Doc's Talk: IHH publications describe the support the organization gives the Palestinians, especially the Gaza Strip.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

IHH publications describe the support the organization gives the Palestinians, especially the Gaza Strip.

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Overview

1. This document examines the contents and political implications of a Turkish book and Arabic booklet found aboard the Mavi Marmara. Both publications were issued in 2009 by the Turkish IHH, the organization which led the recent flotilla. The book is entitled Palestine, from the Zionist Idea to the Actuality of the Occupation. It presents the history of the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation from a radical Islamic perspective which is one-sided and hostile to Israel. Israel is accused of a generations-long slaughter of Palestinians, begun even before its establishment. Palestinian terrorism is described briefly and favorably as "the Palestinian resistance movement" which is "fighting for independence." Israeli Arabs are represented as "Palestinians" living on "occupied Palestinian lands" [i.e., the State of Israel]. 2. The booklet describes IHH's support for the Palestinian cause, given primarily between the years 2004 and 2009. Most of the material support went to the Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas. A small amount was earmarked for Judea and Samaria and Israeli Arabs. It also gives some information about IHH activity in the Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

3. Some of the aid IHH gave the Palestinians was humanitarian, intended to ease the physical distress of the Palestinian population and improve its economic standing. However, some aspects of the aid, as described in the booklet, also clearly have political implications, such as the large amounts of money and equipment given to the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, donations of money to the families of shaheeds in the Gaza Strip and the construction of houses (possibly of terrorist operatives) to replace those destroyed by Israel in Judea and Samaria. The donations help Hamas' civilian network, which supports terrorism, and its educational system in the Gaza Strip, which indoctrinates the younger generation with radical Islam and sets them on the path of terrorism ("resistance"). In addition, IHH waged a propaganda campaign in Turkey during the years before Operation Cast Lead, contributing to Turkish hatred of Israel and sympathy for Hamas.

4. The nature of the support described in booklet suggests that IHH operates much the same way as other pro-Hamas "charitable societies" abroad, most of them under the aegis of the Union of Good (of which IHH is a member). The various funds, foundations and organizations send most of the aid to Hamas' civilian infrastructure in the territories, the source of the movement's power. The funds help Hamas strengthen its grip on the population by promoting the movement as an alternative to the Palestinian Authority. The civilian infrastructure also supports terrorism, since Hamas exploits it to assist terrorists and their families and to inculcate Hamas' ideology in its educational system and through the mosques it controls. That was why many "charitable societies" were outlawed by Israel, the United States and several European countries. IHH was outlawed by Israel in July 2008 and by Germany in 2010.1

5. The booklet indicates that IHH aid to the Gaza Strip grew during 2006-2008, the years preceding Operation Cast Lead, and even more so afterwards (2009). The steep increase, which is not described in the booklet (issued in 2009), took place during the first six months of 2010, when IHH participated in the project of sending flotillas to the Gaza Strip and became a leading force in the international coalition of anti-Israeli organizations.

6. The booklet does not explain how IHH sends assistance to the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria and Israeli Arabs. In our assessment that was an IHH political-security consideration, valid in 2009 when the booklet was printed, but weakened during 2010.

7. According to our information, IHH operated as a member of the Union of Good through "charitable societies" affiliated with Hamas in the territories. It also worked directly with the de facto Hamas administration. To that end IHH opened a permanent branch office in Gaza headed by Muhammad Kaya, its contact with the Hamas administration. In Judea and Samaria the IHH contact was Izzat Shahin, who was sent there in November 2009 specifically to open an IHH branch. During his stay he channeled IHH funds to Hamas-affiliated "charitable societies" (tens of thousands of dollars to the Islamic Charity Association in Hebron and Al-Tadhamun in Nablus). The activity was prevented by the Israeli security forces. Shahin was detained for questioning in April 2010 on suspicion of terrorism-funding felonies and support for Hamas, and deported from Israel after his interrogation at the request of the Turkish authorities.

8. Why has IHH focused on investing most of its efforts in the Gaza Strip? In our assessment, there are several considerations shared by IHH and the Islamic Turkish government behind it:

A. First, the humanitarian consideration, manifested, in IHH's view, by the increasing difficulties of daily life accompanied by the basic poverty of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (difficulties which were made worse after Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip because of its rocket attacks on Israel and international isolation).

B. Second, the ideological consideration, mainly IHH's basic identification with Hamas' radial Islamist ideology originating with the Muslim Brotherhood, whose ideology is very close to IHH's.

C. Third, the security consideration, the result of the difficulties IHH faces in Judea, Samaria and Israel, and possibly in other Palestinian arenas.

D. In addition, there is a political consideration, the result of the Islamic Turkish government's regional policies, whose goal is to establish Turkey's status in the regional arena at the expense of its relations with Israel. As a result, it regards supporting Hamas as a way of increasing its popularity in the Arab-Muslim world and in the "resistance" camp in the Middle East (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas).

9. In the two publications issued before the deterioration of Israeli-Turkish relations, IHH did not openly support Hamas, but its sympathy for the movement and its radical Islamic ideology could be read between the lines.

10. However, during the first six months of 2010 IHH's support for the de facto Hamas administration became overt and its pro-Hamas activities became more evident and aggressive: At the end of 2009 IHH joined the Viva Palestina aid convoy and its activists confronted the Egyptian security forces in January 2010. IHH leader Bülent Yildirim was eventually permitted to enter the Gaza Strip and met with Ismail Haniya, head of the Hamas administration on January 7, 2010. At the end of May IHH led an upgraded flotilla where its operatives waged a violent, premeditated battle with IDF soldiers aboard the Mavi Marmara. In the public sphere, on March 21, 2010, Bülent Yildirim gave a speech to supporters in one of Istanbul's suburbs, where he praised Hamas, which he represented as the innocent victim of Israel and world forces stronger than itself.2
Bülent Yildirim meets in the Gaza Strip with Ismail Haniya and other important figures
Bülent Yildirim meets in the Gaza Strip with Ismail Haniya and other important figures (January 7, 2010). 4

Bülent Yildirim and Ismail Haniya
Bülent Yildirim and Ismail Haniya, head of the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip January 7, 2010).3

11. The two appendices of this document analyze the contents of the booklet and book found aboard the Mavi Marmara:

A. Appendix I – The contents of the IHH Arabic booklet about its support for the Palestinians

B. Appendix II – Palestine, from the Zionist Idea to the Actuality of the Occupation, a book about the Palestinian cause published by IHH.

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