Doc's Talk: Netanyahu: ‘Freeing Terrorists Clashes with Justice,’ but So What?

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Netanyahu: ‘Freeing Terrorists Clashes with Justice,’ but So What?

Netanyahu says freeing terrorists is unjust, is against public opinion, and is painful. So why do it? Because it is in the “interest of the State,” meaning John Kerry is in charge of Israel’s security.

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: July 27th, 2013
Latest update: July 28th, 2013

tell a friend

Palestinian Authority Arabs who were freed from Israeli jails
Photo Credit: Abed Rahim Khatib / Flash 90

Two Arab brothers who hold Israeli citizenship, Kari, and Maher Younis, murdered a soldier, Avi Bromberg, in 1981.

Four other Arabs with Israeli citizenship, murdered three soldiers in 1991, and another showed his love for the country by throwing a grenade in a street in Haifa. Yet another’s loyalty was expressed by murdering another soldier in 1985.
All of these Israelis, instead of being sentenced to death, are serving time in jail.
They are Israelis, but the Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas has demanded that Israel free them, and nearly 100 others who have committed equally grisly crimes.

If Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu does not surrender, Abbas will deliver a painful blow by refusing to allow his aides to sit down with Israeli officials to satisfy U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s dream of renewing direct talks.
Netanyahu appealed to the public Saturday to understand how difficult it is to be Prime Minister.

“It is painful to the Israeli people and it is very painful to me,” he wrote. “It clashes with the value of justice. It is an obvious injustice that criminals, even if most of them spent more than 20 years in prison, be released before they finish serving their sentence.”
Anyone living in a country where justice is a basic value would stop right there.
Not Netanyahu.
“The best answer we give to those murderers is that in the years that they have spent in prison we have built a beautiful country,” he wrote.
Okay, that makes sense, now what?

“Every now and then prime ministers need to take decisions that fly in the face of public opinion — for the good of the country.”

Okay. That also makes sense, but what does that have to do with freeing terrorists who, some of whom, based on every experience in the past, are going to be involved in more deaths of Israelis?

Netanyahu explained that freeing terrorists has nothing to do with justice, public opinion or even the immediate safety of citizens.

“Over the next nine months we will come to see whether there is a Palestinian partner who desires the end of the conflict as much as we do. The conflict’s resolution can only be achieved if we are guaranteed security for Israel’s citizens and the protection of our vital national interests.”
Got it?

The solution is guaranteeing Israel’s security.

And how do we do that?

We free terrorists, Israelis and non-Israelis. After all, they committed their crimes before the Palestinian Authority promised to stop incitement and even signed on the dotted line on the Oslo Accords.

True, the Palestinian Authority not only has not stopped incitement but also has accelerated it.

True, hundreds of Israelis have been murdered by terrorists freed in the past.
But there is a greater truth: The Obama administration is in charge, and if Abbas threatens there will be no direct talks if terrorists are not freed, Israel must cooperate.

That is why, if the Israel security Cabinet agrees, Palestinian Authority Arab Issa Abed Rabo, convicted of the murder of Revital Seri and Ron Levy near the Cremisan Valley in October 1984, will be a free man.

The detailed list of the 103, some say 104, terrorists to be released will be published Sunday, but here is partial list, enough to make the most soft-hearted bleeding heart cringe with disgust:

Mohamed Dawd : He is from Kalkilya, a city adjacent to Kfar Saba, which sits on the northern edge of metropolitan Tel Aviv and is a stone’s throw from the highway to central Samaria communities where Jews are attacked almost daily. Why not free him? All he did was kill two Jews, Ofra and Tal Moses, by throwing a firebomb at their car in 1987.
Jumaa Adem and Mahmoud Kharbish: They also like throwing firebombs, also known as Molotov cocktails. They killed a mother and three of her children who were riding on a public bus from the northern Jordan Valley to Jerusalem. A soldier who tried to save the children and their mother, Rachel Weiss, also was killed.
Jamal Muhsan : This terrorist, from Jenin, likes murdering old people, like 76-year-old Shlomo Yehia, who as killed in Kadima, a community inside the “Auschwitz Borders” that existed from 1949 to 1967. He also managed to kill an Israel Prize Laureate, Menachem Stern, in 1989.
Adnan Effendi: He preferred teenaged victims. He stabbed to death two 13-year-old boys in Jerusalem in 1992.
Alef Shaath: He dressed up as woman and murdered Simcha Levy in Gaza.
Mahmoud Issa: This is not an ordinary terrorist, He led a terror cell that kidnapped and murdered Border Police officer Nissim Toledano in 1993.

The list goes on and on. The victims of the terrorists who are set to be released include a Holocaust survivor and a man who committed the crime of helping the Arab economy by shopping in a village near Jenin. The terrorists include those who were minors at the time, meaning that if they are released, they still have many years ahead in which they can make the choice between trying to become normal human beings or returning to their life of terror.

Based on the past, guess which path they are more likely to choose?
But there is no need to worry, says Prime Minister Netanyahu: “The security of Israeli citizens and our vital national interests will be ensured.”
If you don’t believe him, just ask John Kerry.

He already phoned Abbas on Friday to tell him that Chelm – uh, Israel – will agree to his demands. Abbas told journalists, “Follow the Israeli media on Sunday and you will hear good news on the prisoners.”
Unlike previous releases terrorists, the Cabinet is likely to give Netanyahu a hard time.

Jewish Home chairman, Finance Minister Naftali Bennett, said the party’s ministers will vote against the proposal.

Avigdor Liberman, leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu faction of the Likud, has freedom to vote as they please, and most of them will vote against Netanyahu or abstain.
Danny Danon of the Likud, Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, urged his colleagues to vote against what he called “the lunacy of releasing dozens of terrorists who have the blood of hundreds of Israelis on their hands. The release is a prize for the Palestinians, just for their being willing to sit with us at the negotiating table.”

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