CNN Cheers on Hamas as They Make Their Own Children Bleed!

We All Saved! CNN has put out a FAQ on Hamas and Israel and their conflict! World Peace is IMMANENT!

Problem:

That FAQ was actually almost MOSTLY objective; but boy is that ‘mostly’ a big one!

Did you notice Virginia, that the author left out the fact that after Hamas won enough of the Gazan elections to control the Strip they violently and illegally ejected all non-Hamas persons of authority from their positions and made Gaza a virtually independent HAMAS territory; while the West Bank remains controlled by a somewhat pseudo-democratic mix of Fatah and Hamas and others?

Their violent conversion of political dominance into dictatorial control in Gaza puts a very different spin on a lot of things that have happened since then!

The author might as well put on a sweater declaring “Hamas, Hamas! RAH! RAH! RAH!”

The tone of the language used about the Palestinians is very neutral, objective and non-judgmental while the language used to describe the actions of Israelis is full of prejudice and filtered through a bigoted lens.

Some Examples

Four years after the last major conflict in the region, Israel and Hamas are once again on the brink of war in Gaza. So what is the group, and what does it hope to achieve by its rocket attacks on Israeli targets?

A psychologist might find it amusing to note that usually, when insider describes something like their political, criminal, or terrorist group for the most part they refer to them with terms like “the group” rather than the more formal names used by outsiders such as “the Catholics” or “the Smith’s” or “the Bronco’s.

Terms like “the Church, “the family” or “the team” are reserved (mostly) for group’s with which the speaker likely self-identifies. Yet here Hamas is referred to as “the group.” It is as though a member of a new Christian cult explaining to you what “the group” was about as opposed to someone telling you about “the Moonies” –  a term that a non-Moonie would use to explain “that group” as opposed to “The Group“; just saying.

After failing to mention any of Hamas’ more ‘unsavory’ activities in the years since its founding the author goes on to say:

Hamas’s refusal to recognize the state of Israel is one reason why it’s been excluded from peace talks. In 1993…

Then it never mentions the bombings, rocket attacks, and relentless television propagandizing on the Palestinian people by Fatah and Hamas; the “FAQ” even fails to notice the recent Palestinian government dedication of a public square in celebration of the mother of several suicide bombers. A woman who expressed the wish that all of her sons would die killing as many Israeli civilians as possible; that occurred in the “moderate: West Bank

Later on we have this gem, remember Virginia that virtually all of the Muslims you see on TV declare that ‘Jihad’ and ‘Holy War’ are not at all the same thing!

However, the founding charter of Hamas, published in 1988, called for jihad, or holy war, and marked a decisive split with the Muslim Brotherhood’s philosophy of nonviolence.

After the FAQ gives paragraph after paragraph of “facts” simply stated regarding Hamas’ actions (All reported in the most neutral tones, whether good or heinous but focused almost solely on the positive) we get this kind of tone about the Israelis:

Israel also accuses Hamas of using civilians in Gaza as a “human shield,” and the territory’s schools and hospitals as a cover for military hardware…”They bury their military infrastructure inside civilian areas,””

Given that everything in the sentence above is an established fact about the tactics Hamas uses regarding civilians, hospitals and children it is hard to understand the sudden change in tone from the Hamas description earlier in the ‘FAQ‘:

Hamas has sections dedicated to religious, military, political and security activities. It runs a social welfare program, and operates a number of schools, hospitals and religious institutions. It also has about 12,500 security personnel.

The FAQ reads like it was written half by an actual moderate seeking to explain facts on the ground and half by an actual member of Hamas; then some utterly clueless CNN suit chose which to include in the limited of space they had for this piece; this FAQ explains nothing but the need for people to go out and look at information for themselves to decided who did what to whom in each case.

GO ISRAEL!

 

Caroline Glick’s Tribal Update Goes English! Response from Malmora Crew

Here is the latest offering from Caroline Glick’s Latma satire site:

First we have the tale of a heroic peace activist facing mind-numbing odds…

 

And here is the full Latma Episode.

 And now!!!! The lastest vid from Latma The Three Terrors… Enjoy!

Finally we have the full tribal Update which included The Three Terrors

Click Here to Purchase Got Jews and other Heretics Crusade Gear

Got Jews They Do a Culture Good Herewtics Crusade Guy DeWhitney

Got Jews? They Do a Culture Good!Wouldn't you Like To Be a Kafir Too?

 think be a kafir

idolator thong heretics crusade guy dewhitney

Got Idolatry?

