crethiplethi » islamic terrorism

Iran Threatens World

Crethi Plethi — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:07:33 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Sat, June 12, 2010 | the Dry Bones Blog | Irwin Cotler

Member of Parliament for Mount Royal, Canada, Irwin Cotler

You would think the kind of genocidal behavior displayed by the Ahmadinejad government in Tehran would be in violation of international law! Well, apparently there are some experts who also think so. The legal petition for action mentioned in today’s cartoon is real. Here’s Irwin Cotler (Canadian Liberal MP and former Justice Minister of Canada) as quoted in the Ottawa Citizen:

Iran Threatens World – and Itself

Ahmadinejad’s Iran — a term used to distinguish the regime from the people of Iran — has emerged as a clear and present danger to international peace and security, to regional and Mideast stability, and increasingly, to its own people.

We are witnessing in Ahmadinejad’s Iran the toxic convergence of four distinct dangers: the nuclear threat; the genocidal incitement threat; state-sponsored terrorism; and the systematic and widespread violations of the rights of the Iranian people.

Accordingly, a consortium of international law scholars, human rights advocates, former government leaders, parliamentarians and Iranian activists for democracy and freedom — The Responsibility to Prevent Coalition — has released a report on the danger of a nuclear, genocidal, and rights-violating Iran.

Let there be no mistake about it: Iran is in violation of international legal prohibitions against the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons; Iran has already committed the crime of incitement to genocide prohibited under the Genocide Convention; Iran is a leading state-sponsor of international terrorism; and Iran is engaged in widespread and systematic violations of the rights of its people.

In the matter of the Iranian nuclear weaponization program, the coalition’s report documents Iran’s defiance of international law, and its serial deception respecting its serial violations, including: the significant expansion of its uranium enrichment to nuclear weapons-grade capability; the discovery of its hidden uranium enrichment site at Qom; its planned development of an archipelago of enriched uranium centres; and the concern of international experts that Iran is “advancing in its efforts to construct a nuclear warhead, to develop a missile delivery system for such a warhead, and a mechanism to detonate such a weapon.”

In the case of state-sanctioned incitement to genocide — building upon the lessons of Rwanda, the Balkans and Darfur — the report documents the critical mass of precursors to genocide in Ahmadinejad’s Iran, constituting thereby not only the prelude to a preventable tragedy, but a crime in and of itself under international law.

In the matter of state-sponsored terror, the report documents the emergence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) at the epicentre of the Iranian threat. A former head of the IRGC — Ahmad Vahidi, now Iran’s Defence Minister overseeing Iran’s nuclear program — was named by Argentina’s judiciary as being responsible for the planning and perpetration of the greatest terrorist atrocity in Argentina since the Second World War, the bombing of the Jewish Community Centre in 1994.

In the matter of human rights, the report documents the widespread and systematic violations of the rights of the Iranian people, including: the beatings, execution, killing, torture and other inhumane treatment of Iranians; the systematic and widespread oppression of a minority — the Bahá’í as a case study; the exclusion of, and discrimination against, religious and ethnic minorities; the persistent and pervasive assault on women’s rights; the murder of political dissidents; the assault on freedom of speech, assembly and association — including assaults on students, professors, activists and intellectuals.

The list of violations goes on: the imprisonment of more journalists than any other country in the world; the crackdown against cyber dissidents; the assault on labour rights; the wanton imposition of a death penalty, including the execution of more juveniles than any other country in the world; the denial of gay and lesbian rights — all of which is accompanied by show trials and coerced confessions, and is constitutive of crimes against humanity under international law.

There has been an intensification of human rights violations in Iran since the fraudulent presidential elections last year, including state-sanctioned escalation in each of the categories detailed above. There is in Ahmadinejad’s Iran a culture of impunity, the denial of due process and the absence of an independent judiciary.

Accordingly, the report, drawing on international law principle and precedent, sets forth a comprehensive set of remedies — smart sanctions — to punish and contain Ahmadinejad’s Iran. The goal is to target the Iranian regime and its leaders, while not harming, and indeed protecting, the Iranian people.

While recognizing the gravity of the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions, we must be careful not to focus on this threat alone and risk marginalizing the other three threats. It is by recognizing the totality of the regime’s predations that the case for comprehensive, calibrated, and consequential sanctions becomes undeniable. The international community would do well to organize its policy around the findings and recommendations in this report. Sadly, the perfunctory G8 statement on Iran appreciated neither the gravity of the threat nor the imperative of the response.

The Responsibility to Prevent Coalition’s report and petition on Iran can be downloaded and read in its entirety, Here. You can join “United Against Nuclear Iran” here.

Irwin Cotler, a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has written and lectured widely on international human rights law. He is Chair of the Responsibility to Prevent Coalition.

The Jundollah Terrorist Organization Claimed Terrorist Attack in Iran

Crethi Plethi — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:14:03 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Sun, July 25, 2010 | Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

The two suicide bombers (http://taptan313.blogspot.com)

Less than one month after execution of Jundollah leader:
another terrorist attack in Sistan and Baluchestan Province capital

Twenty-eight people were killed and over 300 were injured in a suicide bombing attack last Thursday (July 15) in a Shi’ite mosque in Zahedan, the capital of Sistan and Baluchistan Province in southeastern Iran. The attack was the work of two suicide bombers, Mohammad Rigi and Abdolbasset Rigi, who blew themselves up as Shi’ite worshippers inside the mosque were celebrating the birthday of the Shi’ite Imam Hossein, which falls on the same date as Revolutionary Guards Day. Two explosions took place in the mosque. Several people died in the first explosion, in front of the mosque entrance; a second explosion occurred several minutes later, when people rushed to help the victims. Some of those killed or injured were Revolutionary Guards.

The Jundollah terrorist organization, also known as People’s Resistance Movement of Iran (PRMI), claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack, saying it was a retaliation for the regime’s incessant crimes in Baluchistan and to the execution of Jundollah leader Abdolmalek Rigi last month. Rigi was executed on June 20, several months after he was captured in an operation carried out by Iranian security forces. His brother, Abdolhamid Rigi, was executed in May, having been extradited from Pakistan to Iran in 2008. Following the execution, Jundollah published a statement on its official website promising to continue fighting against the regime and announcing the appointment of Hajji Mohammad Zaher Balouch as the organization’s new leader.

Last week, Interior Minister Mohammad Mostafa Najjar said at a press conference in the city of Kerman that, ever since the execution of Rigi, who, according to Najjar, was supported by Western intelligence services and by Israel, the situation in southeastern Iran calmed down completely (Press TV, July 13). After the terrorist attack, security forces detained 40 possible suspects (ILNA, July 17). The three Majles representatives from Sistan and Baluchistan Province submitted their resignations this week in protest of the regime’s failure to maintain security in their electorate.

Following the attack, top Iranian officials once again blamed the US for the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Jundollah. Majles speaker Ali Larijani claimed this week that the US was the main culprit behind the suicide bombings in Zahedan. Speaking at the beginning of the Majles session, Larijani said that it was a day of shame for the US, which was involved in that horrible crime, warning it that there would be consequences (Fars, July 18). The Friday prayer leader in Tehran, Hojjatoleslam Kazem Seddiqi, also laid the blame on the US, saying it had its “dirty hands” in the suicide bombing and claiming the US carried it out to cover the embarrassment caused by the Shahram Amiri affair—Amiri is the nuclear scientist who returned to Iran last week (Fars, July 16).

The conservative media also blamed the US for Jundollah’s continuing terrorist attacks. An editorial published by the conservative daily Jomhuri-ye Eslami (July 17) says that the main objective of the US in establishing Jundollah was to create a conflict between Shi’ites and Sunnis, and to destabilize the security situation in eastern Iran in order to harm the Islamic regime. However, the arrest and execution of the organization’s leaders have foiled the American scheme, and any further crimes by Jundollah will only increase the hatred Shi’ite and Sunni Iranians feel towards that organization, and will strengthen their support for the regime.

