FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Almost speechless again:

Former Shin Bet (Israeli Security Agency) chief and the prime minister appointee for dealings regarding kidnapped soldiers and other captives, Ofer Dekel, met ten days ago with Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese serving a life sentence for killing the Haran family from Naharia 30 years ago, Israel Radio quoted a report by the Palestnian daily Al Ayam, Saturday.

Reportedly, Kuntar told Dekel there was real progress on the topic of releasing Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, the two reservists kidnapped on Lebanon-Israel border…

Dekel met several Palestinian prisoners but insisted on meeting Kuntar, considered one of the senior Lebanese prisoners held in Israel. — Jerusalem Post

Kuntar is guilty of one of the most hideous crimes in the hideous history of Arab terrorism against Israel. He is non-repentant, not that it should matter. If it were possible to kill someone five times it would be less than Kuntar deserves.

If this report is correct — and considering the source it may well not be — something is more than backwards here.

First of all, where is the proof that Goldwasser and Regev are alive? Shouldn’t this be first, before discussions about prisoner exchanges?

And, as I’ve said before, why doesn’t Israel apply the death penalty to such as Kuntar?

What does Dekel expect to learn from talking to him?

Why not offer Hezbollah Nasrallah’s life in exchange for Goldwasser and Regev?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Kuntar, Goldwasser, Regev, Dekel

The Hamas prisoner swap seems to be drawing closer:

An envoy negotiating the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit has met twice in recent weeks with senior Hamas members in an Israeli jail, reporting progress on a prisoner swap deal, according to a lawyer close to the talks.

The envoy, Ofer Dekel, met 10 days ago with five members of the Hamas military wing at Hadarim Prison near Netanya…

Dekel told the Hamas inmates that progress has been made on a deal to win the release of Cpl. Schalit, who was captured by Hamas-allied terrorists in June 2006 and is being held in Gaza, the lawyer said. In exchange, Hamas seeks the release of several hundred prisoners, but Israel has balked at meeting the demands.

Dekel told the five Hamas prisoners – all of whom are serving life sentences – that some in the group would be able to go home soon, but that others would be sent into exile if a deal goes through, the lawyer said. — Jerusalem Post

Hamas has consistently asked for more than Israel can reasonably grant. The fact that the prisoners mentioned are said to be serving life sentences implies that they have probably been convicted of murder. Moussa Abu Marzouk, Hamas spokesman has said that are 350 prisoners that they want released and they have given Israel a list.

This is a horrible situation for the Israeli government to be in, and of course a worse situation for Gilad Schalit’s family and friends. Let’s look at Israel’s options.

The first option is to meet the demands. What would be the consequences of doing so? The good news is that Schalit would be free.

In addition, 350 of Hamas’ most dangerous operatives would also be free and able to participate in attacks against Israel (I don’t know where ‘exiled’ terrorists would be sent, but the precedent set in 1992 when Sheik Yassin and 400-odd Hamas members were deported to Lebanon is not encouraging).

One of the operations that the former prisoners would doubtless engage in is the kidnapping of more Israelis, followed by more demands. Why not? It’s a proven effective technique.

Hamas would announce another victory of their brave fighters against the Zionist enemy. This would be a big boost for recruitment, along with the knowledge that anyone who is captured by Israel would only have to sit in jail until the next kidnapping/prisoner exchange event.

No, this Hamas victory would not be the end of Israel. It would be just a small surrender. Some think that Israel can absorb small surrenders. Yariv Oppenheimer of Peace Now says

The release of Palestinian prisoners with blood on their hands is not an easy step, and will only be executed in order to promote an Israeli interest, such as the release of kidnapped IDF soldiers [in contrast to right-wing demands to release Jews imprisoned for terrorism against Arabs, which he feels should not be granted].

Looking at the big picture, this particular small surrender would be one in a series of small and not-so-small surrenders by Israel to her enemies, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. Take, for example the withdrawal from Gaza, the failure to prosecute the war in Lebanon to a satisfactory conclusion and acquiescence to Hezbollah’s rearmament, the de facto acceptance of the bombardment of Sderot, the decision to stop construction activities near the Mughrabi Gate, the cooperation with the US in arming Fatah, the coming release of 250 Fatah prisoners, etc.

None of these little surrenders will mean the end of Israel in itself, but every one makes her a little weaker, and her enemies stronger. This is a process that can’t continue forever. It will end, after a thousand little surrenders, with a regional war that Israel will no longer be capable of winning.

There is another option, which is to try to free Schalit by ultimatum and by force. By refusing to use the power in its hands, Israel is accepting the rules of the asymmetrical war being waged on it by Hamas, Hezbollah, and ultimately Iran. This process has to be preempted.

My suggestion is that Israel present Hamas with a serious ultimatum to release Schalit or be faced with an all-out assault which will include the killing of its leaders and the destruction of its fighting forces. The goal of this operation would be simple: to kill as many Hamas members as possible.

At the same time, Israel should use every means possible, including its police hostage-rescue unit, Yamam, which may be the best unit of its kind in the world, to rescue him.

The main downside of this approach is that Hamas may kill Schalit before he can be rescued. There is also the danger of triggering a wider conflict, perhaps involving Hezbollah, and Israel will need to take the necessary steps to deter such a response beforehand.

Yes, it’s risky and almost certainly promises conflict in the near future. But the other approach, while it might stave off an immediate struggle, guarantees disaster in the long run.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Schalit, Hamas

Police in the UK are taking Internet incitement seriously, at long last:

LONDON (AP) – An al-Qaida inspired computer expert who dubbed himself “the terrorist James Bond” was imprisoned for 10 years Thursday for running a network of extremist websites and hoarding videos of the murders of Americans Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl.

Morocco-born Younis Tsouli, 23, who prosecutors said had uploaded guides to building suicide vests on to the Internet, used the online ID “irhabi007” – the Arabic word for terrorist and the code name of the fictional British spy.

With accomplices Tariq Al-Daour and Waseem Mughal, Tsouli offered advice and motivation to would-be terrorists on a myriad of web pages run from their London homes, prosecutors said.

Videos seized from the group gave advice on suicide belts, causing explosions, using rocket-propelled grenades, producing poisons and blowing up gas pipelines, prosecutors told jurors.

As I’ve written before, the Internet — Websites, chat rooms, forums, etc. — are the glue that holds the informal worldwide jihadi network together, as well as the inspiration for many Muslims to become jihadis:

…individual Muslims, in constant touch with Islamist leaders and others like themselves throughout the world, can go through a process of radicalization and validation of radical beliefs online. The Internet makes it possible for them to be immersed in a culture of like-minded people, something which would not be possible otherwise, and which is capable of amplifying beliefs which would be deviant in their local environment. This is the same phenomenon that’s given a huge boost to the population of pedophiles, who share ideas and child pornography with kindred spirits online that they would otherwise never meet.

So someone for whom blowing up an airport, for example, is only a fantasy, may find that there are others who share it, and that it isn’t really just a crazy dream — there are people out there who have actually done things like this, and who are willing to show him how his dream can become deadly reality.

I hope that part of the interrogation of the UK murder doctors, for example, will be to extract from them (and their computers) the details of the Websites, etc. that they frequent, and that the police will follow up and take down the sites and arrest the operators.

Technorati Tags: jihad, terrorism, Internet terrorism

Magdi Abdelhadi, a BBC Arab affairs analyst writes:

The news that many of the suspects in the failed car bomb attacks in Britain are medical doctors from the Middle East has shocked many and raised questions about connections between class, education and militant Islam.

There is a popular misperception that only the destitute or ill-educated are drawn to the ranks of militant Islamic organisations. But nothing could be further from the known facts…

Many of the leaders of Palestinian Islamist groups, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are either medical doctors, engineers or university professors.

And the oldest and most influential movement of political Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, whose doctrine is blamed for the mushrooming militant groups across the world, is largely an organisation of middle class professionals.

Why is this? Abdelhadi’s explanation almost seems to make sense:

The lure of an Islamic utopia, where justice and virtue prevail according to a puritanical version of Islam, is too strong to resist for rich and poor alike. For many it is an end that justifies any means.

Some believe that their ‘Islamic utopia’ is not only an answer to the problems of their own societies, but for the entire world. It is an idea that has an enormous appeal for the masses in Middle Eastern states lacking in freedom, social justice and the promise of a fulfilling existence.

It is particularly attractive for young idealists who want to make the world a better place. [my emphasis]

But the argument is unsound; indeed, it’s nonsensical. Yes, by Western standards a place like Egypt lacks “freedom, social justice and the promise of a fulfilling existence” for the great majority of its citizens. But of course the remedy suggested, an Islamic state, will not provide those things, at least not in any sense that we understand those terms. Such a state is characterized precisely by totalitarianism, inequality, and injustice.

And I’m convinced that these highly educated Islamists understand this quite well. It’s not social justice or especially freedom that they crave.

If they live in the West, even if they were born in the West, where these things are much more available than in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, they don’t revel in them — they reject and try to destroy them.

The problem with modern society for the radical Islamist, it seems to me, is that there is too much freedom, too many choices. They don’t want to have the option of drinking alcohol or spending time alone with attractive women, because then they would have to struggle with their desires. Their “better place” is a world in which they are not stressed by the need to make moral choices. Islam for them is the ‘religion of peace’ in the sense that they are at peace from the turmoil of souls for whom everything is not already decided.

Interestingly, this explains why, as Abdelhadi says, “it is an end that justifies any means.” Or, as I prefer, it explains their psychopathological behavior.

One of the most difficult moral questions that we all face is the balancing of ends vs. means. Should a person cut ethical corners in business in order to send his children to college? If it is really, really important to replace the government, is it therefore acceptable to spread lies about it?

But the Islamist rejects moral questions. His goal is to live life without moral stress, to simply submit. He has already made his decision to live in this way. So it’s not exactly that the end justifies the means, but rather that the question of means vs. ends doesn’t even come up. He doesn’t deliberate, he just does. Some day the world will be a better place, in which nobody will have to deliberate, inshallah.

Technorati Tags: Islamism, jihadism, radical Islam