Hamas MP and cleric lays it on the line

(HH here: This is from Memritv.org a website that takes tv programs from the Middle East and gives them subtitles. It is quite revealing what supposedly moderate Muslims have to say when they are speaking to their own people and not Westerners. I highly recommend registering with Memri and browsing their library.)

Following are excerpts from an address by Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on May 15, 2009

Yunis Al-Astal: It is well known that the Jews are bent on spreading abomination, depravity, and all types of corruption on the face of the Earth. Given that the diseases inflicted by God upon us constitute divine punishment for abomination, crime, and great sins – it is the Jews who are behind most of the abominations. They are the ones who spread obscenity and depravity, as well as brothels, nightclubs, discotheques, cinemas, chalets, casinos, and other devilish dens of temptation. Therefore, people who are afraid of the bestial swine flu should be even more afraid of the measures taken by the Zionist devils, which are more lethal to humanity than pigs.

[…]

Undoubtedly, the great majority of the Jews deserve to be tormented, because they incurred divine wrath, and Allah cursed them many times in the Koran. Therefore, my advice is that we should be more wary of the schemes and conspiracies of the Jews.

[…]

The fact that some countries slaughtered their pigs constitutes a modest measure in confronting this danger, as long as those countries maintain intimate, strong ties with the Zionists, whom Allah has decreed to be the brothers of apes and pigs.

Obama’s ”Solutions” Will Endanger Israel

All Julie Pateet and other political "anthropologists" love terrorists israel 67 73 48 borderSay No To A Palestinian State

Daniel Doron, 05.16.09, 03:00 PM EDT

Irving Kristol said that whomever the Gods want to teach humility they first tempt to resolve the Middle East conflict.

Solving this conflict has been so difficult because it has always been misconstrued. As a result of confusion about the conflict’s nature, the solutions that were nevertheless tried, such as the Oslo agreement establishing the Palestinian Authority, or Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, resulted in costly failures. The suffering of Israelis and Palestinian Arabs increased.

The most common approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, held by the well-connected Peace Now camp, holds that the conflict is about nationhood and territory. It blames Israel for the conflict, claiming Israel’s reluctance to fully withdraw its settlements from the West Bank (it did from Gaza) denies the Palestinian Arabs a contiguous territory and enough living space to assert their sovereignty.

This must be why the Obama administration seems to believe that pressuring Israel to immediately accept a Palestinian Arab state and to withdraw to the 1967 boundaries will bring about peace. Obama seems determined to take serious risks to pursue what he believes is a strategic imperative and a moral duty. Indeed, the two-state solution seems like the decent and rational solution to the conflict. But there are many serious doubts about its feasibility.

Advocates of the two-state solution consider themselves political realists. But they always stress the historical and judicial justification for establishing a Palestinian state. They see it as not only politically necessary but an absolute moral imperative, doing justice to a dispossessed people.

But should not the establishment of such a state–which the Europeans so strongly promote–adhere to the European Union’s 1993 Copenhagen Political Criteria for new members, which states, “Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities”?

Clearly a Palestinian Authority state will not even remotely meet such criteria. What moral justification is there, then, for forcing a vulnerable Israel, threatened by an irredentist Palestinian state, to help establish it when a powerful European Union refuses to take much smaller risks in the case of Turkey?

While Israel has impeded the evolution of Palestinian Arab society toward statehood, it is not the major culprit. Until Oslo, relatively free economic interaction between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs resulted in spectacular economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza. This created an informal peace process that greatly improved Arab life and promoted a Palestinian civil society committed to peace.

But external economic setbacks compounded by increasing Israeli bureaucratic oppression reversed this prosperity. Increasing Arab frustration finally exploded in 1987 in a popular uprising that led to the 1993 Oslo accords. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, a terrorist organization, was invited to set up a Palestinian Authority as a preparation for an independent Palestinian state living in peace beside Israel.

But Arafat’s Authority was not interested in living in peace with Israel; it wanted to destroy it. Arafat gladly sacrificed Palestinian welfare, even lives, for this purpose. Ruining the Arab economy and using a totalitarian propaganda campaign to blame Israel for Palestinian misery, Arafat exploited Arab anger to escalate the conflict.

He succeeded because the conflict between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel is only superficially about nationhood and territory. Since the 1948 partition of Palestine, British Mandate Arabs had several opportunities to create an independent state. Jordan and Egypt ruled the area until 1967; recently, they could have done so after Oslo, after the Gaza withdrawal. But they did not, because they were intent on first destroying Israel.

As long as this is so, granting the Palestinian Arabs a state will not result in peace, but in continued war.

As for the historic and legal claims for a Palestinian Arab state, the argument that the Arabs seek the restoration of “stolen Palestinian lands” is sheer fabrication. The area of the former British mandate of Palestine (which included Jordan) was for centuries under the Ottomans an empty, deserted land.

Private rights never amounted to more than 4% of the land; 96% remains to this day mostly arid and government-owned. Palestine, as Mark Twain found it in 1860, was an empty “prince of desolation.” There was not even a Palestinian people–the few inhabitants considered themselves Syrian.

Palestine became a “promised land” again only after Jewish pioneers, in the second half of the nineteenth century, miraculously revived it, making it the most developed land in the region. It was then also that, as a result of their clash with Zionism, the Arabs started identifying themselves as Palestinians. So much for their “stolen” rights.

The claim that “illegal settlements” are an obstacle to peace is absurd too. Jewish settlements occupy less than 4% of the West Bank territory, mostly constructed on deserted government land. The reason the Arabs want them removed (but not Arab settlements in Israel) is that their radical leadership cannot tolerate any Jews living among them. All Arab lands were ethnically cleansed after 1948, forcing more than 1 million Jews to flee countries in which they had lived long before the Muslim occupation.

The Arabs’ struggle to retrieve “stolen Palestinian lands” is really an attempt to get rid of all Jews in the Middle East. The Palestinian Authority maps of Palestine never mark an area as the state of Israel, and their leaders refuse to recognize the Jewish right for a national state.

International law too does not support Arab claims to a state in former Palestine. The last international adjudication of the rights to this territory took place in the post-World War I peace conference in San Remo, Italy. The victors generously granted the vast former Ottoman territories to newly formed Arab states (like Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq). Less than 1% of these vast territories were to be given in trust to the British to establish “a Jewish national home.”

The League of Nations decided that the Jews had a stronger legal claim to Palestine, their historic and national homeland. The Arabs, represented by Emir Faisal, agreed. They were happy to receive huge areas of land for such a small price. Fiasal welcomed the Jews back to their homeland. Only later British colonial machinations incited the Arabs to renege on this fantastic (for them) deal.

The conflict persists because the Arabs, and the Palestinians in particular, cannot forget their 1948 defeat by the Jews. It is a blot on their honor that only the destruction of Israel can wipe out.

But the greatest difficulty in the immediate establishment of a Palestinian Arab state is the unlikelihood that it can be established and maintained right now. It is not by accident that the Arabs missed several opportunities to establish such a state.

The creation of yet another dysfunctional Palestinian Arab state will not only mortally threaten Israel, its irredentist nature will inflame the region. As importantly, it will continue making the personal and communal life of Palestinian Arabs unbearable. Remember what happened in Gaza after Israel vacated it: the wanton destruction of the hot houses Israel left behind to enable the Gazans to make a better living from agriculture; the rule of oppression and mayhem Hamas has instituted in Gaza; the continued impoverishment and immiseration of their hapless citizens. Is this the kind of government America wants extended to the West Bank?

But this will inevitably happen as a result of the premature formation of a Palestinian state. Within a very short time, it will disintegrate and be taken over by the extremist Hamas movement.

As in Gaza, a Hamas West Bank government, an Iranian proxy, will quickly launch missile attacks against Israel. From the West Bank, however, the missiles will not hit a sparsely inhabited Negev but the densely populated heartland of Israel, the greater Tel Aviv metropolitan area. They will hit Israel’s only links to the world, Ben Gurion International Airport and the ports of Haifa and Ashdod.

Eventually Israel will be forced to go to war and re-occupy the West Bank. Such a campaign, as the recent Israeli Gaza operation demonstrated, will involve bloody fighting in densely populated areas, many casualties and great destruction. It won’t spare the civilian population. … This is surely not what the “realists” want, but can they honestly dismiss the probability that this may happen?

Chances that advocates of a Palestinian state will be convinced by such arguments are small. It is hard to dispel faith with facts. President Obama and his advisers seem convinced that they will succeed where others failed.

Israel may have to accede to Obama’s demands. But since there are great risks involved in the two-state solution, it would be fair for Obama to assure Israel that the U.S. will protect it from its serious consequences, should they unexpectedly materialize, as they have in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Daniel Doron is president of the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progess.