Since its establishment in 2003, Jundollah carried out numerous terrorist attacks in Sistan and Baluchistan Province, home to over three million people, the majority of them belonging to the Baluchi minority. The terrorist attacks resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Iranian civilians and security forces personnel. According to the organization, its main goal is to put an end to the discrimination of the Baluchi minority, comprising about two percent of Iran’s population and belonging to the Sunni denomination of Islam. On their part, the Iranian authorities claim that Jundollah is a terrorist organization supported by American and British intelligence services, with ties to the Al-Qaeda network. The major terrorist attacks perpetrated by the organization in recent years include an attack in the town of Tasuki in March 2006 in which 21 civilians were killed, an attack in the city of Zahedan in February 2007 in which 18 Revolutionary Guards members were killed, a suicide bombing attack in the city of Saravan in December 2008 in which a number of police officers were killed, an attack at a Shi’ite mosque in the city of Zahedan in May 2009 in which 25 people were killed, and an attack in the city of Sarbaz in October 2009 in which over 40 people were killed, including a number of Revolutionary Guards top officials.

Jundollah logo

PRMI declares Mr Abddul Rauf Rigi as spokesman for the party

The People Resistance Movement of Iran (PRMI) announced new spokesmen for the party. In a letter dispatched to the Public Relations department of PRMI, Mr Muhammad Zaher Balouch, the leader of PRMI appointed Mr Abdol Rauf Rigi, as spokesman of the PRMI.

Text of the letter:

In the name of Allah

Now that the activities of PRMI is steeply progressing and widening in all aspects, some organizational changes in political, military and security arenas seemed necessary.

In this regard besides appreciating the tireless efforts of other members, Mr Abdul Rauf who has a good hand in the area of politics and diplomacy, and is also committed to the mission of the PRMI, is appointed as official spokesman for the party with effect from July 20, 2010.

I hope that he in the light of previous experience and efforts and above all relying on the Almighty would perform his duty and responsibility as best as possible.

Wish him success in his responsibility and life.

Muhammad Zaher Balouch

Secretary General
People Resistance Movement of Iran (PRMI)

Daniel Pereg and Daniel in the Lions Den

Crethi Plethi — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:03:59 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Wed, June 23, 2010 | Youtube | Democast

Official sequel to Daniel vs. Palestinian lions den. In their own words

Awash in an ocean of public bias against Israel, one young-man’s determination sparks a resurgence of Zionist pride and self-assertion. A look inside the media phenomenon of “Daniel confronting the Palestinian lions’ den”

Daniel’s own version of the events of his brave march through the anti-Zion, lions’ den- and the resulting rally which he inspired. Other participants tell their perspectives from the events, including the Palestinian-Americans, a police officer, and an orthodox rabbi.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSyFljfktyk

Watch the first video on “the Lone Daniel in the Lions Den” here.

Hamas Calls for the Destruction and Delegitimization of the State of Israel

Crethi Plethi — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:28:11 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Sun, July 11, 2010 | Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Khaled Mashaal

Senior Hamas figures, especially Khaled Mashaal, reveal their intention to exploit the flotilla as part of their campaign to delegitimize Israel, continuing their commitment to jihad. They reject the Israeli easing of restrictions and make it clear that their priority is not humanitarian assistance for the Gaza Strip.

1. Senior Hamas figures have represented the affair of the last flotilla as an important political-propaganda victory which not only damaged Israeli-Turkish relations but made a genuine change in the way the international community regarded Israel. However, Hamas is apprehensive lest Israel’s easing of restrictions strengthens international understanding for its motives and increase pressure on the Hamas movement.

2. Statements made by Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, and of other senior Hamas figures, present two objectives, one practical and the other political-strategic:

A. Practically speaking, Hamas wants the complete lifting of the so-called siege, meaning goods would enter and exit the Gaza Strip according to Hamas’s conditions and rules: opening the crossings to the uninterrupted passage of all types of merchandise, including those with military use, banned by Israel; Hamas supervision of the goods entering the Gaza Strip; marginalizing the role of the Palestinian Authority making it easier to smuggle weapons in the future; opening the sea lanes to the Gaza Strip; and opening a route between Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip, which would facilitate smuggling weapons. As far as Hamas is concerned, imposing its own rules would strengthen its control over the Gaza Strip at the expense of the Palestinian Authority and promote the continuation of its military buildup.

B. Ideologically and strategically speaking, Hamas wants to exploit the recent events and enlist Arab-Muslim and international support for the flotilla as an expression of what Khaled Mashaal calls “the beginning of the end of Israel.” As far as Hamas is concerned, the world has begun to understand that Israel is a “heavy weight on the interests of both East and West.” Therefore, preference should be given to the campaign to delegitimize Israel and to enlisting the Arab-Muslim world and all the other “lovers of freedom all over the world.” For Hamas, important means to promote the campaign are organizing more flotillas (with much larger numbers of passengers), suing Israel in courts of law, boycotting Israel and holding protest demonstrations and marches (“The flotilla did more for the Gaza Strip than 10,000 rockets.”). Khaled Mashaal, speaking in Arabic on June 28 and in total contrast to his attempts to represent himself as a moderate in interviews in English and before Western audiences, stressed Hamas’ commitment to jihad and the destruction of Israel. He did not mention the need for the humanitarian assistance of the flotillas.

3. While the Palestinian Authority also does not consider the Israel announcement about easing the restrictions on goods allowed into the Gaza Strip as the end of the affair, it wants to prevent Hamas from exploiting the flotilla to become stronger at the expense of the PA. Therefore, senior PA figures demanded additional concessions from Israel (including that the “blockade” be completely lifted and an arrangement instituted for goods to be transported from the Gaza Strip to Judea and Samaria). However on the other, they also demanded a PA presence at the crossings in accordance with the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access.

4. The Egyptian foreign minister said that the Agreement was “the most logical means” for lifting the so-called siege of the Gaza Strip, but that he doubted whether it could be implemented, in view of the difficulty of achieving a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Khaled Mashaal blamed the Palestinian Authority for its attitude toward “breaking the siege,” which he called “not serious,” saying that the Palestinian Authority wanted the siege to continue as a way of exerting pressure on Hamas.

Appendix I

Khaled Mashaal calls for the destruction and delegitimization of the State of Israel (“the Zionist entity”), through various “popular activities,” such as flotillas

1. On June 28, 2010, Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, gave a speech in which he discussed several topics at length, including the issue of the flotillas and their place in the campaign to delegitimize Israel.^[1] He did not mention one word about the “humanitarian” need for the flotillas, on the basis of which human rights activists around the world have been recruited.

2. He made the following remarks (Al-Aqsa TV, June 28, 2010).

A. The campaign to delegitimize Israel: “Today we have to focus on a way to remove the spurious legitimacy the world gave to the Zionist entity. Israel is illegitimate because it was founded on the illegal occupation of our Palestinian and Arab land. Today the conscience of the world has awakened.”

B. Giving priority to delegitimizing Israel: “Today we—the Palestinians, Arabs Muslims and freedom-loving peoples of the world—have to focus on the following priorities: delegitimizing Israel and maximizing the exploitation of the rage of the world against Israel so that Israel knows the region and the world will vomit it out [sic]…”

C. The nature of the struggle against Israel and objection to negotiations with it: “…Negotiations with Israel only improve its image without the Palestinians’ getting anything in return. The clash with Israel [is carried out] through war, the resistance [i.e., terrorist campaign] and battle or mass action such as flotillas. [It is also carried out by] those who demonstrate solidarity against the fence and the settlements [i.e., "popular resistance" of the sort exhibited at Ni’lin and Bila’in] and the way the confrontation is conducted in Jerusalem – within the clash Israel is the one which exposes the extent of its crimes…”

D. The end of relations between the Arab countries and Israel: “…It is illogical that the world is furious with Israel and that some of us continue to be Israel’s friends and continue to maintain relations with it and trust it…”

E. Recent events signify the beginning of Israel’s end: “…We challenge Israel in the region and the world has begin to be angry with it, and therefore I say that Israel has begun the countdown to its end, with the help of Allah. However there is still a need for struggle, jihad, deeds and sacrifice.”

