https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qg-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
$25 million of tax dollars was spent to prove Trump was a traitor/treasonous. Then when Muller concluded Trump was not a traitor Democrats became angry Mueller was unable to tag Trump and when Trump kept telling us he was not a traitor Democrats claim his denial was obstruction.
Meanwhile, Trump told us he could not rely upon our intelligence agencies and we now know Clapper and Brennan, who were Obama appointees in charge of our intelligence agencies, relied upon a fake dossier paid for by Hillary and the DNC so they could accuse Trump of being a traitor.
Seems to me, these two bureaucrats, who were in charge of Obama's intelligence, are not too intelligent.
Maybe Trump was right in this regard also.
Jane Fonda was a traitor. How much did we spend to prove she was? She now is getting rewards and kudos because she is a Hollywood liberal and liberals excuse their own. They are so generous. .
I guess us "deplorables" are wrong to think equal justice is proper!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My friend, ISI , dopes out the Israeli campaign. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fake news, fake explanation. How pathetic. Don't expect an apology either. (See 2 and 2a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Justification? (See 3 below.)
And:
Why Hamas attacks? (See 3a and 3b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
China's plan for global supremacy: https://www.tabletmag.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Considering the national interest in the forthcoming elections
By Isi Leibler
Despite the high-pitched abuse being exchanged between the principal contenders, Likud and Blue and White, paradoxically this election highlights the unity of the nation. There is barely a sentence in the political manifesto of Blue and White that differs materially from the policies of the current government. In fact, this election reflects the unprecedented consensus where the vast majority are in favor of separation from the Palestinians – providing this could be achieved while retaining security – an option that is currently virtually impossible. In addition, most Israelis oppose the creation of an adjoining terror state, which could be a springboard for Iran to threaten Israel’s existence.
So, what is this election about? The bottom line: Are we willing to accept Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for another term?
Netanyahu’s principal asset is that his opponents, Blue and White co-heads Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, aside from their inexperience, are largely perceived as “nice” guys but political lightweights lacking the ability to step into his shoes. Many Israelis who currently support Gantz are not enamored at the prospect of a rotating leadership that would provide Lapid the driver’s seat.
The small parties upon which Netanyahu will be relying to form a majority are also problematic. The biggest obstacle to Netanyahu’s re-election appears to be mandates lost by right-wing parties not passing the electoral threshold (3.25% of valid votes). Netanyahu’s role in convincing Habayit Hayehudi to merge with the extremist Otzma Yehudit, headed by followers of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, in order to avoid both parties falling below the minimum threshold, disgusted most Israelis, including many traditional voters of Habayit Hayehudi. That Netanyahu was forced to promote such an unholy union is the result of a dysfunctional political system. The solution would be to adopt a second party preference system whereby voters could elect a second party in the event that their first choice did not pass the threshold, but also raise the threshold to 5% or even 10%, thus limiting the power of small sectarian parties to hold the balance of power and exert undue influence on government policies.
It is noteworthy that the High Court overturned the decision of the Central Elections Committee to disqualify the Arab parties that openly justified Palestinian terror and opposed a Jewish state, but at the same time, intervened and barred Otzma Yehudit head Michael Ben-Ari from running for the Knesset even though his candidacy was approved by the committee. Although the High Court endorsed the position adopted by Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit, the clear bias of this ruling only serves to provide greater ammunition to those seeking to undermine the High Court’s standing. Amazingly, Gantz and Lapid foolishly praised the High Court decision, seemingly oblivious to the obvious double standards applied in the rulings.
Netanyahu sparked an upheaval when he warned that if the right bloc does not obtain a clear majority, a Blue and White government could only be formed with the tacit support of the Arab parties. He described such a scenario as a catastrophe.
He was accused of racism, which, under the current circumstances, is absurd. All the Arab parties support the elimination of Zionism. Some wish for the transformation of Israel into a state of all its citizens – a binational state that is a repudiation of Israel as a Jewish state. Others are even more radical, excusing terrorism and identifying with our adversaries in what could be considered treason.
It is therefore totally legitimate for Netanyahu to highlight the fact that voters face the alternative of a Netanyahu government or a Gantz government that necessitates the tacit support of at least one of these extremist Arab parties. It is the proliferation of small parties that may well be disenfranchised by not reaching the electoral threshold that may lead to this outcome.
