Israel survive if it does not
Historical and Investigative Research,
last revised 13 Sep 2005
version was first
published in The SoapBox, 27 February 2005
This article examines certain
pathologies of reasoning that are making Jewish self-defense
difficult-to-impossible. Unless these pathologies are corrected
quickly, the Jewish people will once again cooperate in their
own destruction. This will be a tragedy -- yet another -- for
Judaism, of course, but also for the rest of the world, which
will be infinitely worse off without the Jewish people.
The focus event is this: on Feb 25, 2005, there was another suicide bombing in Israel. It broke a cease-fire.
For the reaction of the so-called Israeli ‘left’ to this event, we can take a look at what Joel Schalit, managing editor for the Israeli ‘left-wing’ magazine Tikkun, wrote in an article that was sent out immediately:
“At 11:15 PM Israel time, a suicide bomber blew themselves up [sic] at Tel Aviv’s Stage Club. As of this letter’s writing, four persons are dead and thirty are wounded. According to news sources at Ha’aretz and the BBC, Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad has taken responsibility for the attack, while Agence France Press reports that the Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade has also claimed responsibility.
While we here at Tikkun cannot emphasize strongly enough our solidarity with the victims of today’s terror attack, we similarly cannot emphasize enough the restraint we believe the Israeli government will have to show in responding to this event.”
Remember: Tikkun is an Israeli Jewish ‘left-wing’ magazine. So the question is: Why doesn't this Israeli Jewish magazine even wait for an investigation to establish a minimum of facts about this attack before rendering an opinion on the proper response? Why is the lightning-quick response of this Israeli Jewish ‘left-wing’ magazine to advocate “restraint” by the Israeli government towards the extreme right-wing antisemitic terrorists who murdered innocent Israeli Jews in cold blood?
These questions must be answered because this sort of thing tends not to happen in other countries when its innocent citizens are attacked by terrorists. This article will attempt to answer these questions. But before we can return to the frankly curious position that Tikkun defends, and which holds the key to the question of why the Israeli Jews do not defend themselves, we must first identify who exactly is ultimately responsible for these murders, something that Tikkun neglects entirely to do.
Who is ultimately responsible for these
Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade have mounted joint operations before, so it is not too surprising if they both take credit for the February 25 attack. And they did do it. As reported in Xinhua, “The Israeli army…identified the Tel Aviv suicide bomber as a young Palestinian university student…[by name] Abdullah Badran, 21… a member of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.”
The fact that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad got together for this one may owe something to the fact that, as the same Xinhua wire explains, “the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade [is] an armed wing of the Palestinian mainstream Fatah Movement.” This is well known. Though less well known, Islamic Jihad, too, is a component of Fatah.
In other words, about this attack, either Fatah did it, or else Fatah did it. Take your pick.
The most important point is what the Fatah authorship of this attack means. And it is this: Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, who has stepped in as Yasser Arafat’s successor, has no desire for peace with the Israelis and cannot be negotiated with. Why? Because if Fatah carried out the attack, this can only be because Mahmoud Abbas ordered it.
If this is not immediately obvious, the reason is probably that you have been conditioned to think that it makes sense to say that Fatah terrorists kill Jews against the orders of the Fatah chief. If so, then you will need the stepwise demonstration that here follows.
First, I’ll take you back a little bit.
“On Dec. 15, , Yasir Arafat, the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, renounces terrorism. Within hours, the United States announces it is ready to talk with the P.L.O.”
This lightning-quick reaction of the US government, notice, was to Arafat’s announcement of a supposed intention, not to the actual behavior of the PLO. This would establish a pattern.
As you may now hazily remember, there was of course an incongruity to be explained when the PLO began talking about participating in a ‘peace’ process with Israel. This incongruity remained even after the ‘peace’ process was jump-started: the terrorists of Fatah (the controlling force in the PLO), though they had supposedly "renounce[d] terrorism," simply would not stop killing innocent Israeli civilians. What happened to peace?
The PLO leaders smoothed this out by explaining that, well, they were very sorry about all the Jewish men, women, and children who kept getting blown up on their way to work or eating a pizza, wrecking the lives of their families, but they just couldn’t control the extremists. If only Israel would make a few more concessions, then perhaps they would have the political leverage to rein the bad boys in. PLO leaders really wanted peace.
And so it went, one murdered innocent Jew after another.
At first there was at least some weak skeptical resistance -- both in the media, and officially -- to the PLO’s hypocrisy, but soon enough the Western media began claiming with a straight face, and in passing, what US -- and then Israeli -- officials were also saying: that Yasser Arafat’s interpretation of the conflict was the correct one: that he should not be blamed for Fatah violence because he could not control his own terrorists, and he could not control his own terrorists because the Israelis did not give him enough power.