F. All Jerusalem must be under Arab rule: “As for Jerusalem, we want it to be unified by not under the [Israeli] occupation but under the Arab-Islamic flag, with the help of Allah. Jerusalem will be exclusively Arab…”

G. “Breaking the siege of the Gaza Strip” with more flotillas: “…Breaking the siege is a priority and we must compel it by all means, including new flotillas which will be organized in the coming weeks and months, with the help of Allah…I call on the Arab and Muslim people and other lovers of freedom in the world to multiply the number of participants…Together with us, all freedom-loving people around the world have begun to understand how much of a curse Israel is to the world, to its security and interests, and to what extent it is a heavy burden on the interests of both West and East.”

H. Preferring the path of resistance [i.e., violence and terrorism] to negotiations in the confrontation with Israel and in other battle zones: “…A day or two ago we heard that the British insist on urgent negotiations with the Taliban. What a surprise. The fighting and struggle on the ground are what determine the balance of power at the [negotiating] table. That is the message for the political negotiator [i.e., Mahmoud Abbas] and the Arab leaders who support him in direct and indirect negotiations…This is a historic moment, today, after the success of the resistance, which made achievements in Lebanon and Gaza and embarrassed the invading forces in Iraq and now in Afghanistan. Today the path we can rely on is the path of resistance…When we decide our priorities we must insist on the resistance, liberation, our rights, our land, Jerusalem, the right of return, breaking the siege of the Gaza Strip and on renewing the resistance in the West Bank…”

3. In his speech in Damascus before an Arab target audience, Khaled Mashaal dropped the “smile campaign” Hamas has recently used to win over target audiences in Western countries, and reclarified his known basic principles: the aspiration to destroy Israel, opposition to negotiations and employing the weapon of terrorism [the "resistance"]. As far as Hamas in concerned, the concept of worldwide “popular resistance” with the support of human rights organizations does not replace the path of terrorism. However, as far as Hamas is concerned, it has proved itself for the time being and therefore Hamas is willing to use it to undermine the State of Israel’s legitimacy.

Appendix II

Hamas reactions to the Israeli government’s decision to ease the restrictions on the Gazans and statements concerning future flotillas

1. Senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Zahar related to the flotillas in an interview with the British Independent (June 28, 2010):

A. He said Israel should expect many more flotillas in the coming months (including some from the Gulf States). He expected, he said, that other ships would sail for the Gaza Strip after the last World Cup game on July 11 and during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (which begins on August 11).

B. He was strongly critical of the boycott the Arab states had imposed on the Gaza Strip for the past four and a half years since Hamas won the elections. However, he expressed satisfaction with the pressure exerted on Israel by the International Quartet to ease the “siege” of the Gaza Strip, calling it “a big change.” The change, he said, resulted from the “popular discontent” of the Arab countries, which was manifested by the flotillas.

2. Hamas activists interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on July 2 said that one of the lessons of the flotilla was the importance of using the tactic of civil disobedience, protest marches, legal suits and boycotting Israel. Aziz Dweik, a member of the Hamas faction of the Palestinian Legislative Council in Judea and Samaria said that “The Gaza flotilla has done more for Gaza than 10,000 rockets.” Salah Bardawil from the Gaza Strip, a Hamas delegate in the Palestinian Legislative Council , said that Hamas had begun to value the importance of international support to gain legitimacy as the representative of the Palestinian people. He said “”Hamas used to believe [international support] was just empty words…Today it is very interested in international delegations…and in bringing Israeli officials to justice through legal proceedings” [ITIC emphasis].

3. Senior Hamas figures were critical of the Israeli government’s announcement that restrictions would be eased:

A. Ismail Haniya, head of the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, said that Hamas rejected Israel’s attempts to “prettify the blockade and strengthen it in a new form.” He said that Hamas strived for a total removal of the siege. He added that Gaza was not alone by virtue of the expressions of solidarity and public opinion, which have led to Israel’s position regarding the siege to be almost at the breaking point (Hamas’ Palestine-info website, June 18, 2010).

B. Ismail Haniya, interviewed by Al-Islam Al-Yawm on June 26, was asked to comment on Israel’s agreeing to allow into the Gaza Strip the humanitarian assistance of the last flotilla. He said that “the basic problem is not the assistance itself, despite its importance and the Palestinians’ need for it, but the issue of the blockade, which we demand to end in its entirety. We refuse to turn the problem into a solely humanitarian issue…” He added that “Israel wants to end the crisis with as little damage [to itself] as possible, and the way it has chosen to do so is by easing the conditions of the blockade.”

C. Taher al-Nunu, spokesman for the de facto Hamas administration, said that Israel was trying to fool the world, and called the decision to ease the restrictions “throwing sand in the eyes [of the world].” He repeated Hamas’ demand for a complete end to the blockade, including the restrictions on the entrance of building materials, and not for easing restrictions (Safa News Agency, June 17, 2010).

4. Jamal al-Khudari, head of Hamas’ Popular Committee to Break the Siege (and who is in contact with Hamas-supporting organizations and activists around the world), also criticized Israel’s decision. He claimed that the Gaza Strip needed 800 truckloads a day, not the 100 Israel has been sending in. He said that lifting the siege had four stages: opening the crossings into the Gaza Strip, allowing all types of merchandise in (including raw and building materials), opening a route for Palestinians between the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria, and opening sea lanes under international inspection (Popular Committee to Break the Siege website, June 20, 2010). On another occasion he called for an Islamic conference in Damascus to decide on an “intifada of ships” to the Gaza Strip as a means of breaking the “siege” (Qudsnet website, June 29, 2010).

Appendix III

The Essence of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access

1. The Agreement on Movement and Access, known as the crossings agreement, was signed by Israel and the Palestinians on November 15, 2005, after Israel’s unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and with the prodding of International Quartet representative James Wolfensohn and the American administration. At the same time an Agreed Principles for the Rafah Crossing agreement was signed, which dealt in detail with that crossing. According to the agreement the Rafah crossing would be operated by Egypt and the Palestinian Authority under European Union supervision. It stated that a joint Israeli-Palestinian coordination room would receive video images and other data in real time to make it possible to monitor the implementation of the agreement. It also determined contacts between the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria, and called on Israel not to interfere with the operation of the port. It mentioned that the importance of building an airfield had been agreed on, and that talks would continue concerning its security arrangements.

2. Implementing the agreement was abandoned after Hamas’ violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, which involved the suppression of the security services which supported Mahmoud Abbas, including those which were supposed to oversee the Rafah and Gaza Strip-Israel crossings. Hamas’ military buildup and the massive rocket attack which preceded Operation Cast Lead also contributed to making the Agreement on Movement and Access redundant.

Note:

1 The speech was given in Damascus to an audience of senior Hamas figures as part of a conference entitled “The student movement among prisoners in occupation jails and its role in defending Jerusalem and national Palestinian project.”

France Banning Al-Aqsa TV for Inciting Hatred and Encouraging Terrorism

Crethi Plethi — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:30:08 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Sun, July 11, 2010 | Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

The French government is banning Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV for inciting hatred and encouraging terrorism. Hamas denounced the French government’s decision, saying that the shutdown of its channel was an assault on the freedom of speech.

Overview

Al-Aqsa TV’s campaign against France’s ban of its broadcasts (Al-Aqsa TV website, July 5, 2010)

1. On July 7, 2010, the French government instructed its broadcasting authority to take Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV off the air. The satellite channel was broadcast on Eutelsat, a French satellite company headquartered in Paris. French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said that the instruction was given when France received a warning from the European Commission that the channel repeatedly violated European laws by showing programs which incited hatred or violence for reasons of religion or nationality, mostly against Israel and Judaism (AFP, June 7).

2. In the past, the French government took similar measures against Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV and Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV, motivated by the anti-Israeli (and anti-Jewish) incitement and support of terrorism on those channels. The French government believes that the hatred and incitement to terrorism trickle down to local Muslim populations in France and in other European countries. It is, therefore, our assessment that the current ban as well as the previous measures taken by the French government must also be considered within the context of France’s internal considerations.

3. France’s Eutelsat said it would comply with the European Commission’s request, “but that it had to go through several technical and contractual steps before it could turn off the Al-Aqsa TV stream” (Wall Street Journal, June 10). Eutelsat also informed Al-Aqsa TV that it would stop broadcasting the channel via its satellites within several days. Hamas denounced the decision, saying it would lose most of its target audience as a result. Hamas has launched a propaganda campaign calling on ministers of telecommunications and information in Arab countries to take action. The management of Al-Aqsa TV released an announcement saying that it holds the government of France responsible for the decision and its consequences, and calling on it to reconsider.