There is also the phenomenon of Moshe Feiglin’s insane Zehut party which, in addition to promoting the legalization of marijuana, calls for a myriad of nutty policies. It is difficult to envision how he will join any coalition.
Blue and White’s initial surge in the polls, subsequent to its highly publicized launch and the announcement of the state attorney’s intention to indict Netanyahu, came as no surprise. Over the last week, after the initial euphoria, Likud and its right-wing allies seemed to be ascendant.
So long as there are confused messages, Blue and White will likely continue to slip in the polls. And given the contradictory and irreconcilable positions of many of its personalities, it is difficult to see how the party will be able to retain any coherent policy. The hysterical response to the embarrassing exposure of Iran’s hacking of Gantz’s phone certainly did not improve his party’s public standing.
The latest effort to cast aspersions on Netanyahu in relation to the submarine issue may have found favorable short-term coverage in the media desperately seeking to demonize him at any cost, but it is doubtful this can be sustained. If anything, it points to the lack of any real substance in the Blue and White campaign. Despite facing a very confrontational interviewer, Netanyahu’s performance at a surprise visit to the Channel 2 TV studio on Saturday night was calm and measured and he successfully presented his strong case. His mistake, however, was his failure to realize that that no matter how effective he was, the subsequent media reports would grossly distort the interview.
Many are demanding that if Netanyahu is indicted, he should step down. Yet, no matter how unpalatable the prime minister’s hedonistic private behavior may be, noted civil liberties lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who could not be regarded as a right-winger, insists there is every likelihood that none of the charges will be upheld in court. Surely our legal system recognizes that a person charged with offences is deemed innocent until he has been tried and found guilty; there is no suggestion that a prime minister be denied this right.
That these indictments were released on the eve of the election, following years of endless leaks from the investigations scandalizing him and his family, may have the reverse effect of rallying his base. Whether substantiated or not, it is hard to refute the strong perception of bias.
Ultimately, the election will be a referendum on whether the public will support Netanyahu despite the massive “just not Bibi” campaign.
There are many reasons to reject him. There is a widespread feeling that, after 10 years, it is time for change. And how can a prime minister with the responsibilities of a state under siege apply himself to his task when his focus is constantly diverted to defend himself from accusations of criminal corruption?
I have never written a column suggesting how my readers should vote. Today is an exception. While there appears to be a consensus on the basic direction for this country, the selection of our leader today is nevertheless crucial. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in stating that as of now, not one of the candidates for leadership can even remotely match the qualifications of Netanyahu.
In a country not facing existential threats, voters should display their disdain of a candidate if they are offended by his behavior. And yes, nobody is irreplaceable and there is a time to retire.
But when one reviews Israel’s amazing position on the world stage today, this is clearly the achievement of a diplomatically skilled leader of international standing and tremendous intellect. Just as Netanyahu adeptly confronted the pressures of U.S. President Barack Obama, so he has interfaced effectively and successfully with President Donald Trump. Nothing highlights this more than Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan. In addition, Netanyahu has created an unprecedented diplomatic relationship with President Vladimir Putin of Russia and has succeeded in initiating and developing Israel’s strategic ties with India, China, Latin America, Africa and even Gulf Arab states.
It would thus be an awesome gamble at this time to replace Netanyahu with an inexperienced political leader.
Israelis should set aside their personal feelings about Netanyahu and even those who despise him should recognize that his re-election at this time is in the national interest.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Here’s How CNN Excuses Its Fake News
2) Here’s How CNN Excuses Its Fake News
Following many years of fake news that has been consistently debunked, CNN is desperately trying to salvage its reputation by moving goal posts. The Daily Caller reports:
CNN President Jeff Zucker is justifying his network’s role in amplifying the Russian collusion conspiracy theory despite the series of reporting errors made by CNN reporters throughout the ordeal.In an interview with The New York Times published Tuesday, Zucker said he is “entirely comfortable” with the way CNN covered allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 presidential election.“We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did,” Zucker said. “A sitting president’s own Justice Department investigated his campaign for collusion with a hostile nation. That’s not enormous because the media says so. That’s enormous because it’s unprecedented.”While Zucker claims his network only dealt in the facts, their track record on the Russia probe tells a different story.
CNN repeatedly prided itself over “investigating”, but now admits that it is only a propaganda outlet for leftists. Will it ever recover its credibility?