READ IT ALL!!!

Wither thy brain Britain?


BEIRUT (AFP) – Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said Friday his movement would never recognise Israel, rejecting a US precondition for dialogue with the group it considers a terrorist organisation.

“To those who impose conditions on us, we say: We will never recognise Israel,” he said in a speech during celebrations to recognise the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed.

The White House said Tuesday that both Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas and Lebanese militant group Hezbollah must renounce violence and recognise Israel before they can expect even low-level US engagement.

“We reject the American conditions … Today, tomorrow and after 1,000 years and even until the end of time, as long as Hezbollah exists, it will never recognise Israel,” Nasrallah said.

A senior US official said Thursday he was unhappy with a British decision to open low-level contact with Hezbollah and suggested London only indirectly informed the new US administration ahead of time.

Nasrallah also saluted recent moves to smooth over Arab differences, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt seeking to improve ties with Syria, which has supported Hezbollah.

“All Arab reconciliation reinforces us,” he said.

He called for Riyadh and Cairo to “extend a hand” to Iran, Hezbollah’s main backer.

A Hezbollah-led alliance has veto power over major decisions in the current unity government formed in July following a political crisis that brought Lebanon to the brink of civil war.

Legislative elections are set for June 7 in Lebanon.

Hillary Clinton in the Middle East


Mar 5th 2009 | CAIRO AND JERUSALEM
From The Economist print edition

AS THE emissary of a new president ostensibly still in “listening mode”, Hillary Clinton was politesse personified during her first swing as secretary of state through the Middle East this week. Inevitably, however, the locals also listened attentively to their visitor, hoping for clues about the direction of American policy under Barack Obama not only towards Israel and the Palestinians but also towards Syria and Iran. In the event, she gave hints of both change and continuity—reassuring, disappointing or worrying, depending on the point of view of her various audiences.

For Israelis and Palestinians, the message was more continuity than change. Mrs Clinton wants to help Gaza recover from the battering it received during the recent war between Israel and Hamas. She attended an international meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, which promised some $4.5 billion in aid. But, for now, she seems determined to deal only with Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and not with Hamas, even though, despite Israel’s recent onslaught, the Islamists still control Gaza. If Hamas wants to talk, America continues to say, it must recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept previous deals signed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation—the conditions set down not only by America but also by the UN.

Worse from the point of view of Mr Netanyahu may be the new administration’s firm intention to reach out to Syria and Iran, two countries consigned by George Bush to an “axis of evil” but now targets for diplomatic “engagement” if they are willing to unclench their fists. The American State Department announced during Mrs Clinton’s tour that she was sending the most senior American delegation for several years to Syria. This portends trouble in American-Israeli relations. Although many Israelis, including much of the defence establishment, support the idea of peace with Syria, Mr Netanyahu has set his face against paying the inevitable price, namely the return of the Golan Heights, captured in the 1967 war.

America’s approach to Iran so far is warier. Mrs Clinton joined a chorus of local leaders warning Iran to stay out of Arab affairs. Mr Obama, it transpired this week, has written to the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, noting that any reduction in the nuclear threat from Iran would reduce the need for America to deploy a missile-defence system that Russia loathes in eastern Europe. This appears to be an attempt to entice Russia into accepting tougher economic sanctions on Iran—part of the stick Mr Obama intends to brandish if the Iranians fail to grasp his dangled carrot of talks. Israel grumbles that if Iran talks to America at all it will do so just to play for time while perfecting its plans for nuclear weapons.

Mrs Clinton was careful to keep out of Israel’s internal politics. She pledged to work closely with whatever government emerged at the end of Mr Netanyahu’s still fraught coalition-building. But she did reiterate strongly America’s commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, an idea that Mr Netanyahu stolidly refuses to endorse, even though his obstinacy may prevent him from building the broad-based coalition he seeks.

Having encountered a second rebuff from Tzipi Livni in his efforts to form a broad government including her centrist Kadima party, Mr Netanyahu is now wooing Ehud Barak, the Labour leader, who does not conceal his desire to stay on at the defence ministry. But many in Kadima and Labour want nothing to do with Mr Netanyahu unless he accepts the need for a Palestinian state, not just the “economic peace” that he is offering. Mrs Clinton said nothing on her tour to undermine the idea that Israel remains a special friend. But on Gaza, settlements and engagement with Syria and Iran, a pricklier American relationship may now lie ahead.