4. On March 18, 2010, the US Treasury Department designated Al-Aqsa TV as a terrorism-financing organization. It also appears on the European Union’s list of terrorist organization. However, despite the restrictions imposed on the channel’s broadcasts, Al-Aqsa TV is still broadcast by other (Arab) satellite operators and is available online, diminishing the effectiveness of the French resolution.

Satellite operators’ responses to the French government’s order

5. Al-Aqsa TV is broadcast via Noorsat, a company which uses the satellites of the French Eutelsat to broadcast to European countries. The French company has no direct contract with Al-Aqsa TV, but rather with Noorsat, which leases satellite-broadcast capacity for channels targeting audiences in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.

6. Following the request from the French government, Eutelsat said it would comply with the European Commission, “but that it had to go through several technical and contractual steps before it could turn off the Al-Aqsa TV stream” (Wall Street Journal, June 10, 2010). On June 14, Noorsat informed the managers of Al-Aqsa TV that it would stop broadcasting the channel via its satellite within 48 hours (Al-Aqsa TV, June 14). This may cause considerable decrease in the availability of the channel in European countries and will make it more difficult for Al-Aqsa TV to broadcast to Arab countries.

7. This is not the first time that France’s satellite provider Eutelsat has been warned by the European Commission. In 2008-2009, the European Commission warned Eutelsat that providing satellite services to Al-Aqsa TV was a violation of French law, prohibiting programs which promote incitement and hatred. It now appears, however, that at the time, the warning did not have any effect on the contents of the programs broadcast on the company’s satellites (AFP, June 7, 2010).^[1] It remains to be seen, therefore, whether the recent order given by the European Commission and the French government will be upheld with any consistency. It can be assumed that Hamas is going to look for ways to circumvent the restrictions imposed on it.

8. Commenting on the announcement of the French government, Eutelsat said that it always complies with the demands of the European Commission. According to Eutelsat, in 2008 and 2009, when it received the European Commission’s report on Al-Aqsa TV, the company contacted its client (Noorsat), the satellite provider responsible for Al-Aqsa TV’s broadcasts, and demanded that the channel conform to the requirements of the EU (AFP, June 7). Obviously, there has been no significant change in the programs broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV, fed by the radical worldview of Hamas.

Hamas’ reaction

9. Al-Aqsa TV deputy director Muhammad Thuraya reported that the Noorsat company was going to terminate the channel’s broadcasts on June 17. He further added that the decision was motivated by programs inciting hatred. The channel asked for a one-day extension to contact lawyers and international legal professionals in an attempt to reverse the decision. He noted that the decision would cause the channel, which employs 400 people, to lose about 70 percent of its viewers, since Al-Aqsa TV broadcasts on the Arabsat satellite only reach about 30 percent of the viewers (AFP, June 15).

10. The management of Al-Aqsa TV released an announcement saying it is holding the government of France accountable for the decision and its consequences, calling on it to reconsider. An official announcement released by the management of the channel says that the only explanation for the decision is pressure exerted by Israel and the US to suppress public freedom and the freedom of expression. According to the announcement, the decision is not consistent with international broadcast and press laws (Ma’an, June 15, 2010).

11. At the same time, Hamas launched a media campaign against the decision. Al-Aqsa TV broadcast a series of special programs dedicated to the issue of the ban, including interviews with various personalities who condemned the French government’s decision. The Al-Aqsa media network organized a demonstration of journalists in front of the French culture center in Gaza City. The demonstration was attended by senior Hamas figure Isma’il Radwan, a member of the Al-Aqsa board, and Khaled al-Batash from the PIJ.

12. The Hamas administration’s information bureau released an announcement saying it considered the decision to be yet another attempt to silence “the channels of resistance which expose Israel’s crimes”, wondering at the fact that the decision was made by France, a country which prides itself on being the birthplace of democracy and liberty. The information bureau calls on the council of Arab information ministers to take measures to secure the rights of Arab satellite channels, saying it will send France’s Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA) a letter demanding that the decision be reversed.

13. Hamas activists strongly condemned the decision (Al-Aqsa TV, Radio al-Aqsa, Safa, June 15, 2010):

a. Al-Aqsa TV director Hazem al-Sharawi called on France to reconsider the decision, promising that numerous actions will be taken to exert pressure on France for that purpose. He submitted a letter of protest to a representative of the French consulate in Gaza, who promised to deliver it to the French consulate in Jerusalem.

b. Al-Aqsa TV board member Isma’il Radwan said that the decision exposed France’s false claims on the freedom of press, and that its purpose was to tighten the so-called blockade on the Gaza Strip. According to Radwan, the decision proves that the campaign has become one of propaganda, with Israel attempting to discredit the Al-Aqsa channel by accusing it of inciting anti-Semitism and terrorism.

c. Top Hamas figure Salah al-Bardawil said that France’s decision was “oppressive and racist”, and that its purpose was to cover up “the crimes of the occupation” against the Palestinians and to silence the voice of the free media of the “resistance” which exposes said “crimes”. According to Al-Bardawil, France’s talk of democracy is just a façade. He called on Arab ministers of information to translate their previous resolution against the French decision into practical measures.

d. Youssef al-Manasi, the minister of telecommunications in Hamas’ de-facto administration, said that the decision had no legal or moral justification, and that France bowed to pressure from the US and Israel. He called on Arab ministers of telecommunications and information to take a firm stand on that issue and take measures to ensure freedom of action for Arab media and information institutions.

Appendix

Details on Al-Aqsa TV and satellites broadcasting the channel

14. Al-Aqsa TV is Hamas’ most important TV channel. It started broadcasting in the Gaza Strip on January 9, 2006, after Hamas had won the legislative council elections. Since it was first launched, it has been an instrument for disseminating messages of hatred and incitement against Israel. The channel often airs children’s programs packed with severe incitement against Israel, the Jewish people, and even the West.^[2]

Al-Aqsa TV’s logo

15. Following are examples of messages of hatred broadcast by Al-Aqsa TV, which may influence Arab/Muslim communities in France and elsewhere in Europe:

Anti-Semitic incitement rooted in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Ziyad Abu al-Hajj, Hamas-affiliated preacher who had taken part in an international convention in Spain for religious dialogue, repeating myths taken from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and calling for the genocide of the Jews (Al-Aqsa TV, April 3, courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch)3

Children’s programs full of incitement and hatred

From the Al-Aqsa TV children’s program called “Pioneers of Tomorrow”: Nassur the bear: “We want to slaughter (the Jews) so that they leave our land, right?” (September 22, 2009, courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch)

16. The channel’s broadcasts in Europe are made possible thanks to Noorsat Global Satellite Communication Company, a provider of satellite communications services to the Arab world. It was established in December 2004 as a private enterprise for developing and operating satellite telecommunications networks for the Arab world. The company is headquartered in Bahrain and has offices in Amman. In October 2009, it announced that it had signed a multi-year agreement for leasing telecommunications satellites with Eutelsat, considerably expanding the company’s coverage.

The company’s logo

17. In order to broadcast Al-Aqsa TV in Europe, Noorsat makes use of telecommunications satellites owned by Eutelsat, a French-owned corporation headquartered in Paris. Using those satellites, the channel is broadcast to central and western Europe, home to sizeable Arab and Muslim communities exposed to Hamas’ blatant incitement against Israel and the Jewish people and encouragement of terrorism rooted in Hamas’ radical Islamic ideology.

The corporation’s logo

18. The channel also uses Arabsat and Nilesat, Arab and Egyptian satellites. In addition to the Gaza Strip, the channel can be watched in Judea and Samaria, in the entire territory of Europe, northern Africa, and the Middle East. It is broadcast to Europe via Atlantic Bird 4A, a satellite operated by Eutelsat, a leading satellite provider in Europe and one of the three leading providers in the world. If the latest decision of the French government is put into practice, the channel’s availability in Europe is likely to decline.

Notes:

1 See our January 11, 2009 Information Bulletin: “Terrorism and the media: Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV no longer broadcasts via the European Eurobird satellite.”