2a) The New York Times owes Americans a big, fat apology
2a) The New York Times owes Americans a big, fat apology
Now that President Trump has been vindicated and the Fat Lady is singing, it’s high time we hear from another matriarch– the Gray Lady.
The New York Times should apologize for misleading America — again.
Back in 2016, three days after Trump turned the world upside down with his election victory, the publisher and the editor of the Times wrote to subscribers. Their remarkable letter was in large part an apology for failing to understand the Trump phenomenon and for missing the signs that he could win.
“After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions,” then publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and editor Dean Baquet wrote. “Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?”
While they also defended themselves, saying the paper “reported on both candidates fairly,” they promised to “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.”
As I wrote then, “Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting. And it wouldn’t have been totally blindsided by Trump’s victory.”
And now, as Yogi Berra once said, “it’s deja vu all over again.”
Because it didn’t keep the promise to report “without fear or favor,” the paper is facing a new storm of criticism. This time, of course, the topic is RussiaGate. And once again, the Times is accused of accepting and spreading fake news, and of missing the truth.
We don’t need a trial. Guilty as charged. The Times was way out front, along with the Washington Post, in peddling the Russia collusion hoax. And because of its prominence and the power of its news service, the vast bulk of the media followed the Times’ lead. It is the bell cow, and it led the media over the cliff by getting the big story wrong.
And not just one or two or even three times, but for more than two years, the paper of record acted like a prosecutor making the case that Trump was at least compromised by Russia, and maybe even conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the election.
In doing so, it effectively swallowed hook, line and sinker the Big Lie that Hillary Clinton was selling — that Trump was the illegitimate president. There was almost no difference in what she said and what the Times said about Trump and Putin.
Now that special counsel Robert Mueller, whose integrity the Times praised for two years, has declared Clinton’s claims false, that truth needs to be accepted by the hate Trump media. And nobody in the print media, with the exception of the Washington Post, hates Trump like the New York Times hates him.
Front page to last, news stories, columns and editorials. Coverage of culture, education, foreign governments — most of it expresses views of someone who personally and politically detests the president of the United States. Tyrants in Asia and dictators in Latin America have it easy compared to the blistering coverage Trump gets.
In short, nothing has changed since 2016. And in both cases, the results were the same: The Times missed the story. Just as reporters and editors believed Trump couldn’t win in 2016
because they didn’t want him to, they believed the Russia collusion story because they wanted it to be true.
because they didn’t want him to, they believed the Russia collusion story because they wanted it to be true.
The episodes are linked by a cause — the collapse of standards at the paper. Executive editor Baquet, in the summer of 2016, decided that Trump was not fit to be president, a decision that opened the floodgates.
Day after day, page after page, so-called news stories started to read like editorials. Reporters were now free to give their opinion, and surprise, surprise — they all expressed the party line.
Over and over, Trump bad, Clinton good. She was dubbed “normal,” he was called “abnormal.” No bias there.
The Times’ newsroom was a giant bubble and, like all bubbles, group think dominated. Nobody inside realized how unfair the coverage was because they all agreed with it. Those who didn’t — and there must have been some — were either intimidated or marginalized. The paper says it believes in diversity, but hating Trump seems to be a litmus test.
Naturally, there were many signs over the last two years that the paper had not changed its stripes. Despite its promise after missing Trump’s rise, it almost instantly fell back into the same position of hostility once he became president.
The fixation on RussiaGate — for which it shared a 2018 Pulitzer Prize with the Washington Post — stands out, but it was far from the only example of biased coverage. Virtually everything Trump said and did sparked an avalanche of thunderous denunciation from reporters and opinion writers alike.
They didn’t just disagree with something. They usually went straight to impugn his motive. Most times, scurrilous quotations were attributed to anonymous sources. Who can fight anonymous sources? As for the economic boom, the Times, when it recognizes it at all, struggles to give Barack Obama the credit. Talk about a credibility crisis!
Lest there be any doubt about how reporters and editors feel about Trump, check out their social media posts where they remove even the fig leaves.
As I have noted, I take no pleasure in watching what was America’s flagship newspaper decline into rancid partisanship. Journalistically, I grew up at the Times during an era when legendary editor Abe Rosenthal imposed a no-opinion rule on reporters’ copy.