Leaving the absurdity of this aside for a moment, what would follow logically from accepting it? In other words, what is the logical consequence of accepting that Fatah kills innocent Jews against the wishes of Fatah leaders? Obviously, that no real peace negotiations can be conducted with such leaders, for they are incapable of delivering peace. To give Fatah leaders more power, each round, because this will supposedly allow them to rein the terrorists in, is not to ‘negotiate’ anything but to become a willing victim of extortion. It was imperative, therefore, to abort the so-called ‘peace’ process. But who reached this conclusion? Actually, there was a time, before we were all taught not to reason on this question, when the obvious could be found in print, in the Western media. Here is an example, from the New York Times (1989):
“Mr. Arafat sometimes took ‘credit’ and sometimes blamed P.L.O. groups he said he could not control. Assuming for the moment he really cannot control all the P.L.O. terrorists, why on earth should the Israeli Government recognize Mr. Arafat and his uncontrollable P.L.O. as its negotiating partners?”
Yes, precisely. And the question remains: Why on earth did the Israeli Government recognize Mr. Arafat and his supposedly uncontrollable PLO as its negotiating partners? A better question is this: Why on earth did the Israeli citizenry allow this farcical plunge into eager suicide?
The most obvious answer to the second question is painfully simple: those who accept an absurd premise have no trouble moving to an absurd conclusion, and so the same people who alleged that Arafat could not control his own thugs presented this as the ‘evidence’ that at least Arafat meant well, and therefore that Fatah terrorist violence should not be blamed on the Fatah leader. The absurd corollary to this double absurdity became that this antisemitic terrorist organization, dressed up as ‘the PLO,’ should be allowed to negotiate for its own state -- smack against the Jewish state -- not on the basis of Fatah's actual performance, but on the basis of how strongly Western officials and the media vouched for the supposed intentions of Fatah leaders!
This was defended explicitly by Aaron David Miller,[11a] one of the chief US architects of the Oslo process, early on, in 1996:
Yasser Arafat would be rewarded for (supposed) “effort” -- not “success.” The killings of innocent Jews could continue.
What makes such illogic possible? Antisemitism.
Antisemitism is a way of looking at the world, a perspective, and it impairs reasoning by insisting on the following sequence: first, suspend in the air the anti-Jewish conclusion; then build in a helter skelter rush to the ground a scaffolding of 'premises'; finally, never heed how ridiculous the crookedly resulting, upside-down staircase becomes. This perspective afflicts, unfortunately, all those Jews (not a few) who've accepted the nonsense I just laid bare. And this same perspective -- most unfortunately -- can be found in the arguments used by the Israeli prime minister to justify the Gaza disengagement.
And yet I have steered clear, so far, from the biggest absurdity: Yasser Arafat was always, and consistently, represented as the worst authoritarian.
Consider this revealing report in the Irish Times, from 1993 (i.e. immediately before the start of the Oslo so-called ‘peace’ process):
“Asked if the PLO chairman, Mr Yasser Arafat, and his tight circle, would continue the authoritarian style of rule which has led to demands for democratization of the leadership, Dr [Rashid] Khalidi said he ‘thought the PLO would rule as it always has, by [m]aking secret decisions and implementing them...’”
As the same article informs me, it turns out that Rashid Khalidi negotiated for the PLO at the Madrid talks, which became the platform for the Oslo ‘peace’ process. So Khalidi knew what he was talking about, and he was speaking as someone with a pro-PLO bias. What he said was that no, Oslo would change nothing, and yes, Arafat would remain an authoritarian, “[m]aking secret decisions and implementing them.” Indeed, by all accounts this is what Arafat remained, for upon his death one would read that “Arafat never groomed a successor during his decades of authoritarian rule [my emphasis] of the Palestinian Authority, the PLO and Fatah, the PLO’s dominant faction.”
Now, the two meanings of ‘authoritarian,’ according to Merriam Webster Online, are the following: 1) “of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority,” and 2) “of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.” But we were told that Arafat’s terrorist thugs just wouldn’t obey him. If we accept this, then we cannot say that Arafat was an authoritarian leader, because authoritarian leaders are not disobeyed. So we have a contradiction.
Whenever we find a contradiction, so long as we are still capable of reason, we know that at least some part of what we hear is false. In this case, we may resolve the contradiction by deciding that Arafat was not really authoritarian, but lax and easygoing, making it sensible that he could not control his own terrorists. Or we may resolve the contradiction by deciding that Arafat really was authoritarian, in which case -- contrary to the common representation -- he had a tight grip over his armed thugs. What gives? Obviously, the truth is that Arafat was an authoritarian -- and even a totalitarian -- with a very tight grip over his armed thugs. Those who disagreed with Arafat would be instantly killed, which is why Arafat had several different security forces, all answering directly to him. If members of one of these security forces did not follow orders to the letter, he could get members of a different security force to kill them.
