FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Amnesty International (AI), long considered to be severely biased against Israel, is starting to understand that Palestinians can oppress Palestinians. We might say that they almost get it:

The 57-page report, Occupied Palestinian Territories: Torn apart by factional strife, accuses Hamas of resorting increasingly to arbitrary detentions and torture since it took power last June in the Gaza Strip, and of allowing its forces to attack and assault peaceful demonstrators as well as journalists reporting on their protests. In the West Bank, the report blames security forces loyal to Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas of arbitrarily detaining hundreds of Hamas supporters but of failing to take action against Fatah militants responsible for abductions, arson and other attacks. — AI press release

Hmm, I could have written that, except that I would have used the word ‘terrorists’. But it’s not bad. On the other hand, they continue as follows:

Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s Middle East Programme Director [said] “The ongoing factional struggle between Fatah and Hamas is having a dire effect on the lives of Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, compounding and exacerbating the human rights and humanitarian crisis caused by Israeli military campaigns and blockades.” [my emphasis]

So it’s as if Israel is the cause of the problem, and Hamas/Fatah are merely guilty of making it worse! Not so smart, Smart. You are missing the point that the Palestinians have always had the option of stopping terrorist activities (as I write, missiles are falling on Sderot) and thereby putting an end to Israeli actions in self-defense.

And the outrage seems to be primarily generated when Palestinians are the victims of violence. Search the AI database for reports on the Israel and the territories, and you will find some critical of the Palestinians for their behavior towards one another, or for such things as the Alan Johnston kidnapping. You will find literally hundreds critical of Israel in the harshest possible terms (I did find one which evenhandedly criticized Israel and Hamas for civilian casualties in Gaza and Sderot, and one which criticized Hizbullah for the rocket barrage of 2006).

I’ll take AI more seriously when they recognize the long-term Arab project to destroy Israel as a human rights problem.

Technorati Tags: Amnesty International, Palestinians, Israel

Having just written about the International Solidarity Movement [ISM] and noted their concern for international law as well as their desire for Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank, I also note the following news item:

Qassam rockets fired from the Gaza Strip continued to strike southern Israel on Monday, the day’s third barrage brought the total number of rocket strikes to 12.

Two rockets were fired from Gaza at the western Negev late Monday evening. Earlier, shortly after 8 p.m., a barrage of four rockets landed in open territory in the western Negev.

In the afternoon, six rockets were fired at southern Israel. No wounded or damage were reported in any of the attacks. — Jerusalem Post

If anything is forbidden by international law under any circumstances, it’s random shooting into civilian areas.

The other point is this: what do they think they are teaching Israel about the occupation? The lesson seems to be that if you stop occupying a Palestinian area, like Gaza, you will get rockets. Every day.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Gaza, Qassam rockets, ISM

The ‘realists’ in the US foreign policy establishment continue to push for the US to deal with radical Islamic regimes like Syria and Iran, and with terrorist groups like Hamas. So does the EU, and even some US presidential candidates. But it is just the opposite of realistic.

Without illusions

by Barry Rubin

The alternative Western view of Middle East strategy–so influential in academic, media, and to some extent diplomatic circles—has a six-point program that boils down as:

Make deals with Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah; ally with Muslim Brotherhoods; and split Iran and Syria.

The more extreme of those that advocate this approach are sympathetic to these forces, seeing them as more misunderstood victim than aggressive oppressor; the more moderate among them merely think the radicals can be moderated through concessions and confidence-building measures. In other words, they are not really adversaries but either already good guys or can be converted into playing that role.

By this analysis, those who claim these radical regimes and movements are dangerous due to their radical ideology, violent methods, and totalitarian goals are standing in the way of solving issues quickly, painlessly, and peacefully. They are warmongers perpetrating needless conflicts.

(more…)