If you tried to sneak your opinion into a news story, it was removed, and objections were useless. If you didn’t like it, the door was open. These days, technology is disrupting and reshaping the media business and the Times has reinvented itself as a daily compendium of the war for social justice. Its pages are filled with identity politics, how unfair America is to illegal immigrants and breathless evidence that climate change will kill us any day now. It all fits into the paper’s advertised “mission.”
Just before Super Bowl Sunday, the big story in the sports section was the lingering pain and problems of retired players with brain injuries.
So be it. But neither Trump nor technology can be blamed for Baquet’s historic error in deciding that basic standards of fairness do not apply to covering this president.
Twice now, that decision has been proven to be sensationally wrong, and added to the growing distrust not only of the Times, but of the media in general.
By all means, the Gray Lady should once again say she is sorry for being wrong and missing the real story. But this time, she should do something about it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) US envoy says Trump understands why Israel needs to hold West Bank
Since the end of the Palestinian civil war in 2007, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, Fatah and Hamas have been sparring in an ongoing internal war for the hearts and minds of Palestinians. There are periods when PA-Fatah generate more hate incitement against Hamas, and vice versa, than against Israel. Now is one of those times.
In recent weeks, the enmity and mutual incitement between Fatah and Hamas has been growing. Demonstrators have taking to the streets of the Gaza Strip to protest Hamas' failed administration. Hamas has responded by blaming the demonstrations on Fatah and arresting Fatah activists.
Two weeks ago, when Hamas fired missiles toward Tel Aviv, Fatah spokesman Osama Al-Qawasmi attributed those launches as an attempt to distract Gazans from their misery of failed Hamas rule: "Launching missiles in order to put down the uprising of the starving is an unacceptable act, and is overt and obvious to all" (Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 16, 2019).
The attacks on Hamas by PA-Fatah were intensified on official PA TV and on Fatah's Facebook page, both of which presented pictures of injured Palestinian children who they claimed were beaten by Hamas.
A regular columnist in the official PA daily referred to Hamas as "the face of treason... the supporters of Satan." He called for the residents of the Gaza Strip to rise up violently against Hamas: "Gaza, the time has come. Tighten the noose around them. Hang them with the ropes of their treason, for the shame and disgrace is theirs, and this is the end of the traitorous heretics." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 20, 2019)
PLO Executive Committee member Tayseer Khaled condemned Hamas' treatment of the demonstrators: "What we are seeing before us is not security forces, but rather 'Gestapo' gangs." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 20, 2019)
Hamas has not stood silently in the face of these verbal attacks by Fatah. Hamas tried to delegitimize Fatah in the eyes of the Palestinian population by releasing fabricated statements of condemnation of last week's terrorist attack in which an Israeli father of 12 and a soldier were murdered and attributing them to PA leaders.
Hamas claimed the "spokesman of the PA Security Forces... Adnan Al-Damiri described the operation as 'criminal'" (Palestine Now, independent news website, March 17, 2019). Al-Damiri immediately attacked Hamas for "the lies and falsehoods that were attributed to him [by Hamas]."
Hamas likewise claimed that PA Police Commissioner Maj.-Gen. Hazem Atallah had said: "We are fearlessly and unashamedly making efforts to find the one who carried out the spiteful operation in Salfit" (Website of Hamas's Al-Aqsa Channel, March 20, 2019).
This of course was likewise denied, but the pattern is clear. Given the fact that terrorism, including murder of civilians, is supported by nearly the entire Palestinian population, by announcing that the PA police are condemning the attack and searching for the terrorist on behalf of the Israeli army, Hamas was clearly trying to blacken the PA's standing.
It is in the context of this 12-year internal Palestinian conflict between Fatah and Hamas that Hamas launched the rocket attack on Israel this week. Demonstrations against Hamas have been continuing throughout the Gaza Strip. There have been numerous cases of brutality by Hamas police that are being witnessed and reported on by Gaza's residents themselves, and there have been injuries.
Given its desperate internal situation, and with its popularity dropping daily, Hamas decided to launch a rocket at central Israel. This act may be intended to bring a strong military response from Israel. Hamas has used this tactic in the past to gain popularity. Even though Hamas' wars against the Israeli army have brought destruction upon the Palestinian population, and are responsible for thousands of deaths, Palestinian opinion polls show that Hamas always had elevated popular support because they fought against Israel. The polls after each of the three Hamas-Israeli conflicts showed Hamas more popular than Fatah.