He broached no opposition, which explains why Arafat spent so much time killing Arabs. Consider a comment made about the Fatah Hawks in 1992: “the Fatah Hawks [are] young desperadoes who have killed many more real or imagined Palestinian collaborators than they have Israelis…” And the Fatah Hawks were not the only predators in Arafat’s zoo: also in 1992, it was reported that “the body of a 30-year-old [Arab] mother of seven was dumped outside her home in Rafah refugee camp [in Gaza]. She gave birth to twins two months ago. PLO ‘Black Panthers’ claimed responsibility.”[14a] This is the kind of thing that, by the year 2004, had earned Arafat’s security forces the nickname “death squad” from the Gaza Arabs whom Arafat supposedly represented. You just didn’t mess with someone like Arafat.[15a]
Thus, whenever Fatah carried out a killing, this killing had been ordered by the Fatah chief. If the Fatah chief did not order a killing, then Fatah didn't kill.
In conclusion, unless we say that Mahmoud Abbas, the new Fatah chief, is utterly different from Arafat, then, given that two separate Fatah groups claimed joint responsibility for the attack dated February 25 that broke the Sharm el Sheik cease-fire, what we have is that Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah chief, broke the cease-fire by personally ordering the murder of innocent Israeli civilians.
Or can one argue that Mahmoud Abbas is different from Arafat? No, one cannot. The entire strategy of talking ‘peace’ while killling more innocent Israelis was in fact invented by Mahmoud Abbas, who was always more powerful than he seemed (the Oslo agreement was Abbas's brainchild, and it is his signature on the agreement, not Arafat's). This explains why the same Fatah terrorists who, after Arafat’s death, publicly chanted that they wanted to go on killing Israeli civilians, also enthusiastically supported Mahmoud Abbas. An Associated Press wire dated 27 November 2004 reports that:
And the author of the February 25 attack, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade branch of Fatah -- which happens to be “the deadliest Palestinian militia,” according to Newsday -- was especially passionate about Abbas, taking his side vociferously when it seemed like Marwan Barghouti, another Fatah leader, might seek the post:
So no: Mahmoud Abbas is in no way different from Yasser Arafat. The February 25 attack that shattered the Sharm el-Sheik ceasefire was on his orders. QED.
Why isn’t this obvious to
Westerners and many Israeli Jews miss this because they are conditioned to process information in absurd ways. I remind you that in the Tikkun piece dealing with the February 25 bombing, and mentioned at the top of this article, managing editor Schalit writes:
“While we here at Tikkun cannot emphasize strongly enough our solidarity with the victims of today’s terror attack, we similarly cannot emphasize enough the restraint we believe the Israeli government will have to show in responding to this event.”
Newspeak. Tikkun pretends that it can be, simultaneously, maximally solidary with the victims of the attack while making an appeal for maximum restraint against their murderers. Do not laugh. Tikkun is read, and the people who read it nod their heads. This is dangerous stuff.
But readers of Tikkun must have a reason for accepting such nonsense, and they do. The underlying argument is that Mahmoud Abbas tells the truth, and therefore when he says that he will cease attacks against Israeli civilians, he means it. Because, why would a career antisemitic terrorist whose doctoral thesis famously denied the Holocaust tell a lie to the Jews? And therefore any violence that takes place cannot be blamed on the saintly Mahmoud Abbas. Consequently, to react with reprisals against the latest violence, goes the argument, will weaken Abbas in his supposedly sincere efforts to work for peace. We should let innocent Jews die.
Evidence that Westerners, and Israelis, have been conditioned in advance to accept such self-evident nonsense is not hard to find. This is NPR’s Linda Gradstein (National Public Radio), shortly after the supposed cease-fire was announced:
“A poll published this past weekend in the [Israeli] Maariv newspaper found the [Israeli] public equally divided over whether the Palestinian leadership will honor the commitments it announced at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit, including an end to attacks on Israelis. The poll also found that 57 percent of Israelis want their government to exercise restraint, even in the event of a new terrorist attack. Thirty-four percent would favor an immediate military response.
Many Israelis say they’ve been down this road before and it has ended in violence, and yet they still hope that maybe this time will be different. Linda Gradstein, NPR News, Jerusalem.”
As an anthropologist, I am mouth-agape. Where else can we find a population that behaves like this? A majority of Israelis advocate restraint if there is renewed terror against them! So what the Israelis have done is this: they have given their terrorist enemies permission to attack. Kill us, they say in unison, we will not hit back. If this were the behavior of an individual, we most certainly would call this individual suicidal.
And what does it take to produce this behavior? Not much: the argument that Mahmoud Abbas is not the one killing them. Israelis believe it, and that is enough: if Abbas is not the one killing us, they reason, then there should be no retaliation. But this is astounding, because even if you accept the nonsense that Abbas supposedly cannot control the killers, then, as demonstrated earlier, there is no point in negotiating anyway, and the Israeli army should return to occupying the territories and making Israelis safe. And yet, no. Instead of abolishing the 'peace' process, what the Israelis have said is that, if they are killed, they will not retaliate! This looks like a carefully premeditated suicide.
The appearance is deceiving. This is mostly hope -- the hope of a profoundly ethical culture: "Many Israelis say they’ve been down this road before and it has ended in violence, and yet they still hope...," says NPR. They hope. They hope that, if only they try hard enough, they can find the sacrifice necessary to make their enemies see that they wish to live in peace, that they mean no harm. So this is also the hope of a profoundly innocent culture, made up of people who learn from an early age to be kind, and who therefore find it impossibly difficult to fathom -- in fact, they refuse to fathom, no matter what the evidence -- that there can be forces so evil as to wish to kill Jews simply because they are Jews (never mind that this has happened many times -- even recently). Anne Frank, who knew the Nazis were looking for her to kill her, a child, for no bigger crime than being a Jew, nevertheless famously wrote in her diary, before she was found and killed, that "Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart." So the antisemitism of Jews against themselves, which generates unreasonable self-blame, is not their only vulnerability; they are also vulnerable because they passionately want to be good, and to believe in the good of others.
Reading Tikkun without the proper suspicion, then, Israeli Jews fail to notice the antisemitic absurdities.
“Palestinian intelligence officials contend that there is strong evidence linking Lebanese Shi’ite organization Hezbollah to today’s [February 25] attack.”
Why is this absurd?
Because the highfalutin descriptor “Palestinian intelligence officials” refers to officials in Fatah, the leader of which is Mahmoud Abbas, who also runs the PLO (and the ‘Palestinian Authority’). It is Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of authoritarian Fatah, who gives orders to Fatah components Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to conduct terrorist attacks and then take credit for them. So if Fatah intelligence operatives are telling the Western press that Hezbollah is behind the February 25 attack -- even as Hezbollah denies responsibility for the attack that Fatah’s own gangsters publicly claim as their own -- the only proper reaction is contempt. And the only proper conclusion is that the new cease-fire is a sham.
Therefore, Israel should stop
cooperating with the phony ‘cease-fire.’
Tikkun’s advice to the
Israelis is different
Tikkun takes a different view, as we've seen. Their recommendation is "restraint" against the murderers. Tikkun managing editor Joel Schalit explains the reasoning behind that:
“…there is no way this suicide bombing can be rationalized, except to argue that it was meant to destroy the current ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians.”
This is a remarkable statement. If a suicide bomber detonates himself in the middle of innocent civilians, killing four and wounding thirty, the cease-fire is finished, because the definition of “cease-fire” is that neither side fires. And yet Tikkun writes that this attack was “meant to destroy the current ceasefire,” as if the cease-fire could survive the murder of innocent Israeli civilians! The only way Tikkun can do this is if it pretends that Mahmoud Abbas, the one negotiating with Israel, is not responsible. But Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah has immediately claimed responsibility.
So Tikkun is advocating that Israel respect the ceasefire even while its enemy does not. This Israeli Jewish magazine, whose poster-boy is the famous Rabbi Michael Lerner, is telling Israelis that the suicidal strategy is right for them.
But Tikkun is not quite done. It says, further, that
“…this attack will only serve the interests of Israeli and Palestinian hard-liners who oppose a resumption of the peace process”
Tikkun, notice, goes out of its way to say that the murder of innocent Israelis benefits “Israeli hardliners,” whom Tikkun considers so bad that it includes them in a category with the “Palestinian hard-liners,” also known as the Palestinian terrorists. It is a miracle that Tikkun does not hold these supposed “Israeli hardliners” directly responsible for the suicide bombing. But I point out that this is a reference to Israelis who think that Jews should not simply wait for the next antisemitic terrorist to kill more innocent Jews: that’s what an “Israeli hardliner” is. And the “resumption of the peace process” would be the resumption of the process of violent extortion where the PLO leadership gets more and more power for the promise, never kept, to rein in its own terrorists thugs.
With Úlan, Tikkun continues,
“. . .[this attack] will steel the resolve of Israeli settlers eager to show that the forthcoming July withdrawal from Gaza and the northern West Bank will do nothing to curb Palestinian violence.”
Not only does this attack benefit the “Israeli hardliners,” says Tikkun, but it is also good for those darn Jewish settlers (Tikkun cannot find enough Jews to blame for the murder of innocent Israelis by Arab terrorists). And why, according to Tikkun, do the settlers supposedly rejoice when innocent Israelis are murdered? Because it strengthens the settler’s argument that giving territory to the terrorists “will do nothing to curb Palestinian violence.”
But the settlers hardly needed the latest attack as ammunition for their argument given that Arab leaders in the West Bank and Gaza are going on the radio to agree with the settlers in public! For example, in a recent interview on National Public Radio, the Hamas spokesman explained his position to Robert Siegel.
[NPR interview excerpt begins here]
ROBERT SIEGEL: ... Bloodied and exhausted by fighting, with thousands of its members in prison, many of its leaders killed by Israel, Hamas has a stake in a cease-fire. But Hamas spokesman Samy Hamdan Abu Zouri told us in Gaza that [the] armed intifada that seems to have ended achieved important things.
Mr. SAMY HAMDAN ABU ZOURI (Hamas Spokesman): (Through Translator) For sure, the main achievement over the Israelis, the enemy - they decide to withdraw from Gaza.
SIEGEL: How confident are you that the Israelis will withdraw from Gaza?
Mr. ZOURI: (Through Translator) The most important ...(unintelligible) talk about the necessarity [sic] of withdrawing from Gaza. I’m sure and completely convinced that they are going to leave. Maybe it will take time, but they are going to leave.
[NPR interview excerpt ends here]
According to the Hamas spokesman, the fact that Israel is planning to hand over Gaza this summer is an achievement of the violence of the Second Intifada. Therefore, according to the Arab terrorists, killing Israeli civilians is a good way to get territory. If we assume that Hamas wants territory, we may ask: What should someone do to get more territory, by this logic? Answer: kill more Israeli civilians.
So, after assuming that Hamas wants territory, we conclude that “the forthcoming July withdrawal from Gaza and the northern West Bank will do nothing to curb Palestinian violence,” which is precisely what, according to Tikkun, the settlers argue.
But perhaps Hamas does not want territory. Perhaps it merely wants to kill Jews (quite plausible). Well in this case the conclusion must be that “the forthcoming July withdrawal from Gaza and the northern West Bank will do nothing to curb Palestinian violence.”
And I point out that this is all entirely consistent with the Hamas stance above. The Hamas spokesman considers the withdrawal from Gaza “the main achievement over the Israelis, the enemy.” Over the Israelis. Get it? The Israelis -- “the enemy” -- are running scared. They will not be getting anything for their withdrawal.
To leave no doubt of the justice of my analysis, take a look at what the Hamas spokesman clarifies next.
[back to NPR interview]
SIEGEL: What is Hamas’ position on the state of Israel? Does it have a right to exist?
Mr. ZOURI: (Through Translator) Well, the Israeli-Arab conflict is very complicated and very long conflict and cannot be solved soon. So Hamas would accept permanent solutions to go on in life, but in the meantime we cannot accept the legitimacy of the existence of Israel in the land of the historical Palestine.
SIEGEL: So, so far for now, you don’t concede any legitimate right of Israel?
Mr. ZOURI: (Through Translator) For sure.
[NPR interview excerpt ends here]
Consider the phrase: “The Israeli-Arab conflict is very complicated. . . and cannot be solved soon.” What does it mean?
If Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist, a negotiated peace is possible, in which case the phrase above means that such a negotiated peace cannot be immediately achieved.
If Hamas does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, then so long as Israel exists, Hamas is at war with Israel. In this case, the solution to the conflict, from the Hamas point of view, is synonymous with the destruction of Israel, which is to say the extermination of the Israeli Jews. Under this assumption, the phrase “the Israeli-Arab conflict is very complicated. . .and cannot be solved soon” means that Hamas cannot immediately exterminate all the Israeli Jews.
Well, Hamas has just explained above that it does not recognize the right of Israel to exist; ergo, Hamas means to exterminate the Israeli Jews, as in fact the Hamas Charter makes clear.
The PLO, created by a leader of Adolf Hitler's Final Solution, and whose founding charter also calls for the extermination of the Jewish people, has just broken the cease-fire.
But most Israelis, as we've seen above, favor no retaliation to terrorist violence against them, and the Gaza withdrawal is still scheduled.
Can Israel survive if it does not defend itself?
No. Israel will not survive so long as the absurdities in Tikkun have a constituency. Minds need to be liberated, and fast.
Footnotes and Further
 “Tonight's Suicide Bombing in Tel Aviv”; Tikkun; Feb. 25, 2005; by Joel Schalit, Managing Editor, Tikkun Magazine.
For example: “The attack came just
two days after a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv injured 18
people. The blast was claimed by the Islamic Jihad's
military wing and an offshoot of Arafat's Fatah faction,
the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.”
 Tel Aviv suicide bomber identified, Xinhua General News Service, February 26, 2005 Saturday, 5:00 AM EST, WORLD NEWS; Political, 196 words, RAMALLAH
 “Wednesday's bus attack was claimed by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, an armed group linked to Arafat's Fatah faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
“The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, an armed group linked to Fatah, issued a statement saying its members carried out the West Bank ambush Wednesday in coordination with Hamas. It said the attack was retaliation for killings by Israeli forces. It is the second time in two weeks the militant Fatah wing has taken responsibility for an attack on Israelis. An al-Aqsa gunman in an earlier attack also was a member of the Palestinian Authority police force [!].”
“A bus ambush that killed 10 Israelis and one Palestinian attacker, claimed by Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, was the final straw that caused Sharon's Security Cabinet to sever all ties with the 73-year-old Palestinian leader.”
“Let's just look at the three months before the latest bloody attacks in the Jerusalem shopping area:
Nov. 6: Fatah members carried out a shooting attack south of Nablus, killing one Israeli.
Oct. 30: A bomb was planted in the home of an Israeli naval officer in Ranaana. Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility.
Oct. 28: An Israeli driver was shot dead. Fatah's Al- Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility.
Oct. 4: A shooting attack killed three Israelis and wounded 16 at the Afula bus station. Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade took responsibility.
October: Six Fatah members admitted to a series of attacks, including the murder of Aliza Malka Aug. 9, 2001; a shooting attack near Kibbutz Merav that wounded three Israelis; planting bombs outside communities in the Gilboa mountains and shooting at Israeli soldiers.
Sept. 11: Two border policemen were shot dead and a third wounded near Kibbutz Magal. Fatah's "Popular Army Front-Return Battalions" claimed responsibility.
Sept. 6: The Israeli government announced that senior Fatah terrorist Raed Al-Karmi headed a cell, which received funding and directions from Barghouti, that carried out numerous attacks, including: shooting an Israeli car near Burka Dec. 7, 2000, wounding three; kidnapping and murdering Israeli restaurateurs Motti Dayan and Etgar Zitoni in Tulkarm Jan. 23, 2001; a shooting attack near Baqa al-Sharkiya May 31, 2001, killing Zvi Shelef; the killing in June 18, 2001 of Danny Yehuda and the wounding Alexander Briskin; a shooting attack near Tulkarm July 4, 2001, killing Eli Ne'eman; shooting at an Israeli border police vehicle near Bir Sika July 30, 2001, wounding three passengers; and a shooting attack near Kfar Zeta Aug. 26, 2001, killing Dan Rosman.
Also, it's worth noting that just last month the Israelis captured one of the terrorists involved in the April '98 murder of US citizen Dov Dribben near Maon. Not surprisingly, the killer belonged to Fatah.”
“On Tuesday a man and a woman, both Israeli settlers, were killed in separate incidents claimed by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, an armed offshoot of Fatah…”
“Among the dead was Nina's 63-year-old grandfather. Thirty people were injured, police said. "The terrorist ruined the happiest day in my life," the girl told Maariv. The gunman was identified as Abed Hassouna, a former Palestinian Authority policeman [!] and member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a militia linked to Arafat's Fatah movement.”
“The military wing of Fatah, the Aqsa Brigade, which claimed responsibility for Tuesday's shooting attack in downtown Jerusalem that left two Israelis left and over 40 wounded, as well as the Hadera suicide attack that left six Israelis dead…”
“Fourteen people were wounded and two killed. The gunman, a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade militia of Arafat's Fatah faction, was shot dead.”
“Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, part of Arafat’s Fatah organization… Palestinian cabinet ministers say that Arafat has no incentive to stop paying the Brigades activists…”
 “Evidence turned up after a shoot-out last week between Israeli soldiers and four suspected members of the Islamic Jihad guerrilla organization also led authorities to several arms caches hidden in houses in Gaza City, said the official, who requested anonymity...
...Members of the Gaza group are Sunni Moslems with ties to the Fatah wing of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Israeli official said. There is growing concern in Israel about the spreading influence of Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank...”
 ON MY MIND; The Arafat Murder Threat, The New York Times, January 6, 1989, Friday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 31, Column 1; Editorial Desk, 750 words, By A. M. Rosenthal
 Newsday calls the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades
 “U.S. officials [are] saying in chorus that Arafat cannot control the ''extremists'' and is himself a potential victim because of his moderation. (This moderate gave the order, by telephone from Beirut, for the murder of the U.S. ambassador in Khartoum.)”
“…if Arafat cannot "control" the murder of civilians because the PLO regards all Israelis as soldiers, or soldiers-to-be, then what is his pledge worth?”
“In its statement today, the State Department also sought to raise the question of whether Mr. Arafat can carry through with his promises from a dialogue for peace if he cannot control the factions under the P.L.O. umbrella, State Department officials said. ‘When the P.L.O. renounced terrorism last December, we assumed Mr. Arafat spoke in the name of the P.L.O.'s executive committee and its constituent groups, and that the P.L.O. could exercise control over these constituent groups,’ Mr. Redman said.”
 “…it is shocking to find Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of the Jewish state, apologizing for Mahmoud Abbas and insisting that Jews ought to be cleansed from Gaza so that Abbas can have total control over this strategic territory. For example,
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made the following remarks following his meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Jerusalem on 21 June 2005 (translated from Hebrew): 'I clearly expressed to the chairman of the Palestinian Authority our great concern regarding the security situation. We see many good intentions on the part of the Palestinian Authority, however, unfortunately, at the same time, there is no concrete preventative action. ...[P]olitical advancement will not be implemented without real cessation of terrorism.'
One is forced to wonder. If, as Sharon says, ‘there is no concrete preventative action’ by Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority, and if, moreover, it is easy to show that Mahmoud Abbas is directly behind much of the current violence, then where exactly did the Israeli prime minister ‘see many good intentions on the part of the Palestinian Authority’? If someone were to punch the prime minister in the face, followed by, ‘My intention was good,’ would he accept that? If not, why does he accept an identical argument when his fellow Israelis are being murdered?”
 “Some would argue that Sharon's harsh tactics have actually engendered more terrorism than they prevent. And more than one Israeli commentator has suggested that this is by design. Sharon is intrinsically opposed to giving up land for peace, they say, so he is trying to ensure that there is no peace. He does so by goading the Palestinians to fresh atrocities then blaming Arafat, knowing he cannot control Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Even Arafat's grip on his own organization, Fatah, is questionable given that many of its members are in cahoots with the Islamic militants.”
“Mr Arafat insists he is doing all he can to suppress those who violate his repeated orders to cease fire, the latest of them on December 16. The violence has nevertheless resumed after a few weeks of relative calm. Eight Israeli civilians have died in two suicidal gun attacks in the past week. Is it true, then, that Mr Arafat cannot control all the Palestinian factions? ‘Definitely,’[says Arafat,] ‘But can America control all the Americans?’ Even suspects in his own Fatah organization are under investigation after an armed group linked to the movement claimed responsibility for the latest shootings, he points out.
‘We are under occupation and many people are acting not only according to our strict orders,’ he says. ‘Some of them - these fanatic groups - are moving on orders from outside, and some of them are acting as individuals.’
Naturally, he blames Mr Sharon for the deteriorating situation. The Israeli government has launched a military escalation in which infrastructure, the Palestinian security forces and the homes of refugees had been targeted, he says.”
 ON MY MIND; The Arafat Murder Threat, The New York Times, January 6, 1989, Friday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 31, Column 1; Editorial Desk, 750 words, By A. M. Rosenthal
[11a] Consistent with his approach to the 'peace' process that he designed, Aaron David Miller presides over something called "Seeds of Peace" an organization that dresses up antisemitic Arabs as supposed peacemakers so that Israeli Jews will be none the wiser. To read about this, consult:
[11b] Clinton certifies that PLO abiding by commitments it undertook in Oslo accords, The Jerusalem Post, April 5, 1996, Friday, NEWS; Pg. 2, 396 words, Hillel Kuttler
 Peace pact brings chaos in its wake It's all been too fast for Palestinians to organise, Michael Jansen found in Jerusalem, The Irish Times, September 16, 1993, CITY EDITION, WORLD NEWS; Pg. 6, 971 words, By MICHAEL JANSEN
 Arafat allies divide power, look forward, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, November 11, 2004 Thursday, Metro Edition, Pg. 14A, 504 words, CRAIG NELSON
 PLO FIGHTS ISLAMIC RIVALS IN GAZA'S UNCIVIL LITTLE WAR; The Palestinians' chief negotiator Dr Haydar Abdel-Shafi, talks exclusively to Ian Black in Khan Yunis, in the wake of the worst inter-Arab violence in the occupied lands in 25 years, The Guardian (London), July 9, 1992, HOME; Pg. 24, 1107 words, IAN BLACK
[14a] Agence France Presse -- English, June 16, 1992, News, 854 words, War on collaborators flares up, GAZA CITY
 “Palestinian Preventive Security chief Brig. Gen. Rashid Abu Shbak said Saturday he would abolish the Gaza Security and Protections unit - nicknamed the “death squad” by Palestinians - in the wake of accusations that some members abused their powers and used intimidation to rule the streets of Gaza.”
[15a] To see how consistently the PLO has murdered and oppressed throughout the years the West Bank and Gaza Arabs whom it claims to represent, read:
"In 1994 the CIA trained
the PLO, knowing it would use this training to oppress
Arabs and kill Jews"; From: "Is the US an Ally of
Israel?" Historical and Investigative Research"; by
“Mahmoud Abbas, who in 2005 is
being given total control over Gaza, is the one who
invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the better to
slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud
Abbas.” From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?”; Historical
and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
 Associated Press Online, November 27, 2004 Saturday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 991 words, Palestinian Security Unit to Be Disbanded, IBRAHIM BARZAK; Associated Press Writer, GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip.
 Barghouti Seeking Palestinian Presidency, Associated Press Online, December 1, 2004 Wednesday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 836 words, MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH; Associated Press Writer, RAMALLAH, West Bank
The following are excerpts from
the following article: “A Holocaust-Denier as Prime
Minister of “Palestine?”; by Dr. Rafael Medoff; March
[Excerpt begins here]
While European Union officials praised Yasir Arafat’s decision to appoint his first-ever prime minister, historians of the Holocaust winced at the news that a leading candidate for the job is the author of a book denying that the
Nazis murdered six million Jews.
The candidate is Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen), Arafat’s second in command, and his book, published (in Arabic) in 1983, is titled ‘The Other Side: The Secret Relations Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement.’ It was originally his doctoral dissertation, completed at Moscow Oriental College, in the Soviet Union.
According to a translation of the text provided by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Abbas’s book repeatedly attempts to cast doubt on the fact that the Nazis slaughtered six million Jews. He writes: “Following the war, word was spread that six million Jews were amongst the victims and that a war of extermination was aimed primarily at the Jews ... The truth is that no one can either confirm or deny this figure. In other words, it is possible that the number of Jewish victims reached six million, but at the same time it is possible that the figure is much smaller--below one million.” Abbas denies that the gas chambers were used to murder Jews, quoting a “scientific study” to that effect by French
Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson.
Abbas then asserts: “The historian and author, Raoul Hilberg, thinks that the figure does not exceed 890,000.” This is, of course, utterly false. Professor Hilberg, a distinguished historian and author of the classic study ‘The Destruction of the European Jews’, has never said or written any such thing.
Abbas believes the number six million is the product of a Zionist conspiracy: “It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement, however, is to inflate this figure so that their gains will be greater,” he writes. “This led them to emphasize this figure [six million] in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism. Many scholars have debated the figure of six million and reached stunning conclusions--fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand.” Another falsehood. In fact, no serious scholar proposes such a figure.
After reducing the magnitude of the Nazi slaughter so that it no longer seems to have been a full-scale Holocaust, Abbas seeks to absolve the Nazis by blaming the Zionist leadership for whatever killings did take place. According to Abbas, “a partnership was established between Hitler’s Nazis and the leadership of the Zionist movement ... [the Zionists gave] permission to every racist in the world, led by Hitler and the Nazis, to treat Jews as they wish, so long as it guarantees immigration to Palestine.” In addition to encouraging the persecution of Jews so they would emigrate to the Holy Land, the Zionist leaders actually wanted Jews to be murdered, because --in Abbas’s words-- “having more victims meant greater rights and stronger privilege to join the negotiation table for dividing the spoils of war once it was over. However, since Zionism was not a fighting partner--suffering victims in a battle--it had no escape but to offer up human beings, under any name, to raise the number of victims, which they could then boast of at the moment of accounting.”
Yet some in the media have treated Abbas with kid gloves, to say the least. The official BCC News Profile of Abbas reports: “A highly intellectual man, Abbas studied law in Egypt before doing a Ph.D. in Moscow. He is the author of several books.” The New York Times recently characterized Abbas as “a lawyer and historian ... He holds a doctorate in history from the Moscow Oriental College; his topic was Zionism.” Neither the BBC nor the Times have offered any further explanation as to the contents of Abbas’s writings.
Bestowing the title “historian” upon Mahmoud Abbas awards his writings a stature they do not deserve, and deals a grievous insult to every genuine historian.
[Excerpt ends here]
 National Public Radio (NPR), SHOW: Morning Edition 10:00 AM EST NPR, February 15, 2005 Tuesday, 631 words, Reaction among Israelis to cease-fire.
 “A Palestinian official speaking on condition of anonymity said preliminary inquiries pointed to the involvement of Hezbollah in the attack, although the radical Lebanese Shiite group denied any involvement.”
 National Public Radio (NPR), SHOW: All Things Considered 8:00 AM EST NPR, February 23, 2005 Wednesday, 879 words, Samy Hamdan Abu Zouri discusses Hamas' intentions for the future
 The most complete documentation on this is here:
Some of this material was originally published here: