Doc's Talk: Islamic Jihad top dog: Negotiations gain “nothing”

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Islamic Jihad top dog: Negotiations gain “nothing”

Robert Spencer

Shallah, head of the militant Islamic Jihad group, delivers a speech during a rally near Damascus

You may recall that Ramadan Shalah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad top dog, was once a “moderate” professor at the University of South Florida, brought there by Sami al-Arian, the once and future poster boy for Islamic victimhood, who was in reality an Islamic Jihad operative himself. In saying that negotiations gain nothing, he is announcing that he will accepted no negotiated settlement that Mahmoud Abbas may sign, no matter how favorable it is to the “Palestinians.” Barack Obama and John Kerry should take heed. They will not.
“Islamic Jihad leader: Negotiations gain ‘nothing,’” by Ali Hashem for Al-Monitor, March 14:

TEHRAN — Amid the sprawl of the Iranian capital, I met one of the most wanted men in the world, a man with a $5 million bounty on his head — Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Abdullah Shalah.
As we met, Shalah’s organization was reviving a cease-fire with Israel, thanks to Egyptian mediation, less than 24 hours after the most recent storms of war struck the Gaza Strip. Tensions erupted March 11 when an Israeli airstrike killed three Palestinians in the southern city of Khan Yunis. Islamic Jihad and other armed Palestinian factions retaliated by launching 130 rockets across the border in the most intense confrontation since the November 2012 war, which also ended with an Egypt-brokered truce.
I asked Shalah about the restored truce and whether it had been coordinated with Hamas. The UK-educated jihadist said that his group had been contacted by the Egyptians, who offered to mediate.

“We told them we are committed to the last truce as far as the Israelis are committed, so it’s as much restoring the last truce as signing a new one,” said Shalah. He elaborated, “During the past two years we were committed to the truce, but the Israeli occupation continued to break it. The Palestinian factions observed during these years maximum restraint, but after the last attack by Israel, we felt that they are miscalculating our response. Israel might have started thinking that we’re afraid or that all the equations set during the previous wars are void due to the situation in the region. We wanted to tell the enemy and the friend not to misunderstand us. It’s true that we signed a truce in 2012 — a truce, not a surrender document.”
“Was this coordinated with Hamas?” I asked, citing a Hamas official who claimed to know nothing about the truce. Shalah responded, ”Maybe there was a delay, but all that we do is coordinated.” He further explained, “We both coordinate all our moves together, in war and peace. I’ll reveal something: Just days ago, I was the guest [in Qatar] of Abou Alwalid [Khaled Meshaal], and we held very detailed meetings to discuss almost everything, but mainly the resistance and the situation in Gaza, so whoever says there’s no coordination knows nothing. We agreed together on retaliating if there’s any attack.”

“We both coordinate all our moves together, in war and peace.” That is good to remember the next time Islamic Jihad launches rocket attacks and the witless analysts in Washington start talking about how Hamas is becoming more “moderate.”

More of the interview follows:
Al-Monitor:  In the November 2012 war, Palestinian rockets struck Tel Aviv, which was then a game-changer. Should this war continue, are you going to strike Tel Aviv again?
Shalah: Our experience proves that our performance from one war to another is getting better. If in 2012 we hit Tel Aviv, I think the enemy can imagine what could be beyond Tel Aviv.
Al-Monitor:  Some suggest this last escalation was requested by your regional partners.
Shalah:  It’s a shame to hear that some people think this way. Who started the war? Israel started the war. Unfortunately, our war with Israel is becoming more and more limited to Gaza. There’s an occupied Palestine that we have to liberate, and we won’t give up this objective. We always take this into consideration, but we do act in accordance with the circumstances in the region and our capabilities. Our resistance will continue as far as there is Israel, as far as there is occupation, the daily aggression against our people. Let me make it clear: Our arms are only for Palestine. Our arms aren’t for rent. We will continue until we see the Dome of the Rock, Jaffa and Haifa.
Al-Monitor:  Why don’t you accept taking the path of negotiation?
Shalah: Because those who chose the negotiation path gained nothing. We all lost because of them. When the Oslo agreement was signed, there were 180,000 Israeli settlers. After Oslo, we have around 560,000. The West Bank today is full of settlements, Israeli checkpoints. [There are] detentions. Jerusalem is also suffering, especially with the Judaization process that saw many of its indigenous people thrown out of the city. Unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority [PA], in response, is banning the resistance, though there’s great potential, and our people are ready to rise up once again. Why are they committed to security coordination with Israel? What does security coordination mean? It means that the PA is working for Israel.

This is victimhood propaganda, of course. Negotiations won them the Sinai and a thriving jihad base in Gaza. Negotiations won them the end of wars in 1973 and 2006 that Israel could have and should have pressed forward to decisive victory.

Al-Monitor: In Israel there is a campaign to declare Israel a Jewish state. What’s your take on this?
Shalah: Declaring Israel a Jewish state means that they are the owners of the land and that for 1,400 years we were wrong, that we historically are invaders not only as Arabs but also Canaanites. It means that all our wars were baseless. Even our martyrs — [late Palestinian leader] Yasser Arafat, [Hamas co-founder] Ahmad Yassin, [Palestinian Islamic Jihad founder] Fathi Shaqaqi — would all be criminals and not freedom fighters. If we make such a compromise, we will soon see 1.5 million Palestinians in occupied Palestine crossing the river to Jordan. This will be the first step toward dividing the whole region into tiny sectarian states. For decades, we criticized and attacked the Sykes-Picot Agreement. If this happens, then we’ll write poetry in praise of Sykes-Picot. Syria is a clear example.
Al-Monitor: For years before the Syrian crisis, you lived in Syria. Do you have any thoughts on the situation there and whether there’s any solution to the bloodshed?
Shalah: Unfortunately, after three years no one is happy with the bloodshed. I think it’s obvious that all parties on the ground are quite certain a military solution is impossible. The only possible thing today is hopeless bloodshed. If the war continues this way, it might continue for another 100 years. This happened before in Europe between England and France. They fought for 116 years. It might happen here, too. Many other sectarian and religious wars lasted for hundreds of years. There’s no solution for Syria but politics, and here, everyone should be represented. I call on those asking [Palestinian] President Mahmoud Abbas to make painful compromises to Israel, why don’t you make some painful compromises and rid the Syrian people of this war?

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