Accordingly, Hamas' firing of the missiles creates for it a win-win situation. If Israel does not respond with a strong reprisal, it can show Palestinians that it attacks Israel's population centers with impunity, and that Israel has lost its deterrence. They will present Israel as weak in the face of the terrorist group. If Israel does come back with a strong military response, Hamas is seen as being heroic for having taken on the Israeli army.
Tragically, Hamas and Fatah are fighting each other with the only weapon they have that assures popularity among the broad spectrum of Palestinians: attempting to kill Israelis.
3) US envoy says Trump understands why Israel needs to hold West Bank
David Friedman tells AIPAC a future administration won’t cotton to the risks for Israel of giving up security control of the territory
US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman warned American Jews on Tuesday that a future administration won’t understand Israel’s need to maintain security control over the West Bank, suggesting that US President Donald Trump won’t force Israel to relinquish the territory that Palestinians envision as their own in a future state.
The Trump White House will continue to pursue a Middle East peace accord, Friedman told a crowd of 18,000 at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual confab, because the president’s successor won’t be sensitive to Israel’s security challenges.
Such an administration, he said, won’t recognize “the existential risk to Israel if Judea and Samaria are overcome by terrorists,” using the biblical terms for the West Bank. He emphasized Hamas’s seizure of the Gaza Strip after Israel’s withdrawal in 2005.
What’s more, he added, it won’t internalize that “in the Middle East peace comes through strength, not just through words on a paper.”
While he didn’t explicitly refer to a Democratic alternative to Trump, Friedman said that a future administration could be “potentially willing to penalize Israel for having the audacity to survive in a dangerous neighborhood.”
“We will continue to work with the Israeli government, with the Palestinians, with other regional players,” he said, acknowledging that there will be “some turbulence along the way.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main election rival Benny Gantz are committed to maintaining overall Israeli security control in the West Bank — positions that rule out fully independent Palestinian statehood.
Friedman, a former Trump attorney who has a history of financially supporting West Bank settlements before assuming his diplomatic post, celebrated the president’s recognizing the Golan Heights as sovereign Israel on Monday, with Netanyahu by his side at the White House.
“For two generations, Israelis of all political stripes proclaimed: ‘The nation is with the Golan,’ which can never be severed from the State of Israel,” Friedman said Tuesday. “Without the high ground of the Golan, Israel is exposed to extraordinary risks from treacherous enemies. This will never happen on President Trump’s watch.”
In remarks after the White House event on Monday, Netanyahu said the US recognition underlines “one important principle in international relations: When you start wars of aggression, and lose territory, don’t come back and claim it later. It belongs to us.” In further comments on his journey back to Israel Tuesday, the prime minister appeared to hint at possible future West Bank annexation, saying: “Everyone says it is impossible to hold an occupied territory, and behold — it is possible if it is ours in a defensive war.”
In his AIPAC address, the US ambassador also addressed the firing of a rocket by Hamas terrorists into central Israel, injuring at least seven Israelis.
That rocket, Friedman said, was not aimed at Orthodox, Reform, or conservative Jews, it was not aimed progressives or conservatives, Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews. “That rocket was designed just to kill Jews,” he said, in an attempt to urge Jewish unity. “We can learn much from that rocket. It cared not a whit about the differences among Jews. Let’s put our differences aside in favor of our common goals, now and always.”
Friedman endured a tumultuous confirmation battle in 2017, as left-wing American Jewish leaders excoriated his past writings, in which he said the liberal Jewish group J Street was “worse than kapos” — Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps — and lambasted liberal Jewry for advocating policies that, he said, would put the Jewish state at risk.
In his confirmation hearing, he apologized. “These were hurtful words,” Friedman said, “and I deeply regret them.”
3a)2 PMW op-eds explaining what Hamas hopes to gain
by launching rockets at Israel
- HAMAS STRATEGY: KILL ISRAELIS TO DEFEAT FATAH - op-ed in The Jerusalem Post by PMW director Itamar Marcus
- THE INEVITABLE HAMAS ROCKET ATTACK - op-ed in The Times of Israel by PMW head of legal strategies Maurice Hirsch, Adv.
HAMAS STRATEGY: KILL ISRAELIS TO DEFEAT FATAH
by Itamar Marcus
Numerous analysts are trying to explain the timing of Hamas' missile launch this week at a town north of Tel Aviv, 85 km. inside Israel. Looking at what is challenging Hamas in recent weeks, the missile attack in all likelihood has little to do with Israel. While Hamas' missile was directed at Israelis, Hamas' real target was Fatah, the ruling PA political party of Mahmoud Abbas. Since the end of the Palestinian civil war in 2007, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, Fatah and Hamas have been sparring in an ongoing internal war for the hearts and minds of Palestinians. There are periods when PA-Fatah generate more hate incitement against Hamas, and vice versa, than against Israel. Now is one of those times.
In recent weeks, the enmity and mutual incitement between Fatah and Hamas has been growing. Demonstrators have taking to the streets of the Gaza Strip to protest Hamas' failed administration. Hamas has responded by blaming the demonstrations on Fatah and arresting Fatah activists.
Two weeks ago, when Hamas fired missiles toward Tel Aviv, Fatah spokesman Osama Al-Qawasmi attributed those launches as an attempt to distract Gazans from their misery of failed Hamas rule: "Launching missiles in order to put down the uprising of the starving is an unacceptable act, and is overt and obvious to all" (Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 16, 2019).
The attacks on Hamas by PA-Fatah were intensified on official PA TV and on Fatah's Facebook page, both of which presented pictures of injured Palestinian children who they claimed were beaten by Hamas.
A regular columnist in the official PA daily referred to Hamas as "the face of treason... the supporters of Satan." He called for the residents of the Gaza Strip to rise up violently against Hamas: "Gaza, the time has come. Tighten the noose around them. Hang them with the ropes of their treason, for the shame and disgrace is theirs, and this is the end of the traitorous heretics." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 20, 2019)
PLO Executive Committee member Tayseer Khaled condemned Hamas' treatment of the demonstrators: "What we are seeing before us is not security forces, but rather 'Gestapo' gangs." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 20, 2019)
Hamas has not stood silently in the face of these verbal attacks by Fatah. Hamas tried to delegitimize Fatah in the eyes of the Palestinian population by releasing fabricated statements of condemnation of last week's terrorist attack in which an Israeli father of 12 and a soldier were murdered and attributing them to PA leaders.
Hamas claimed the "spokesman of the PA Security Forces... Adnan Al-Damiri described the operation as 'criminal'" (Palestine Now, independent news website, March 17, 2019). Al-Damiri immediately attacked Hamas for "the lies and falsehoods that were attributed to him [by Hamas]."
Hamas likewise claimed that PA Police Commissioner Maj.-Gen. Hazem Atallah had said: "We are fearlessly and unashamedly making efforts to find the one who carried out the spiteful operation in Salfit" (Website of Hamas's Al-Aqsa Channel, March 20, 2019).
This of course was likewise denied, but the pattern is clear. Given the fact that terrorism, including murder of civilians, is supported by nearly the entire Palestinian population, by announcing that the PA police are condemning the attack and searching for the terrorist on behalf of the Israeli army, Hamas was clearly trying to blacken the PA's standing.
It is in the context of this 12-year internal Palestinian conflict between Fatah and Hamas that Hamas launched the rocket attack on Israel this week. Demonstrations against Hamas have been continuing throughout the Gaza Strip. There have been numerous cases of brutality by Hamas police that are being witnessed and reported on by Gaza's residents themselves, and there have been injuries.
Given its desperate internal situation, and with its popularity dropping daily, Hamas decided to launch a rocket at central Israel. This act may be intended to bring a strong military response from Israel. Hamas has used this tactic in the past to gain popularity. Even though Hamas' wars against the Israeli army have brought destruction upon the Palestinian population, and are responsible for thousands of deaths, Palestinian opinion polls show that Hamas always had elevated popular support because they fought against Israel. The polls after each of the three Hamas-Israeli conflicts showed Hamas more popular than Fatah.
Accordingly, Hamas' firing of the missiles creates for it a win-win situation. If Israel does not respond with a strong reprisal, it can show Palestinians that it attacks Israel's population centers with impunity, and that Israel has lost its deterrence. They will present Israel as weak in the face of the terrorist group. If Israel does come back with a strong military response, Hamas is seen as being heroic for having taken on the Israeli army.
Tragically, Hamas and Fatah are fighting each other with the only weapon they have that assures popularity among the broad spectrum of Palestinians: attempting to kill Israelis.
3b)
THE INEVITABLE HAMAS ROCKET ATTACK
By Maurice Hirsch
The launch of a rocket this morning by the Palestinian "factions" - a.k.a terrorist groups - targeting the center of Israel's civilian population was inevitable.
The tensions between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, that have existed since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, started escalating in 2018 with financial decisions made by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, that punished Hamas in an attempt to force it into agreeing to relinquish its control of Gaza.
When the financial measures failed, Abbas decided to dissolve the Palestinian Parliament. Abbas' decision stripped Hamas of the ability to seize control of the PA by lawful means. PA law provides that in the event that the Chairman is unable to perform his duties, the position is filled, for an interim period, by the Speaker of the Parliament. The Speaker of the dissolved parliament was from Hamas. In the absence of a parliament, there is also no Speaker to replace Abbas.
Finally, Abbas decided to replace the "national consensus" government that had been headed by a Prime Minister unaffiliated with either Abbas' Fatah party or with Hamas. In place of the ostensibly neutral Prime Minister, Abbas appointed long time Fatah leader and Abbas crony, Mahmoud Shtayyeh.
On the backdrop of this rift and while failing to provide the basic needs of the Palestinians under its control, Hamas started organizing the infamous weekly violent confrontations with Israel.
Adopting 25 years of PA teachings that every so-called Palestinian refugee, will enjoy the "right to return" to Israel, and thereby democratically destroy Israel, Hamas tried to deflect attention from its failures and mobilize the masses against Israel.
When these violent clashes failed to achieve their desired effect, and as Hamas appeared to be losing ground to Abbas' PA, violent clashes between Fatah supporters and Hamas ensued. These clashes were met with a heavy handed response by Hamas.
Abbas' PA and Fatah have seized the opportunity to condemn Hamas. On March 16, 2019, the Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, included a statement made by Fatah Revolutionary Council member and Fatah Spokesman Osama Al-Qawasmi, who said that Hamas launched the missile attack 10 days ago in order to "calm the uprising of the starving" Gazans.
Al-Qawasmi could make that statement based on the cumulative experience of the PA and Fatah, which has consistently initiated waves of terrorism against Israel, any time the PA or Fatah leaders were suffering from a loss of popular support.
The "official" reasoning provided for the rocket launch - the Israeli aggression towards the terrorist prisoners, is no different.
During the evening prior to the launch of the rocket, Hamas terrorist prisoners attacked two Israeli prison service officers, stabbing one in the neck. The response of the Prison Service was quick and forceful. Had this event stood alone, it may have been possible to attribute the launch to this cause.
However the wider picture is much more complex. Since Israel decided to implement its new Anti PA "Pay for Slay" policy, Abbas has been gaining ground against Hamas as the protector of the terrorist prisoners' rights.
Again using the PA's constant messaging and indoctrination that the terrorist prisoners are legitimate "freedom fighters", Hamas also had to prove its bona fides as the protector of the terrorist prisoners.
Accordingly, here again, notwithstanding the "official" excuse the underlying motive for the launch of the rocket, has nothing to do with Israel, but rather the internal Palestinian power struggle to win the hearts of the Palestinians.
As if the internal Palestinian power struggle was insufficient, in the last few weeks the PA and Hamas received what they perceive to be additional, albeit expected support, from the international community, specifically the UN.
In the last few weeks, Hamas and the other Palestinian "factions" in Gaza have continued to launch rocket attacks against Israel, including two long range rockets (criticized by Qawasmi) that targeted Israel's heavily civilian populated Dan region. While often quick to condemn Israel, the UN Secretary General's Special representative to the Middle East, Nikkolay Mladenov, issued no condemnation of these attacks.
Last week, the UN Human Rights Council adopted several resolutions condemning Israel after adopting the PA and Hamas narrative that the violent clashes, organized and orchestrated by Hamas, on Israel's border with Gaza since March 30th 2018, are nothing more than peaceful demonstrations and that the Israeli response to them was excessive.
The combination of the internal Palestinian power struggle with the "stamp of approval" of the UN that Palestinian terrorism will constantly be downplayed and even ignored in order to serve the goal of vilifying Israel made the launch of the rocket attack inevitable. Now, when Israel responds, the PA and Hamas will again play their all too successful "victim card", in the hope of diverting attention from their own pugnacious policies in favor of condemning Israel.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment