Doc's Talk: The global jihad-affiliated Abdullah Azzam Brigades claimed responsibility for firing rockets from south Lebanon into the western Galilee on August 22.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

The global jihad-affiliated Abdullah Azzam Brigades claimed responsibility for firing rockets from south Lebanon into the western Galilee on August 22.

Issued on: 28/08/2013 Type: Article

The Twitter account of the Salafist Lebanese sheikh Siraj al-Din Zariqat, a senior figure in the Abdullah Azzam Brigades in Lebanon.

Overview

1. On August 22, 2013, two barrages of two rockets each were fired into the western Galilee. Two landed in Israeli population centers, one in an open area and one was intercepted by the Iron Dome aerial defense system. There were no casualties but property damage was reported. It was the first incidence of rocket fire from south Lebanon in two years.

2. Responsibility for the attacks was attributed by sheikh Zariqat to the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, a global jihad organization with ties to Al-Qaeda, which has a branch in Lebanon (See Appendix A for information about the organization and its Lebanese branch). However, the Lebanese government condemned the rocket fire and the Lebanese foreign minister claimed that those who carried out were trying to drag Lebanon into a confrontation with Israel. Hezbollah did not issue a formal comment.

3. Since the Second Lebanon War there have been eight instances of rocket fire targeting Israel, most of them directed against communities in the western and eastern Galilee. In our assessment at least some of the rockets were fired by Lebanese networks affiliated with global jihad, including the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, an organization established in 2009. In our assessment the recent rocket fire was motivated by the Abdullah Azzam Brigades' desire to challenge Hezbollah (which has shown restraint along the Israeli-Lebanese border) by provoking Israel. It can be assumed that their motivation increased recently following Hezbollah's military involvement in the Syrian civil war on the side of the Syrian regime, its victory in the campaign for Al-Qusayr and the leaking of the confrontation between the Sunni jihadists in Syria and Shi'ite Hezbollah into the Lebanese arena.

Rocket Fire – The Situation on the Ground (as of August 25, 2013)

4. At 16:30 and 16:45 hours on the afternoon of August 22, 2013, four rockets were fired from the western sector of south Lebanon attacking Israeli population centers in the western Galilee. According to the claim of responsibility issued, they were medium-range rockets (40 kilometers, or about 25 miles). The Lebanese media reported that the rockets had been launched in two separate barrages from orange groves between the village of Al-Hush and the Rashidiya refugee camp in south Lebanon (Al-Jadeed TV, August 22, 2013).

5. Two rockets fell in Israeli communities in the western Negev (see pictures), a third fell in an open area and the forth was intercepted by the Iron Dome aerial defense system deployed in northern Israel. There were no casualties, with the exception of four civilians who were treated for shock, but seven buildings and three cars were damaged (Haaretz, August 23, 2013). One of the rockets hit Kibbutz Gesher Haziv and damaged several buildings and cars. Another hit a guest home for Holocaust survivors in the communal settlement of Shavei Zion (Ynet, August 23, 2013)

The rockets fired south of Tyre in the attack on the western Galilee (Soursawa.com and Yasour.org websites, August 22, 2013)

Claim of Responsibility

6. The Twitter account of the Salafist-jihadi Lebanese sheikh Siraj al-Din Zariqat reported that the Ziyad al-Jarrah Battalions of the Abdullah Azzam Brigades were responsible for the rocket fire (See Appendix A). According to the announcement, the rockets had a range of more than 40 kilometers, or 25 miles, meaning that the responsibility of the "Iranian party" [i.e., Hezbollah] for "guarding the Jews" would become difficult. That is because with such rockets the jihad fighters would be able to reach Haifa and the other "strategic areas" of the Jewish enemy (Twitter account of sheikh Siraj al-Din name, August 22, 2013).

7. According to the Lebanese media, sheikh Siraj al-Din Zariqat is a senior figure in the Abdullah Azzam Brigades in Lebanon (Al-Akhbar, August 14, 2013). He is one of the preachers who deliver the Friday prayers in the mosques in Beirut, belongs to the Dar al-Fatwa Institution (a Sunni religious institution under the control of the Mufti of Lebanon) and supports the revolt against the Syrian regime. In the past he was detained and is closely monitored by Lebanese intelligence (YouTube, August 8 2013).

IDF Response

8. In response to the rocket fire on August 23, 2013, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) struck a terrorist target south of Beirut. A direct hit was reported (IDF spokesman, August 23, 2013). The target, located in the region of Al-Naameh south of Beirut, is a base belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), a Syrian-oriented Palestinian terrorist organization headed by Ahmed Jibril. However, according to the Lebanese media, there were no casualties and no damage was reported (Al-Nashra New Agency, Lebanon, August 23, 2013).

9. Hezbollah condemned the IAF attack, claiming it "showed the enemy's evil intentions toward Lebanon" (Website of the Lebanese Resistance [Hezbollah], August 24, 2013).

Reactions in Lebanon

10. So far Hezbollah had not formally issued a reaction to the rocket fire. Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah member of the Lebanese parliament, claimed that Hezbollah had no connection or information about the rocket fire from south Lebanon into northern Israel. However, he added that Hezbollah did not condemn any action directed at the Israeli enemy (Al-Ahed, August 22, 2013).

11. The Lebanese government strongly condemned the rocket fire, claiming that its objective was to drag Lebanon into a confrontation with Israel:

1) Michel Suleiman, Lebanese president, condemned the rocket fire and demanded the exposure of those responsible. He said it was a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and violated Lebanon's sovereignty (Al-Nashra News Agency, Lebanon, August 22, 2013).

2) Adnan Mansour, the Lebanese foreign minister, accused the terrorist operatives who launched the rockets of trying to drag Lebanon into a confrontation with Israel (Al-Nashra News Agency, Lebanon, August 22, 2013).

3) Tammam Salam, nominated as Lebanon's next prime minister, condemned the rocket fire, describing it as "questionable." He said it was liable to harm Lebanon and set it on a path that would lead to Israeli aggression (Al-Nashra News Agency, Lebanon, August 22, 2013).

12. The UNIFIL force in Lebanon issued a condemnation following the attack. Major-General Paolo Serra, commander of the force, said it endangered the local civilian population. He said it only proved that there were people who wanted to violate the regional calm and endanger the success of the Lebanese army and UNIFIL in recent years in preserving the tranquility. He added that UNIFIL strongly condemned the attack (Mivzaklive website, August 23, 2013).

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