FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Some weeks ago, Michael Lerner of Tikkun wrote an article entitled “How the anti-Israel Left helps perpetuate the occupation“.

Lerner is an easy target, and indeed it wouldn’t be totally incorrect to include him in the “anti-Israel Left” that he talks about. I can’t resist pointing out that here we have Lerner, who claims to be pro-Israel, upset with anti-Israel people not because they advocate the replacement of Israel with an Arab state, but because they might (inadvertently) be pro-occupation. Is the continued occupation worse than the elimination of Israel?

What I do not understand about Lerner and other ‘pro-Israel’ people who are obsessed with ending the occupation, is what exactly they think Israel should do instead. I am willing to bet that if Israelis could push a button which would end the occupation of the West Bank without imperiling their lives or the existence of the state, a huge majority of them would push it in an eyeblink.

(more…)

From Asharq al-Awsat, Riyadh:

“Does anyone in the Ummah [Muslim nation] and among the Mujahideen have new ideas on how to revive and spread the jihad ideology? Are there any new thoughts on how to strike the enemies of Islam?”

These are not questions that you would hear on television programs in regions that are troubled on both security and political levels.

It is rather an email message that surprises you when you read it in the morning alongside other messages in your inbox that clarify and explain how to make primitive bombs using simple materials that are readily available…

It is no secret that the internet has become the preferred method for recruitment of Islamic terrorists. Al-Qaeda and others are utilizing the World Wide Web to spread their deadly propaganda and recruit new operatives which has forced security experts around the world to alter their methodology in hopes of thwarting future terrorist attacks, or capturing wanted terrorists.

It’s possible that the Internet, in the form of websites, list servers, etc. is more than just a tool that’s made the operation of international terrorist groups easier.

It may have facilitated the creation of a whole new type of group that didn’t exist previously: the independent, decentralized network of local Islamists, often native-born in the West, like the ones responsible for the London transport bombings.

These decentralized terrorist cells are the most difficult for counterterrorist forces to uncover, since they may not need to travel to Afghanistan or some such place in order to receive indoctrination and training.

But there is an even greater danger: 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.

As a result of this ‘amplification’, people with Islamist leanings who would otherwise never consider becoming active Jihadists may now do so. And I think some of the difficult-to-explain incidents that have been called “sudden Jihad syndrome” may be a result of this process. When a perpetrator of such an event is arrested, local authorities often say that the motive could not be terroristic, because they are unable to connect him to any terrorist organization.

But sometimes virtual connections are as strong or stronger than physical ones.

Technorati Tags: Internet, Terrorism, Jihad

I guess this is what they mean when they say “the US should ‘engage’ in the Israeli-Arab conflict”:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – The Bush administration has drawn up an eight-month timetable setting dates for when Israeli and Palestinian leaders would complete steps meant to bolster prospects for peace talks, U.S., Israeli and Palestinian officials said.

The U.S. timeline, the first of its kind presented to both sides, includes specific dates for when Washington envisages Israel letting Palestinian bus and truck convoys travel between the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank, a demand that has raised some Israeli objections.

Washington, at the same time, has set dates for when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah would step up deployment of his forces and take specific measures to begin curbing rocket fire by militants.

What’s wrong with this plan:

• Israel is required to take concrete steps which compromise security, while the Palestinians are required to deploy their “security forces”, many of whom are terrorists, and “take measures to begin” stopping terrorism.

• The Bush administration has two very unequal partners. One is the Israeli government, which can control the actions of its army and permit or not permit Palestinian convoys to pass. The other is Mahmoud Abbas, who has little or no control over the actions of the Palestinians except for the members of his US-financed personal militia. The Palestinian ‘government’, such as it is, is in the hands of Hamas.

As with countless similar arrangements, here is what will happen: Unless Israel can wriggle out of it, she will be forced to allow the Palestinian convoys through — which might contain, for example, anti-aircraft weapons to be fired at Ben-Gurion Airport from the West Bank.

Abbas, on the other hand, try as he might, will not be able to control the ‘militants’, who — despite the arming and deployment of his militia — will somehow manage to perpetrate murderous acts against Israelis. But it won’t be his fault.

How is it legitimate for the Palestinians to demand something in return for…stopping terrorism?

Suppose I commit a series of bank robberies and am arrested by the police. Can I say “OK, I’ll agree to stop robbing banks, but only on these conditions…”? Of course not, bank robbery isn’t allowed in a civilized world.

The terrorism has to stop first. Period. Then we’ll talk.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Bush administration, Abbas, timeline, convoys

Hamas is pushing hard for international recognition of the Palestinian government that it heads. Yet their behavior is not that of a responsible party (much less a nation) but rather resembles that of the Barbary pirates:

[Hamas leader Khaled] Mashaal said that kidnapped Israeli soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit will not be released until Israel yields to Palestinian demands. “If the enemy insists on continuing to refuse to free our prisoners, I am saying here that we have every capability to do again what we have done before…”– YNet

There are indeed similarities between the Palestinians and the Barbary pirates. For example, does this not sound like present-day Gaza?

The payment of blackmail, disguised as presents or ransoms, did not always secure safety. The most powerful states in Europe condescended to make payments to them and to tolerate their insults. Religious orders—the Redemptionists and Lazarists — were engaged in working for the redemption of captives and large legacies were left for that purpose in many countries. — Wikipedia

And consider the response from a representative of Tripoli when asked in 1786 why his agents preyed on American ships:

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Nothing’s changed in 221 years.

Technorati Tags: Hamas, Barbary pirates

Khaled Meshaal, leader of the so-called ‘military wing’ of Hamas — as if there is anything military about terrorism against civilians, kidnapping, etc. — said yesterday that a barrage of 41 rockets and 54 mortar shells fired into Israel last week were an act of ‘self-defense’:

“It’s the Palestinians’ right to defend themselves,” Mashaal said, adding the attacks came in revenge for the killings of nine Hamas supporters by Israel. “These are violations that needed a retaliation.” — AP

Last week three Hamas terrorists were killed while planting explosives on the border fence between Gaza and Israel. Another died in Gaza when a bomb he was transporting exploded. And prior to that several were killed immediately after firing Qassam missiles at Israel. These are not defensive acts.

In another example of his ability to turn reality on its head, Meshaal blames PM Olmert for the fact that Gilad Shalit is being held by Hamas. Olmert is “personally behind the delay in the release of the Israeli soldier.”

It’s insane: Hamas criminals cross the border, grab Shalit and kill several others, and then demand the release of more than a thousand prisoners, including convicted mass murderers…but when Israel balks at the demand, Olmert is ‘responsible’?

By the way, Israeli security sources have said that the rocket and mortar barrage was intended to cover an attempt to kidnap another Israeli. So much for self-defense.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hamas, Meshaal