2 See our October 8, 2009 Information Bulletin: “Hamas recently broadcast a children’s TV show which specifically called for the slaughter of the Jews. Hamas thus continues brainwashing the children of the Gaza Strip with hatred and the use of violence against Israel and the Jewish people, contradicting the moderate image it tries to market to the West.”

3 See our April 21, 2009 Information Bulletin: “The hate industry: Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV continues its crude anti-Semitic incitement, using The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and calling for the genocide of the Jews. In addition, a book was seized during Operation Cast Lead, rife with anti-Semitism.”

Israeli Arabs Involved in Violent Terrorist Attacks

Crethi Plethi — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:11:02 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Tue, June 29, 2010 | Jerusalem Post | By Yaakov Katz, Yaakov Lappin and Jpost.com

Photo: Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency)

Two Al-Qaida-inspired cells: murdered Jewish cab driver, planning to kidnap soldiers, and planning to murder Christians.

Seven Israeli Arabs allegedly affiliated with al-Qaida and global jihad terrorist elements were indicted on Monday for allegedly murdering a Jewish taxi driver last year and carrying out a string of attacks against Jews and Christians.

In a joint police-Shin Bet operation, Ahmed Ahmed, 21, Jalib Janam, 26, Wassim Allam, 23, Khidar Ziddana, 22, Ahbed Abu-Salim, 19, Adi Azzam, 23, and Oman Kakhibi, 22, all Nazareth residents, were arrested between May 11 and June 21. All seven were indicted Monday at the Haifa district court.

“This is one of the most dangerous cells we have ever uncovered,” Dep.-Cmdr. Avi Elgrisi, head of the Amakim District police’s Central Unit said Monday. “They accessed the Internet for jihadi ideology and indoctrination, and used it as an information source to listen to extremist clerics,…We are searching for criminals who sold weapons to the suspects,” Elgrisi said. “Security suspects will also be arrested.”

The seven Israeli Arabs had founded a group called Aljahabiyya and claimed to follow Salafism, a radical branch of Sunni Islam. Aljahabiyya was formed two years ago and the suspects confessed to having been inspired by al-Qaida. The group used the Internet to learn about weapons and to download instructions on the manufacture of improvised explosive devices. It also downloaded al- Qaida propaganda movies and speeches by Osama bin Laden.

Three of the suspects, Ahmed, Janam and Zidanna, were allegedly involved in the murder of taxi driver Yafim Weinstein on November 30, 2009. During their interrogations, they confessed to having summoned a taxi to a kibbutz near Nazareth, where one shot Weinstein and the others assisted in disposing of the evidence. Following their arrest, the three reenacted the murder and led investigators to where they had hid the murder weapon.

The Shin Bet also found that after the murder, two of the suspects had attempted to travel to an al-Qaida training camp in Somalia to join the fighting against what they termed Christian “heretics,” as well as against the US. The two, however, were barred from entering Somalia through its border with Kenya.

Three others planned to kidnap a Nazareth resident and behead him on video, but did not do so. Elgrisi said that they had even dug a grave for a Christian man they said “insulted the prophet Muhammad.” The men also threw stun grenades and Molotov cocktails at Jewishand Christian-owned businesses and homes in the town. They burned Christian tour buses and dealt in the selling of arms as well. They also stabbed a pizza delivery man in Nazareth Illit, stealing his scooter and NIS 100.

During a remand hearing held for the suspects at the Nazareth District Court, the suspects smiled and waved at supporters as they were led to the courtroom in handcuffs. Asked by a reporter if they hated Christians and Jews, one suspect replied by declaring “Long live bin Laden.”

In April 2009, Elgrisi led an investigation into a terror cell made up of six Israeli Arabs and a Beduin from the North that had reached an advanced stage in a plot to carry out an attack on Israelis. The cell had prepared several explosive devices and simulated the kidnapping of soldiers while engaging in Internet communications with a terror operative based in Gaza known as “Abu Kassam.”

The cell filmed its preparations, Elgrisi said last year, adding that in one exercise, a member pretended to be an IDF soldier while the remainder of the group practiced abducting him.

The arrests underlines the increasing occurrence of Israeli Arabs being involved in violent terrorist attacks.

Hamas Attacks UN Summer Camp

Crethi Plethi — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:51:05 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Mon, June 28, 2010 | Reuters | Yahoo News | Rubinreport | By Barry Rubin

UN summer camp again attacked by Islamic extremists

Masked men trashed a U.N. summer camp Monday [June 28, 2010], tying up guards and slashing tents and an inflatable pool in the second such attack blamed on suspected extremists in just over a month.

A month earlier, on May 23, 2010, about 20 men, some carrying assault rifles, tore up large plastic tents and burnt storage facilities at a UN summer camp, where tens of thousands of children are due to attend camp sessions, said Ibrahim Elewa, a private guard who was on duty when they struck.

Rival day camps by the United Nations and Gaza’s Islamic militant Hamas rulers compete for the hearts of the next generation, the roughly 700,000 children under 15 who make up nearly half of the Gaza Strip’s population. Hamas camps teach an anti-Israeli doctrine and military-style marching, along with horseback riding, swimming and Islam. U.N. camps try to instill hope in a better future, a message wrapped in fun and games. The U.N. says it hopes to help shield Gaza’s children against the lure of militancy.

“This is another example of the growing levels of extremism in Gaza,” John Ging, the director of operations for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, said in a statement. “The overwhelming use of UNRWA’s Summer Games has once again obviously frustrated those that are intolerant.”

U.N. officials said they don’t know who attacked the recreation facilities but they suspect the vandals are Islamic extremists who object to programs that allow boys and girls to jointly swim, play volleyball, and learn about the arts, theater and other cultural activities.

Hamas is also becoming more assertive in imposing its strict version of Islam on daily life in Gaza. It has ordered male coiffeurs out of women’s salons, and teenage girls are under intense pressure from teachers to wear headscarves and robes in government schools.

Israel’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Daniel Carmon, said that the camp attacks are “another reflection of what Israeli has been saying for years: that the territory is literally occupied by a terrorist organization, Hamas,” that promotes and permits “extremism, terrorism, rockets over Israel and now, attacks against summer camps managed by the international community.”

Hamas attacks UN summer camp for not being a terrorist training camp

By Barry Rubin,

Hamas has twice violently attacked UN summer camps in the Gaza Strip in order to destroy them and intimidate kids from attending them. The goal is to force young people to go to Hamas summer camps where they will be given military and ideological training to teach them to be future terrorists.

The UN actually condemned the attacks and the Hamas regime for fomenting them.

UN officials inspecting a summer camp after the first attack (may 23, 2010)

I’m not complaining about this article—a small drop in the ocean of needed media coverage of Hamas’s repression and extremism—but one sentence caught my eye. The UN, “camps provide a rare distraction from the hardships endured by more than 250,000 Palestinian refugees that live in the Gaza Strip.”

Unlike many others, this article doesn’t blame Israel for all of these problems but it is also worth recalling why refugees still live in camps. Prior to turning over the Gaza Strip to rule by the Palestinian Authority in 1994, Israel at times tried to resettle the refugees in new housing. This step was not only opposed by the PLO—which wanted to keep the refugees in temporary housing until their triumphant return to a Palestine built on the smoldering remains of a destroyed Israel—but by a UN resolution. And so Israel abandoned the effort.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) ruled the Gaza Strip for more than a dozen years and received lavish aid funding, some of it specifically earmarked for new housing. But it was PA policy never to move refugees into new housing, for the same reason as before. Their suffering was good propaganda abroad and also was intended to keep the refugees in a dissatisfied state of mind so they would support continuing the battle until total victory and be willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause.

So why do refugees in the Gaza Strip and West Bank live in refugee camps today? For the same reason that there is no Palestinian state: Because of decisions made by the Palestinian leadership, both nationalist and Islamist.

There is no way anyone can refute these points, they can only ignore them.

The article also repeats another fallacy in referring to Hamas as “the Islamic movement that came to power through elections in 2007 and whose legitimacy the U.N. does not fully recognize….”

In fact, Hamas did not come to rule the Gaza Strip due to elections, which did give it a parliamentary majority, but through a bloody and unprovoked coup against the PA. If it had not seized power, it is likely there would be no embargo against the Gaza Strip today nor would there have been any war last year—with the accompanying destruction and loss of life–caused by a Hamas attack on Israel.

Again, I am not complaining about this specific article, which is far better than most, or about the UN response it reports, which should be far more common, but merely pointing out how difficult it is—and yet how important it is—to understand the context of the Gaza Strip today.

Let me repeat that the Gaza Strip is at present, albeit not internationally recognized as a state, a radical Islamist dictatorship run by a terrorist group seeking genocide, preaching antisemitism, suppressing women, forcing the departure of Christians, teaching its children to become suicide bombers, planning a future war with Israel, likely to subvert Egypt, acting as a client of Iran, and seeking to expel all Western influence from the region.

Any discussion about aiding the regime to stay in power or engaging it diplomatically should start by dealing with the previous paragraph.

About the author,

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood.

No Strategic Rationality in Obama’s Gaza Policy

Crethi Plethi — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:46:18 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Thu, June 24, 2010 | White House Announcement on Gaza Shows the Missing Element: Strategic Rationality | By Barry Rubin

Mahmoud Abbas (PA) with Barack Hussein Obama

“As a general rule, you should assume that the more unlikely the action I lay upon this stage for you, the more likely it is that I have evidence of its having happened.” –Clive Barker, Galilee.

Everyone will probably view the just-released official document, “White House on Israel’s Announcement on Gaza,” as purely routine government rhetoric that means nothing. But that just shows how much people have become used to taking for granted the lack of any strategic sense in this U.S. government.

The June 20 White House statement opens thusly:

“The President has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and has made clear that it demands fundamental change.”

One would expect that a rational policy would use the words “unsustainable” and “demands fundamental change” to mean that the president demands the overthrow of Hamas. In fact, it signifies the exact opposite: he demands the stabilization of that regime.

The statement continues:

“On June 9, [Obama] announced that the United States was moving forward with $400 million in initiatives and commitments for the West Bank and Gaza. The President described these projects as a down payment on the U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank.”

Just think of the calm insanity of that paragraph. The United States is going to pump money into Gaza. That money is a “down payment on the U.S. commitment,” that is, it is not an act of generosity for which the United States deserves to get something in return. No, the phrasing makes it seem that the United States owes them the money.

Moreover, giving this money does not really advance the cause of building a Palestinian state but retards it by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel, and against a two-state solution.

Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the Palestinian Authority. The people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank will build a state, says the statement. Couldn’t the administration even have said that the state would be built in the context of the Oslo accords or under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority?

This is truly amazing. There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: nothing said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel’s existence or returning to recognition of the Palestinian Authority’s rule as the legitimate government. The statement is unconditional, absolutely unconditional. Only the “humanitarian” consideration counts, as if the U.S. government is a community organizer organizing a food stamp program.

In seeking an analogy to this abdication of strategy and politics, it would be like the United States making a commitment to help the people of North Vietnam during the Vietnam war or North Korea during the Korean war by pouring in money and goods unconditionally, saying this would help lead to a moderate unified state.

Doesn’t who governs the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing, terrorist, and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter a bit?

The announcement continued by welcoming Israel’s new policy as something that

“should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons.”

In other words, the United States has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the U.S. approach.

Meanwhile, the White House makes clear that Israel’s concessions aren’t sufficient.

“There is more to be done, and the President looks forward to discussing this new policy, and additional steps, with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his visit to Washington on July 6.”

So the U.S. government wants the Hamas-ruled statelet to get even more. Blandly but incredibly, the statement continues:

“We will work…to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank.”

Now while it is true that this could mean supporters of the Palestinian Authority will be able to go to Gaza and have more influence, what it will mean in practice is that Hamas militants (including bomb-makers and agitators) will be more able to get into the West Bank. Though Israel will no doubt closely vet those who pass between the two areas, will it then be accused of inhibiting Palestinian “freedom of movement”?

Of course, there is the requisite paragraph voicing support for Israel, but note that it gives nothing more to Israel whatsoever:

“We strongly re-affirm Israel’s right to self-defense, and our commitment to work with Israel and our international partners to prevent the illicit trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza. As we approach the fourth anniversary of the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, we call again for his immediate release, and condemn the inhumane conditions of his detention.”

Did anyone in the administration think of conditioning the easing of the embargo and the U.S. aid on Shalit’s release? Of course not.

The statement adds:

“We believe that the implementation of the policy announced by the Government of Israel today should improve life for the people of Gaza, and we will continue to support that effort going forward.”

But wait a minute. If this further entrenches a terrorist, repressive regime will that “improve life” for the people of Gaza?

And the statement ends:

“We urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. There is no need for unnecessary confrontations, and we call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza.”

Of course, all of this won’t discourage the flotilla ships which will continue to sail and at times will seek confrontation. After all, if confrontation results in gaining such victories why should anyone dismiss them as “unnecessary?” And finally note the veiled hint about all parties acting responsibly. The administration won’t even come out openly to demand that Hamas lets in goods and doesn’t steal them!

So in this statement there is not one word–not one word–of direct criticism of Hamas. And there is no hint that any thought has been given about the strategic implications of accepting a Hamas regime and allowing it to normalize the economic situation even while it is creating a nightmare political and social situation for Gazans.

Let’s assume the administration had the same goals but went about it with a different rhetoric. It would condemn Hamas extensively but then say that, of course, it should not be able to hold the people in Gaza as hostages and that they should not suffer just because they are ruled by a terrible dictatorship. The statement could look forward to the day when they are liberated from these extremist, repressive rulers. I’m not saying this is my preferred policy but it is a far better way the Obama Administration could implement its own wishes.

In other words, the administration could have played it this way: Hamas is our enemy; the people of Gaza are our friends. We don’t want you to suffer. We want you to get rid of Hamas, join with the PA, and make a lasting peace with Israel. If you are moderate and abandon terrorism, you will be better off and get your own state through negotiations with Israel. But that is not the strategic line taken.

Yes, it is incredible. The Obama Administration refuses to criticize Hamas in its own statement. Why? Is it afraid that the need to send money and goods into the Gaza Strip is so great that no offense can be given to Hamas lest the regime would refuse these concessions?

In this bland little White House statement we see the policy insanity of the current U.S. government. Again, as problemmatic as the president’s goal is–reducing the sanctions against the Gaza Strip–the real craziness is in the way it is being conceived, explained, and implemented.

About the author,

Portrait of Bulent Yildirim: a Radical Islamic Fundamentalist

Crethi Plethi — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:31:57 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Wed, June 23, 2010 | Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

IHH head Bülent Yildirim

Portrait of Bülent Yildirim, leader of the radical Islamic Turkish IHH and his central role in preparing the aid convoy and violent confrontation with the IDF

Overview

Bülent Fahmi Yildirim, 44, was born in Erzurum, Turkey, and studied law at Istanbul University. Today he lives in Istanbul and practices law. He is married and has four children. In 1995 the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina prompted him to help found IHH with the primary intention of providing humanitarian assistance to the battle zones.^[1] He eventually came to lead the organization. In the past IHH has been involved in providing logistic support for global jihad and terrorist networks in the Middle East and beyond. Bülent Yildirim’s name was also mentioned in the past as providing support for the global jihad.

A study carried out by an American expert named Evan Kohlman examined the links between IHH and the global jihad. It indicated, among other things, that in the mid-90s Bülent Yildirim was involved in recruiting ex-military personnel and sending them to battle zones in Muslim countries to gain experience (Page 11 of the study). Between 2002 and 2004 Bülent Yildirim played a key role in inciting Turkish Muslims to anti-Americanism in the issue of the war in Iraq (Page 12 of the study).^[2]

Bülent Yildirim is firmly attached to the Islamic regime of Erdogan, who was involved in IHH preparations for the flotilla. During the voyage Bülent Yildirim was on board the Mavi Marmara and played a key role in directing the IHH operatives’ preparations for a violent confrontation with the IDF and in inciting them to violence with fiery speeches. He also ordered the operatives not to allow IDF soldiers on board the ship and to throw those who managed to board into the sea.

Yildirim’s role in organizing the flotilla

Bülent Yildirim was the moving spirit behind the last flotilla and the most senior figure to accompany it on its journey. It began with purchasing the ship, organizing contributions and drawing up a list of passengers. Organizing the flotilla necessitated a long series of preparations and a vast organizational system which maintained contact with hundreds of organizations and operatives around the globe, most of them affiliated with radical Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood, and some of them pro-Palestinian from Western relief organizations.

It was not the first time Yildirim was involved in support for the Gaza Strip. In January 2010 he was responsible for organizing the Turkish section of the Viva Palestina convoy organized in London by a former British MP, the pro-Palestinian George Galloway. The Egyptians stopped the convoy and did not let most of its participants enter the Gaza Strip, and only some of them succeeded in reaching it.

Yildirim has very close ties with the highest echelons of the Turkish government, especially Tayyip Erdogan, who gave the government’s blessing to the flotilla and according to all accounts helped organize it. Additional evidence for the ties were found in a letter in one of the lap top computers on board the Mavi Marmara. It was written by Bülent Yildirim to Turkish President Abdullah Gül and requested the release of IHH operative Izzam Shahin from an Israeli jail.^[3]

Yildirim’s ties with Hamas

IHH, headed by Bülent Yildirim, has close ties with Hamas and also provides it with funding. To further its activity with Hamas it established a branch in the Gaza Strip headed by IHH operative Muhammad Kaya. In January 2009 Bülent Yildirim met with Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus. Mashaal thanked him for his organization’s support for Hamas.

Bülent Yildirim (left) and Khaled Mashaal (www.spittoon.org, January 2009)

In February 2009, after Operation Cast Lead, Yildirim visited the Gaza Strip and met with Ismail Haniya, head of the de facto Hamas administration. During his visit he attended a rally in the Gaza Strip in support of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, who criticized Operation Cast Lead at the Davos Convention.

Yildirim visited the Gaza Strip again in January 2010 as part of the Viva Palestina convoy. During his visit he met with Ismail Haniya. Haniya gave Yildirim a letter for Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, inviting him to visit the Gaza Strip. At the meeting Yildirim stated that he intended to visit the Gaza Strip again with ships to render the “siege” superfluous (www.worldbulletin.net, January 7, 2010). At the end of January 2010 Muhammad Sawalha, a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood activist in Britain, announced his intention to send another aid convoy to the Gaza Strip by sea to confront Israel and not Egypt (having learned the lesson of the Viva Palestina affair).

Bülent Yildirim and de facto Hamas administration head Ismail Haniya

Preparations for the flotilla

Senior IHH personnel dealt with the practical preparations for the flotilla, in our assessment with the coordination and collaboration of senior figures in the Turkish government. Apparently most of the practical coordination and logistical preparations were carried out by Yavus Dede, Yildirim’s deputy, and not by Yildirim himself. The preparations included purchasing the passenger ship Mavi Marmara and two cargo ships, in our assessment with the support and funding of the Turkish government.

On the eve of the flotilla’s sailing, Bülent Yildirim often delivered fiery speeches about the activists’ determination to reach the Gaza Strip, which included propaganda attacks on Israel (See Appendix). At the same time IHH operatives made practical preparations for the violent confrontation with the IDF which were kept secret from the other participants in the flotilla’s “coalition.” On May 16, 2010, about two weeks before the ships set sail, a meeting was held in Istanbul attended by representatives of the “coalition” of the six groups and organizations which had organized the flotilla. At that meeting IHH was represented by Yildirim’s deputy, Yavuz Dede, not Yildirim himself.

As opposed to the hard core of IHH operatives who boarded the ship in Istanbul, Yildirim boarded in Antalya with other senior IHH figures and most of the flotilla’s activists.

Briefing the operatives and fiery speeches made by Bülent Yildirim during the voyage

During the voyage itself Bülent Yildirim had practical control of the Mavi Marmara and in fact of the entire flotilla. He prepared the operatives for battle, briefed them before the confrontation and ordered them to fight the IDF soldiers. In our assessment he was in continuous contact with the organization’s land command, where his deputy was in charge (and possibly with representatives of other organizations).

Evidence photographed aboard the Mavi Marmara documenting the voyage shows that a group of IHH operatives headed by Bülent Yildirim was the dominant factor controlling everything that occurred on board. The operatives all wore vests with stickers identifying them as “crew,” which apparently enabled them to pass freely throughout the ship (while the movements of the ordinary passengers were limited). Most of the time the operatives were on the upper deck.

Bülent Yildirim and other senior IHH figures apparently kept to a designated area guarded by two IHH operatives in the media situation room on the lower deck. The area contained an editing room and the ship’s computer security cameras. When the IDF soldiers entered the area they found large sums of money scattered around.

During the voyage the activists aboard the Mavi Marmara, especially the hard core of IHH operatives, received ideological and religious indoctrination from Bülent Yildirim and other Islamists, such as Arab Israeli sheikh Ra’ed Salah and Egyptian Dr. al-Baltagi, a Muslim Brotherhood representative in the Egyptian Parliament.

A video found on board, apparently taken by one of the photographers documenting the events on the upper deck, shows a meeting of operatives (most likely the IHH hard core operatives). The meeting was held during the day, apparently close to the time of the confrontation. The main speaker was Bülent Yildirim, who incited his audience and encouraged them for a possible confrontation with IDF forces. He stated that if Israel lowered commandos onto the ship the operatives should throw them down and humiliate Israel before the eyes of the entire world.^[4]

During the voyage Bülent Yildirim was frequently interviewed by the media. In one interview he was photographed holding a small child. When asked about possible violence with Israel he said that the youngest passenger aboard the ship was one year old and that there were people in their 80s. He added that although their resistance would be non-violent, they would not allow Israeli soldiers to board the ship (IHH official website, May 29, 2010). The flotilla’s organizers wanted the confrontation with the Israeli Navy to take place during the day so that the media could document it and transmit it to the international media (Al-Jazeera TV, May 29; interview with the IHH’s open channel, May 30, 2010).

The last briefing before the confrontation with IDF forces

In the hours before the IDF takeover of the ship Yildirim conducted preparations for the confrontation. Two hours before it (and after the Israeli Navy had hailed the ships) a kind of media situation room was set up. In addition, Bülent Yildirim briefed the hard core operatives who were supposed to confront the IDF on the upper deck. He instructed them to make a human chain and throw the soldiers back into the sea with chairs and iron bars. According to statements from IDF soldiers and visual material seized on board the Mavi Marmara, in practice the instructions were followed.

Yildirim questioned in Israel

During the takeover of the ship Bülent Yildirim was detained by IDF forces, brought to Israel, questioned, released (along with the other passengers) and sent back to Turkey. Under questioning he denied that the operatives had been organized for violence and that weapons had been prepared. He said that if there had been violence on the part of the passengers it was spontaneous and made use only of “available objects” (the vast amount of evidence in Israeli possession unequivocally proves that the version provided by Yildirim is not true).

Yildirim’s statements after returning to Istanbul

As opposed to what he said during questioning, interviewed after his return to Turkey he did not contradict the fact that he and his men had used violence in dealing with the IDF soldiers and he even had a “legal” explanation. On June 4, 2010, the Turkish newspaper Zaman wrote that when Yildirim returned to Turkey he told newspapermen at the Ataturk airport in Istanbul that the Israeli investigators had asked him if he and his men had attacked the soldiers with iron bars and axes. He said that “we did what we did in self-defense,” adding that “first our comrades neutralized ten soldiers. Yes, we took their guns away from them. You are considered legally innocent if you take a weapon away from someone who attacks you.” He also said that they threw the guns they took from the soldiers into the sea (Todayzaman.com, June 4, 2010).

Bülent Yildirim holds a press conference after returning to Turkey (Zaman website, June 4, 2010)

Appendix

Selected remarks by Bülent Yildirim (to the media and to
IHH operatives aboard the Mavi Marmara)

1. The flotilla would be a “test” for Israel. He said that if Israel opposed it, it would be considered “a declaration of war” on the countries to which the activists on board belonged (Press conference in Istanbul, April 7, 2010).

2. He advised Israel to take care in conducting the crisis. If Israel prevented the activity of the ship, it would remain isolated in the world and harm itself (Yildirim to Israel at the sailing of the Mavi Marmara from Antalya, May 23, 2010).

3. “We are determined to enter Gaza, regardless of what happens” (During a press conference in Antalya before the ships set sail).

4. He said that children were brought aboard to prevent Israel from attacking the ship. He added that the organizers of the flotilla were in no hurry to set sail and were waiting for the right time, and perhaps in the meantime Israel “would begin thinking logically” (Interview aboard the ship, May 30, 2010).

5. “Form a human chain and throw the IDF soldiers back into the sea using chairs and iron bars” (Briefing the operatives on the upper deck before the IDF took control of the ship).

6. “The time before morning,” he said, “will be a war of nerves. There are passengers from more than 50 countries aboard, and if we are stopped the honor of 50 countries will be sullied. We want the entrance of the Israeli embassies in Istanbul and Ankara locked, and we will protect themselves on board the ship. We know there is a price and we are willing to pay it. We will not retreat one step. Israel is acting like a pirate in international waters. Will the world look on from the side?” (Press conference held during preparations for the confrontation with the IDF).

7. In a speech held during the voyage he said the following about Israel: “They are so weak that for the past four or five days they have been making propaganda against us and our flotilla. They see themselves as governing, but in reality they do not. Now they say that they will send the fleet [against us], that they will send in their commando and we tell them, if you send in the commando, we will throw you down from here and you will be humiliated before the whole world…” (From a video found aboard the Mavi Marmara).

Notes:

[1] The organization was actually founded in 1992 but was officially registered in 1995.

[2] See The Role of Islamic Charities in International Terrorist Recruitment and Financing.

[3] Izat Shahin is an IHH operative who was sent to establish an IHH branch in Judea and Samaria. His main activity was transferring funds to Hamas “charitable societies.” He was detained for questioning in April 2010 and later deported at an official Turkish request.

[4] For further information see the June 20, 2010 post, at “Update on IHH Incitement Video“.

McChrystal and the Near-Disastrous Situation With the American Leadership

Crethi Plethi — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:07:00 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Tue, June 22, 2010 | The Problem Isn’t McChrystal’s But That McChrystal (On Administration, Not Afghanistan) Is Right | by Barry Rubin

U.S. President Obama during a conversation with General Stanley McChrystal (the president's airplane "the Air Force One")

The Problem Isn’t McChrystal’s But That McChrystal (On Administration, Not Afghanistan) Is Right

There are two ways of looking at General Stanley McChrystal’s interviews with Rolling Stone magazine: one is to focus on whether he should have said such things, the other is to analyze the important truths he unveiled. Here, I’m going to look at the latter and, following my usual practice, I’ve actually read the article and will base myself on the text.

But first, think about it: the general pointed out the near-disastrous situation with American leadership today. An increasing number of people know that he’s correct in his assessment. Isn’t that what’s really important?

Incidentally, the Obama Administration has been pretty tight about leaks, so there has been less news about infighting and incompetence than usual, not to mention that much of the media has protected it from exposures and criticisms. So McChrystal hasn’t just given us some blunt-worded reactions but a peak into what’s really happening.

On its cover, Rolling Stone called him, “The Runaway General,” saying he is carefully watching “the wimps in the White House.” Coming from Rolling Stone, this phrase is presumably intended to mock the general. To anyone who cares about U.S. security, however, it rings true, a warning rather than a whining.

Thus, Michael Hastings has written an article important not for back-biting gossip about who doesn’t like who but because it tells a lot about the looming tragedy on the ground in Afghanistan and the loony situation in the goverment in Washington.

Let me digress for a moment. At a conference in Europe, I heard a pompous Washington type who knew nothing about the military or Afghanistan give a wordy speech about how great things were going there and how the idea of democratizing and stabilizing that country was just a grand idea.

After he finished his boring oration, an Afghan friend of mine, a veteran of the U.S. military and years of analyzing that country for the U.S. government, stood up and tore him apart, citing corruption, incompetence, the reality of warlord rule, and lots more in the greatest detail. My friend certainly wanted to see his country become a modern democratic state with stability and high living standards. But he had no illusions that this was going to happen, especially under American auspices.

One of the most devastating points in Hastings’ article is one whose huge significance the author himself doesn’t seem to notice. In passing, he mocks the Afghan war effort as “the exclusive property of the United States” because all of its allies have opted out. Yet doesn’t this mean that President Barack Obama’s apparent popularity with Europe is meaningless? After all, Obama has made this his war and if he cannot get any ally to support the campaign that is a devastating outcome.

At the other extreme, the most noticed point in the article was Hastings’ quote from one of the general’s top aides saying that in meeting with the generals, Obama seemed ill-prepared and disengaged. Does this surprise you? Do you doubt that it is true? What, then, is the proper reaction, to feel that McChrystal and his staff have big mouths or to be worried about the tininess of the president’s experience, knowledge, interest, focus, and decisiveness?

Having said all that, I agree with McChrystal’s critics that his doctrine of coupling counterinsurgency with a U.S. military mission to rebuild the country and society is a terrible mistake. My view is that U.S. forces should focus on damaging the enemy on the battlefield to the maxium extent possible, training local forces, and withdrawing as quickly as possible to let the Afghan army fight the war with a reasonable amount of American supplies and continued training.

Of course, the key problem is to define what “as quickly as possible” means. I’m sure that McChrystal knows far more about military issues than I do but figure that I know more about Middle Eastern politics and societies than he does. The idea that the United States is going to remake a country like Iraq or Afghanistan is as foolish as the idea that the United States can moderate regimes like Syria, Iran, or Hamas. The former is the folly of part of the contemporary right, now embraced by the Obama Administration solely in Afghanistan; the latter is the folly of the left, embraced by the Obama Administration pretty much everywhere else.

My sympathy is with my Afghan friend and also with U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Eikenberry, also a former general, who warns that the Afghan government is a weak reed likely to leave the United States holding the bag. In this respect, Afghanistan is a worse place than Iraq or even South Vietnam to wage the kind of war that Obama and McChrystal are fighting. Here, I agree with the author in what is, for me, the key sentence of the article:

“The need to build a credible government puts us at the mercy of whatever tin-pot leader we’ve backed – a danger that Eikenberry explicitly warned about….”

Yet Obama’s Afghanistan strategy—march in the troops and then march them out again based on a timetable known to the Taliban—seems equally flawed and politically motivated. The key element should be the arming, training, and bribing of enough forces in Afghanistan to ensure that the other side doesn’t win.

The article argues that Obama accepted McChrystal’s basic strategy but that still the war is going badly. This lays responsibility for the failure with the White House. It also notes that the policymaking process on the war is chaotic, with no one in clear leadership and lots of people competing for power. This is not only an administration with a bad world view and lots of inexperience plus ignorance, but also with a messed-up process. It is hard to imagine a recipe more likely to produce disaster.

Now, let me pose a suggestion. Read the article but pretend that it is talking about President George W. Bush and his administration. What emerges then is not primarily a “scandal” about the general and his staff saying negative things about the civilian leadership but a warning that U.S. policy—directed by a shortsighted, inept, politically motivated chief executive–is misconceived, badly run, and heading into serious trouble.

This all reminds me of the surprise turnabout in an old Polish joke from the Communist period. During a period when the working class Solidarity movement was rebelling in Poland, the Soviet leader goes to Lenin’s tomb and communes with the dead leader. The reactionaries, he says, are rebelling against Communist rule and demonstrating in the streets. Lenin rises up and says, “Arm the workers!” In other words, those who supposedly should be backing a regime that proclaimed itself to be acting in their interests saw through the pretense and opposed the government.

In this case, the people who would be outraged against mismanagement, terrible decisions, and poor leadership by Bush should wake up and see that they are facing something just as bad and dangerous for America.

The problem isn’t that McChrystal and his entourage bad-mouthed Obama and his entourage, the problem is that they are correct in doing so.

PS: Aside from the points above, I find it an absolute disgrace that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs publicly and officially announced before McChrystal met with Obama that the general’s firing is on the table. This is truly sleazy and unpresidential. Obama should hear McChrystal’s side of the story in a meeting. Afterward, he could fire the general if he wants, But to announce this beforehand is just a way to humiliate and intimidate a man who has long and well served his country.

About the author,