would attack the ship
(hinting at the Mavi Marmara), the passengers would defend it, and eventually it
would break the siege (Yildirim discussed the third possibility in an interview granted
to the Turkish newspaper Vakit on March 31: “The third option is that Israel can go
3
crazy and attack the flotilla. Obviously, that would put Israel in a predicament”). Yildirim
noted that the possibility of Israel opening fire was taken into account in the third
scenario.
4.Bulent Yildirim’s speech fits well with the evidence we have, indicating that the flotilla was
a political and media provocation carefully planned by IHH. The speech also
demonstrates that the flotilla was not designed to promote humanitarian goals;
instead, its major aim was to further isolate Israel on the international scene and to
support Hamas in the Gaza Strip, with which IHH shares a common ideology. Those
who planned this provocation had taken into account and even prepared in advance for
the possibility of a violent confrontation in which they could prevent the IDF from
taking over the ship. They also considered the possibility of the IDF opening fire. Their
purpose, as already mentioned, was to break the “siege” on the Gaza Strip, even in
a scenario of resistance from Israel, counting on Israel’s unwillingness to attack a
ship sailing under a Turkish flag (“What can Israel do? Will it open fire on us?
Those who got on the ship took that into consideration. We have already made up
our minds …”).
5.When addressing Western target audiences, human rights organizations and
humanitarian activists who joined forces with IHH to organize the flotilla, IHH employed a
markedly different terminology than that used by Bulent Yildirim in his speech. To
them and to world public opinion, the aim of the flotilla was presented as providing
"humanitarian aid" to the Palestinian people while breaking the Israeli “siege” using legal
means. FAQs published on the IHH website in the months prior to the flotilla stressed that the
ships were bringing humanitarian aid for the needy Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip (from
IHH’s English website).
Goal
To support the Palestinian people, to show we do not recognize the
arbitrary Israeli siege, to prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally
broken and to deliver relief supplies to Gaza.
4
A poster on the English version of the IHH website which appeared prior to the launch of the flotilla. The
terminology and portrayal of the goal are completely different from those presented in Yildirim’s
speech, making no indication of the preparations for a violent confrontation with the IDF that IHH was
engaged in at the time.
6.Comparison of the speech given by Bulent Yildirim to his “home crowd” in Turkey and the
way IHH presented the goals of the flotilla to Western ears clearly shows that, during the
preparations for the flotilla, IHH sent two conflicting messages: to its “home crowd”
of Islamic supporters in Turkey, Yildirim presented the flotilla as an action taking place within
the context of Islam’s fight on the "offensive" waged against it by world powers and countries.
Furthermore, he praised Hamas, set a clear political goal of isolating Israel, played down the
humanitarian aspect, and used belligerent terminology. On the other hand, when giving
statements in English, aimed mostly at Western target audiences, IHH avoided making
belligerent statements or using radical Islamic rhetoric, emphasizing the goal of sending
“humanitarian aid” to the Gaza Strip and the dire situation of its residents.1
7.Viewed in the context of Turkey’s internal situation, Yildirim’s speech is another
example of the incitement campaign waged in Turkey by IHH (which holds a radical
Islamic ideology) against Israel, the US, and the West (as well as other countries such as
Russia and China, viewed by IHH as anti-Muslim). It is worth mentioning that a critical
article published in the secular oppositionist newspaper Hurriyet slammed the
ruling party for allowing hate propaganda against Israel and the West and letting
Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood engage in political and propaganda activities
on Turkish soil.2
1 Human rights and pro-Palestinian organizations which joined the coalition led by IHH have also described the aim of
the flotilla as being humanitarian. Furthermore, the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which has established its own
fact-finding mission, also makes use of that terminology (see UN Human Rights Council, The grave attacks by Israeli
forces against the humanitarian boat convoy, June 23, 2010, A/HRC/RES/14/1).
2 See our July 11, 2010 Information Bulletin: “Internal Turkish criticism of the Islamic regime for enabling Hamas and
the Muslim Brotherhood to conduct political-propaganda activity on Turkish soil and sway public opinion against Israel
and the West. In the background: a phone call from Turkey’s prime minister Tayyip Erdogan to Hezbollah leader
Hassan Nasrallah”.
5

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