Israel Matzav: A political party?

A political party?

Does this man look like a politician? In Turkey, they think he is a politician.

Speaking to Charlie Rose on Wednesday, however, the Turkish PM chimed in on the recently achieved unity agreement between rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas, indicating that he did not feel Hamas was an obstacle in achieving Mideast peace.

"Let me give you a very clear message, I don't see Hamas as a terror organization. Hamas is a political party -- it emerged as a political party that appeared as a political party," Erdogan told Charlie Rose, adding: "it is a resistance movement trying to protect its country under occupation."

Going further, the Turkish PM said the world should not "mix terrorist organizations with such an organization, and they entered into the elections," adding that Hamas "won the elections, they had ministers, and they had parliament speakers who were imprisoned by Israel, about 35 ministers and members of parliament in Israel prisons."

"Where is terrorism? They entered into the elections and after the elections this is how they were reacted, I mean, calling them terrorists, this would be disrespect to the will of the Palestinian people," Erdogan added.

Funny, Hitler won an election too.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: A political party?

Love of the Land: A Remembrance Day reminder of where terrorists should be

A Remembrance Day reminder of where terrorists should be

Frimet/Arnold Roth
This Ongoing War
09 May '11

On Remembrance Day, we Israeli families who have experienced terror at first hand are traditionally accorded national commiseration. Though our pain is constant, we are dutifully restrained throughout the year. But today, society, friends, community and nation encourage us to release our grief.

That concession is appreciated this year more than usual. It comes at an especially trying period for terror victims. The Israeli news media are waging a high-intensity campaign to agitate for the release of terrorist murderers in order to secure the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

To help win our hearts and minds, journalists and politicians have focused their efforts on minimizing the pain of terror victims and questioning the motives that bring them to oppose the release of murderers.

Just a day ago, the eve of this year’s Remembrance Day, we learned that negotiations with Hamas over the release of terrorist-prisoners in return for Shalit may have progressed after months of stalemate.

Should we credit the six former high-level officials of the Shin Bet, the Mossad and the defence establishment who held a press conference two weeks ago? Their public demand that our government release every last prisoner on the Hamas list has been accorded much media attention, as has their blanket assurance:

(Read full "Remembering where terrorists belong")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: A Remembrance Day reminder of where terrorists should be

Love of the Land: The Real Security Lapse in Dubai

The Real Security Lapse in Dubai

Letting terrorists conduct business.


Daniel Halper
The Weekly Standard
01 March '10

The Times of London reports that police in Dubai are in a tizzy, six weeks after the killing of Hamas's Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a hotel in downtown Dubai. A major security breach, an extrajudicial murder--it's being called all sorts of unsavory things. And police say they're certain that Mabhouh was killed by the Israeli Mossad, but don't provide hard evidence. Who exactly killed Mabhouh (aside from how they killed him, which the videos do a pretty good job showing) might not ever be known.

Dubai police are quick to blame everyone but themselves for security lapses.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: The Real Security Lapse in Dubai

Love of the Land: Can We Defeat Terrorists without Defeating Terrorism?

Can We Defeat Terrorists without Defeating Terrorism?

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
23 February '10

“We are not waging a war against terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic that will never be defeated, any more than a tactics of war will. Rather, such thinking is a recipe for endless conflict. ... We are at war with Al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and any comment to the contrary is just inaccurate."

John Brennan, Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism


Now there's an obvious paradox in a man whose own post is defined by counterterrorism, arguing that terrorism can never be defeated. Back when the USSR forged its pact with Nazi Germany, the Soviet propaganda machine propounded that they were not at war with "fascism", as "isms" could not be defeated. Similar defeatist arguments were used by Western governments to argue that Communism was another "ism" and Isms could not be defeated.

Both arguments were of course proven wrong, because you can defeat an "Ism" by bringing down the system and country that most exemplifies it, thereby devaluing it as a political or ideological strategy at least for some time to come. That in turn is exactly why Muslim terrorism is targeting America, because we exemplify a society that blends human freedoms, popular representation and free enterprise. If they can corrupt, destroy or bring down America, they will have come one step closer to demonstrating that there is no alternative to accepting Islam.

Brennan argues that terrorism is just another tactic of war, and that therefore it cannot be defeated. This is wrong on both counts, as a man who spent so much time in the intelligence and counterterrorism world should know.

First of all a tactic of war can indeed be defeated by demonstrating that its use is either futile or self-destructive. The reason we have never had a nuclear war, is because any strategy that depended on winning a nuclear war was eliminated by demonstrating that it was far more likely to lead to self-destruction, than to victory.

Secondly terrorism is not a tactic of war, it is a political tactic. Terrorists don't employ terrorism in order to defeat armies, but to show that the army and security forces are unable to defeat them or stop their attacks. Their real target is the political apparatus of the enemy which is forced to make concessions to the political goals of the terrorists in order to end the attacks. These concessions can be direct or indirect. An example of direct concessions would occur at a peace conference, such as the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and Arafat. While an indirect example would be the American and European attempt to appease "moderate" Muslims who have the same goals as the "extremist" Muslims . While the terrorists will usually denounce such appeasement, this is only done in order to stake out their position on the left or the right, and thereby achieve even more far ranging concessions.

(Read full story)

Love of the Land: Can We Defeat Terrorists without Defeating Terrorism?

DoubleTapper: Shoe Bomber Video

Shoe Bomber Video

تنسيق-الكليات-لعام سكس نيك كس


FBI video of a successful detonation of a "shoe bomb" similar to the one worn by Richard Reid and more recently by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Although, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (aka. the Crotch Bomber) did not have the bomb in his shoe. That may explain how he managed to neuter himself

Authorities said Umar Farouk Abdulmutalla's device included a syringe and a condom filled with powder that the FBI determined to be PETN (pentaerythritol), a common explosive related to nitroglycerin, which was sewn into his underwear. The device contained approximately twice as much explosive as was used by convicted “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, and “could have blown a hole in the side of his Detroit-bound aircraft,”

DoubleTapper: Shoe Bomber Video

Love of the Land: Releasing Terrorists: New Victims Pay the Price

Releasing Terrorists: New Victims Pay the Price

Nadav Shragai
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Published August 2008

(According to an informal estimate by Israeli security bodies, about 50 percent of the terrorists freed for any reason whatsoever returned to the path of terror, either as a perpetrator, planner or accomplice.)

The Israeli Cabinet approved on August 17 the release of almost 200 Palestinian security prisoners as a “goodwill gesture” to Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. The list includes several prisoners “with blood on their hands,” who, by definition, were involved in the murder of Israelis.

According to an informal estimate by Israeli security bodies, about 50 percent of the terrorists freed for any reason whatsoever returned to the path of terror, either as perpetrator, planner, or accomplice. In the terror acts committed by these freed terrorists, hundreds of Israelis were murdered, and thousands were wounded.

Israel freed 400 Palestinian prisoners and five other prisoners in return for Elhanan Tannenbaum, who was held captive by Hizbullah, and for the bodies of three soldiers kidnapped on Mount Dov. According to Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Tzahi Hanegbi, from the date of the deal on January 29, 2004, until April 17, 2007, those freed in the deal had murdered 35 Israelis.

An investigation by the Almagor Terror Victims Association in Israel revealed that at least 30 of the terrorist attacks perpetrated since 2000 were committed by terrorists freed in deals with terror organizations. Many were freed in the framework of goodwill gestures because they were defined by Israel as “without blood on their hands.” The bloody swath cut by these terrorists claimed the life of 177 persons, with many others wounded and made invalids.

Another “Goodwill Gesture”

In anticipation of the return to the Middle East of ...

(Read Full Issue Brief)

Love of the Land: Releasing Terrorists: New Victims Pay the Price

Love of the Land: A nation held hostage

A nation held hostage

R. Stewart Weiss
Guest Columnist/JPost
17 December 09

Israel Television aired a documentary last week on the saga of Gilad Schalit entitled A Family Held Hostage. Yet a sequel to this tense and tortuous no-win situation in which we all find ourselves might aptly be called A Nation Held Hostage. For if our soldier is freed at the cost of unleashing hundreds of unrepentant, bloodthirsty terrorists upon our civilian population, it is the entire country which will become the victim, having capitulated to an extortion scheme unparalleled in the history of democratic nations.

Freeing the worst of the terrorists - in particular, mass-murderer Marwan Barghouti - will not only result in the invariable murder of many, many more innocents and encourage a new wave of kidnappings; it will undermine the very foundations of our society. How can we maintain faith in a system of justice that pardons the worst crimes imaginable due to blackmail by hoodlums, aided by intense pressure from the media? What message do we send our children when we take our most cherished ideals - right and wrong, the sanctity of life, reward and punishment - and turn them upside-down, dashing them upon the rock of expediency?

Is there any other civilized nation in this world which would free its worst criminals to pay a ransom? Would America let Charles Manson out of jail in response to one of his crazed followers kidnapping someone else? Would Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassin be set free? What about Carlos the Jackal, or Yigal Amir, for that matter? I'm only thankful that this government was not around when Adolf Eichmann was put on trial; they might have freed him, too, if some neo-Nazis had succeeded in abducting a soldier. Perverting the course of justice returns us to the law of the jungle, where victims' next-of-kin will have to exact the punishment which society should have carried out.

(Continue article)

Love of the Land: A nation held hostage

Israel Matzav: Germans object to Mohamed death penalty

Germans object to Mohamed death penalty

I was in New York last week when President Obumbler's moronic attorney general, Eric Holder, promised that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, the mastermind of 9/11, would be convicted in his civilian trial and get the death penalty. Unsurprisingly, Holder has not thought this through. Some of the evidence to be used at the trial on which Holder and his boss insist was provided by the German government. The German government does not believe in the death penalty. They are sending a team to New York to make sure that Mohamed is not put to death.

Germany, which does not have a death penalty, provided evidence for the trial on the condition that it could not be used to support a death sentence. Several members of the al Qaeda cell that planned and executed the attacks of September 11 were previously based in the northern German city of Hamburg.

"In this case we will observe very closely that the given assurances are kept," Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said.

However it was unclear exactly how evidence from Germany would be distinguished from evidence procured from elsewhere.

The defense lawyer for one of the accused, Ramzi Binalshibh, said that a conviction of his client would "scarcely be possible without evidence from Germany."

What could go wrong?

Der Spiegel adds:

This presents the German government with a dilemma. Berlin can either oppose the use of German evidence in a bid to protect the defendants from execution -- and risk alienating a NATO ally in the process -- or it can approve the use of the incriminating documents, which would contravene Germany's position on the death penalty.

According to the current mutual legal assistance agreement between the two countries, should the information furnished by German investigators be used to impose the death penalty, Germany can insist that this evidence be considered inadmissible in court. This would not be the first time that the Germans have demanded such assurances for criminal proceedings.

The trial in New York is threatening to put a strain on German-American relations. Washington already feels that Germany has let it down by refusing to take in former detainees after the Obama administration decided to close Guantanamo. What's more, when it comes to bringing the terrorists behind 9/11 to justice, there is currently very little understanding in the US for any legal concerns that Berlin might have.

...

The problems facing Germany in the upcoming New York trial are considerably more serious. Moussaoui had never lived in Germany and the dispute over evidence in his trial concerned only very few documents. But it is another story altogether with Ramzi Binalshibh, who was allegedly the main logistics man behind the attacks. He lived in Germany for six years and shared an apartment in Hamburg with two of the 9/11 suicide pilots, including Mohammed Atta, who crashed the first plane into the Twin Towers.

Working out of Germany, Binalshibh gathered information about flight training schools in the US and regularly transferred large sums of money to the future 9/11 hijackers. There were, therefore, a large number of references to the results of the German investigation in the old indictment against Binalshibh, which the Bush administration had hoped would be used in a trial heard before a military commission.

...

Aside from that, federal prosecutors in New York will find it difficult to use confessions coerced using highly controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding. "It is hard to imagine how the government could present a case against Ramzi Binalshibh where a significant portion of the government case would not be based on evidence gathered in Germany," says Thomas Durkin, who is a member of the ACLU John Adams Project and a member of Binalshibh's defense team.

This explains why Holder's announcement of the trial has alarmed the German Justice Ministry in Berlin and its subordinate agency in Bonn, the Federal Office of Justice, which is responsible for mutual legal assistance.

Another off-the-cuff, not thought out Obama administration decision going bad?

Israel Matzav: Germans object to Mohamed death penalty

Love of the Land: Killing Terrorists Saves Lives

Killing Terrorists Saves Lives

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
12 November 09

When four Knesset members proposed legislation last week to institute the death penalty for child murderers, it revived a long-dormant Israeli debate over the pros and cons of this penalty in general. The latest installment, in today’s Jerusalem Post, supports the current de facto ban on executions, arguing that they deter neither murderers nor terrorists.

Regardless of whether that’s true, it misses the point: Israel desperately needs a death penalty for hard-core terrorists — not as a deterrent but to prevent them from being released to kill again. And, equally important, to spare the country wrenching emotional blackmail over kidnapped soldiers.

While ordinary Israeli murderers usually serve their sentences in full, terrorists have an excellent chance of being released early — either in an effort to “bolster Palestinian moderates” or in exchange for Israelis (or their remains, or even a “sign of life”) kidnapped by terrorist organizations. Israel releases hundreds of terrorists for one or both of these reasons almost every year. Most recently, for instance, it freed 20 female terrorists in exchange for a mere videotape of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

There are no official statistics on what percentage of these freed terrorists return to kill again. While one would hope the security services track this data, no government has ever published it, possibly realizing that if the statistics were known, public support for prisoner releases would plummet. Unofficial statistics — leaked to journalists or compiled by private organizations — vary widely, ranging from 25-80 percent. But even the lower figure is hardly negligible.

And the anecdotal evidence is compelling. In 2007, for instance, the Almagor Terror Victims Association compiled a list of 30 attacks committed by freed terrorists in 2000-2005 that together killed 177 Israelis. IDF Col. Herzl Halevy said this September that terrorists freed in a 2004 swap with Hezbollah composed “the entire infrastructure of Islamic Jihad” in subsequent years — during which Islamic Jihad bombings killed at least 37 Israelis. In short, executing terrorists, and hence preventing their release, would save lives.

But beyond that, executions would also end the agonizing debate over whether to trade terrorists for kidnapped Israelis. Most Israelis, for instance, would have no objection to freeing minor offenders in exchange for Shalit; the problem is that Hamas is demanding hundreds of mass murderers — who, if freed, would almost certainly kill again. Had these terrorists been executed, however, they would not be available to trade. Hamas would either have to make do with low-level offenders or get out of the kidnapping business.

Might that not encourage terrorists to kill rather than kidnap? Well, do the math: over the past decade, terrorists have kidnapped exactly two live Israelis (plus five dead ones, for whose remains Israel also paid). During the same period, freed terrorists have killed hundreds. It may sound cold, but that’s a pretty good cost-benefit ratio.

The bottom line is that Israel needs a death penalty for terrorists now. Few things would do more to save Israeli lives.

Love of the Land: Killing Terrorists Saves Lives

Love of the Land: Patterns of Dictatorship

Patterns of Dictatorship

Michael J. Totten
16 October 09

I am amazed all over again every time I meet a Westerner in Lebanon who admires Hezbollah or gets defensive on its behalf. Last time I visited Beirut I ran into an American journalist who said Hezbollah "is trying to raise awareness of Global Warming. Don't you think that's interesting?"

No, I don't think it's "interesting," and my Lebanese friends found that journalist's question contemptible.

My first reaction when I meet people like this is that, as Westerners, they ought to know better. Then I read articles like Patterns of Dictatorship by Ana Maria Luca in NOW Lebanon, and I reconsider my initial reaction to thick Westerners. Luca lives in Beirut, and she grew up in Nicolae Ceauşescu's Romania. As far as she is concerned, the differences between Hezbollah and the dictatorship of her youth are just details.

Eastern Europeans, rather than Americans and Western Europeans, are really the ones who ought to know better. And they generally do. They have real world experience with totalitarian politics, and they seem a lot less likely, as a result, to think a terrorist like Hassan Nasrallah is some kind of misguided liberal.

Love of the Land: Patterns of Dictatorship

Love of the Land: Weighing Truths for Gilad

Weighing Truths for Gilad

Paula R. Stern

A Soldiers Mother

04 October 09

When you are young, there is often one great truth to all things. It doesn't matter what the situation is, it's just a way you have of looking at something and deciding what is right or wrong in that simple moment. It is a singular truth that seems obvious and clear. As you get older and your life gets more complicated, shades of other truths blur the picture. There is no longer one side, one truth. Every action has a reaction; every cause not just one result but often many.

There's a scene in Fiddler on the Roof where someone says something to the main character, Tevye. Tevye confirms that the man is correct. Another man comes forward and voices an opposing position. "You are right," Tevye tells him.

Another steps forward and says, "but they can't both be right."

To which, Tevye responds, "and you are right too."

I felt that way in the last few days listening to the debate about the release of 20 security prisoners in exchange for a two minute video of Gilad Shalit this past Friday. There are so many sides, so many truths that perhaps the greatest relief comes from not being in a position to have to choose that path.

His mother has suffered so long, his father traveled so many miles begging people to listen and help free their son. Don't they deserve, don't they need this reassurance that their son is alive. This is truth.

Although 14 of these security prisoners were wanted for attempted murder, all would have been released in the coming months...certainly within the next year or so. Israel is a land that follows the rule of law. Unlike Hamas, we do not hold prisoners without trial and with trial comes a just sentence. The sentence is served and remorseful or not, the prisoner is released, often to return. This is the strength and the weakness of a democracy and so these prisoners, once freed, may well choose to attempt to murder another Israeli. This is truth as well.

The cost of this exchange boggles the mind. The value, as set by Hamas is staggering. A video of an Israeli is equal to 20 prisoners; the value of his life set at a minimum of 450 Palestinian prisoners - murderers, terrorists, killers. Twenty prisoners for one video. As one blogger wrote, "guppies cost more." This too is truth.

After so many months of silence, Israel needed a sign that we were negotiating for a live human being. We've given hundreds of prisoners for coffins; this time, it was right to get proof before any agreement and dealing with Hamas is not the same as dealing with human beings who respect life. This organization and the people who belong to it feel nothing about endangering their own people. They fight from within their own schools, mosques and hospitals.

How could we expect them to do what is legal, what is just, what is moral, what is human? They relish the suffering of others; they crave it. This is a culture that worships death and cares nothing for the suffering of an Israeli mother or her family. If this is what holds Gilad and we want proof that he is alive, this is the cost. And here too, there is truth.

"We aren't like them," said a friend. "We couldn't stand by and not do something to alleviate the terrible pain of the family." More truth.

Trade for Gilad? Accept a video in exchange for 20 prisoners - 14 wannabe killers? "What do you think of this?" I asked Elie.

"They've endangered us all," he said without hesitation. What joy I felt at hearing that we'd received the videotape and it showed a healthy, if thin, Gilad, evaporated with those words. This is a truth every Israeli mother knows and doesn't want to hear. Yes, when you reward terrorism, you get more terrorism. It is, perhaps, the greatest of all truths.

"Already Hamas has said they are going to try to kidnap more soldiers," Elie continued. More truth, more shades to consider.

He's right on so many levels and wrong on others. Or, perhaps wrong is not correct. He has yet to marry and have a child, yet to understand the awe, the love, the responsibility that comes with that.

Gilad Shalit is alive. This Hamas has proven. This young man has spent the last three years of his life a prisoner of our enemies, separated from his family, denied all contact. Night after night his mother goes to sleep not knowing where he is, if she will ever see him again. It is enough to weaken any mother's heart.

But Elie doesn't have a mother's heart. He has a soldier's heart. He loves his country, he loves his family. He's right - this endangers them all. In Elie's world, right is right; weakness damages our position. He has rules that he lives by, just and legal. There is a sense of morality, but more, there are rules of engagement. Hamas continues to violate international law, refuses to even allow Gilad to be seen by international representatives.

If he were my son...but I can't begin that thought because the pain is too great, the fear, the worry. Is there anything I wouldn't give for my children? Anything I wouldn't do? This is why it isn't correct for Gilad's parents to determine policy in this case, why mothers shouldn't be asked. We love our sons, desperately want Gilad home. This is their truth, our truth, a mother's truth.

But there is a greater truth that Hamas lives by and that truth is cheering now because they know that for a video we will release 20 prisoners, for Gilad we will release killers...who will kill again.

How many people have been murdered by the same terrorists we released in exchange for past captives? Did their families love them any less than Gilad's family loves him? This is the dilemma. Gilad on one side, a healthy, prisoner, begging us to do what we can to finally bring him home...and untold numbers of others on the other side, including Elie, telling us that what deal we make, if the price is high, will only encourage them to try to kidnap more soldiers. This is truth.

What the government has done endangers them all, while what we don't do, endangers Gilad. Sometimes, everyone is right and no one wins. The weight of that truth keeps me awake at night as I watch the video of Gilad over and over again and pray that in this bargain we made with the devil, at least his mother will find some comfort.

Love of the Land: Weighing Truths for Gilad

Love of the Land: PMW Bulletin: Hamas repeats threat to capture more "Shalits"

PMW Bulletin: Hamas repeats threat to capture more "Shalits"

Bulletin
Palestinian Media Watch
04 October 09
TY to IMRA

Hamas repeats threat to capture more "Shalits"
Khaled Mashaal repeats message of Hamas video animations mocking Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit and threatening more kidnappings

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

Following the release of the Gilad Shalit video in exchange for 20 Palestinian female terrorists who were involved in attempted murder, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal has repeated the organization's threats to kidnap more soldiers. Hamas sees the release as vindication of its kidnapping-for-hostage policy.

Mashaal said:
"The resistance, which has succeeded in capturing Gilad Shalit, keeping him alive and well for more than three years, giving him proper treatment, and excelling in conducting indirect negotiations, is capable of capturing [another] Shalit and [another] Shalit and [another] Shalit, until not a single prisoner will remain in the enemy's jails."

["Palestine Information Center" - Hamas website, Oct. 2, 2009]

The following documentation was publicized by PMW in its bulletin of Sept. 30th 2009:

Two video animations showing hostage Gilad Shalit as Hamas's prime leverage for prisoners' release have appeared on Hamas TV. Both applaud the Palestinian kidnapping-for-hostage policy, and advocate more kidnappings of Israeli soldiers.

One animation shows a Hamas child using a stone (symbolizing Gilad Shalit) to scrape away at a chain (symbolizing Israeli prisons) painted on a wall. A song promises that many "Gilads" will be the means to release Palestinian prisoners. The boy tells the chain that the Palestinians are patient and can wait for the chain to break. The boy then drops the stone, and on it appears a picture of Gilad Shalit. The boy tells Shalit that Hamas will be back to "finish the job." The video ends with Shalit crying, and calling "Mommy!" Click here to view

The second animation shows Gilad Shalit being held prisoner and talking to a Hamas child. The Shalit character says Israel does not care about him, and suggests that the only way for him to be released would be for Hamas to kidnap more soldiers. The child understands that further kidnappings would cause drafted Israelis to refuse to serve in the army out of fear of being kidnapped, and thus scare Israeli leaders -who otherwise don't care about Shalit - into accepting Hamas's terms. Click here to view

The following is the transcript of the first Hamas TV animation mocking Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit and promising more kidnappings of soldiers:

(Song) "In the prisons, our heroes cried with joy: Our day of release has come; this land is our country! You [Israelis] will all be 'Gilads'. We'll capture you."
Hamas child uses a stone to scrape away at a chain painted on a wall.
Child [to chain]: "You don't want to break- that's OK. Take your time; we're not in a hurry, we're very patient."
Child drops stone, and image of Gilad Shalit appears on stone.
Child [to stone - Shalit]: "You stay where you are; don't move. Tomorrow we'll be back and we'll finish the job."
(Song) "It is inevitable that the chains will be broken."
[The video ends with the stone - Gilad Shalit - crying: "Mommy!" (in
Hebrew)]

[Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), April 21, 2009]

The following is the transcript of the Hamas TV animation mocking Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit and promoting the kidnapping-for-hostage policy:

Gilad Shalit: "Mommy!"
Hamas child: "Who is it? Gilad [Shalit]? [Child laughs] Poor you! You've been rotting here for 3 years, and no one cares."
Gilad Shalit: "Please release me!"
Hamas child: "Are you asking me to be a collaborator and a traitor, that I'll betray my people and my homeland? Are you crazy!"
Gilad Shalit: "I have an idea: You [Hamas] go and capture more soldiers, they [Israelis] will be afraid and accept your terms to free me."
Hamas child: "Ah, they will free you not because they love you, but to prevent anxiety among your soldiers, so they won't be afraid, and stop their military service."
Gilad Shalit: "True."
Hamas child: "Gilad, stay here, and pray that [Hamas] succeeds in capturing another [soldier], so you'll be freed. Bye."
Gilad Shalit: "Mommy! Mommy! (in Hebrew) Free me!"

[Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), July 6, 2009]

Both Fatah and Hamas have stated that the kidnapping-for-hostage policy is the Palestinians' most effective tool to force the release of terrorist prisoners. Following are two examples of PA and Hamas ministers advocating kidnapping of Israeli soldiers:

Ashraf Al-Ajrami, PA Minister of Prisoners:

"The language of peace and negotiations is not enough to urge Israel to cooperate positively regarding prisoners. The way Israel likes, it seems, is to exchange [prisoners] with kidnapped Israeli soldiers."

[PA TV (Fatah), June 5, 2008]

Click here to view

Said Siam, PA Minister of Interior (Hamas):

"In the past, Hamas succeeded in kidnapping many Zionist soldiers. From among our forces there are thousands of prisoners. They (the forces) have to think how to free these prisoners, and I believe that there is no alternative but to kidnap soldiers to exchange for them. Hamas has kidnapped 10 soldiers. There is nothing the Resistance cannot do. When there is a goal and a good plan, the goal can be achieved, especially about prisoners, which is top priority.

During the PA administration, Hamas has succeeded in kidnapping and hiding bodies, but unfortunately, two bodies were handed over for nothing. When there is a kidnapping, and it is secured, each case at its own time has its own negotiations."

[Abu Dabi TV, June 26, 2006]

Click here to view

It should be noted that months before the Shalit kidnapping, PMW released the Siam speech, and warned that kidnapping-for-hostages was Palestinian policy.

To read PMW op-ed on Hamas's kidnapping-for-hostage policy, click here.
To see more statements on PMW's website confirming the Palestinian
kidnapping-for-hostage policy, click here.

To see a previous PMW bulletin (featured on the old PMW website), released
prior to the Gilad Shalit kidnapping, "Hamas Plans to Kidnap Israeli Soldiers for Prisoner Trade," click here.

Love of the Land: PMW Bulletin: Hamas repeats threat to capture more "Shalits"

Love of the Land: Weekly Commentary: Palestinian demands to free terrorists - the failed litmus test#links#links

Weekly Commentary: Palestinian demands to free terrorists - the failed litmus test

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
1 October 09

If a Palestinian gunman was captured tonight as he was murdering an Israeli family what would "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas like Israel to with him?

Transfer him to a Palestinian prison to serve his sentence?

No.

Transfer him to the Palestinian Authority to be tried and punished?

No.

How about banish him from the country?

No.

Then what does "moderate" Abbas demand that Israel do with a Palestinian gunman captured as he was murdering an Israeli family?

Release him.

That's right.

And for a hero's welcome.

This is a fundamental problem.

Because when Palestinian "moderates" want Israel to release all Palestinian terrorists regardless of when they committed their crimes, they are effectively saying that no Palestinian commitment is binding. - including the very anchor commitment of Oslo to abandon violence.

In the heady early days of Oslo when some leading Israeli Leftists argued for the release of terrorists with "blood on their hands", the debate was over murderers serving time for pre-Oslo crimes. Post Oslo crime was just that: crime.

But not in the eyes of the Palestinian "moderates".

For these "moderate" Palestinians, terrorists aren't guilty of murder - at most they are guilty of bad PR for the cause.

Love of the Land: Weekly Commentary: Palestinian demands to free terrorists - the failed litmus test

Love of the Land: Sparks

Sparks

Yesha Views
Marc Prowisor
1 October 09

So where are the Goldstones now? Lately the Negev is enjoying the pleasure of Kassams and Mortars a few times a day, yet Goldstone and his ilk say nothing. The UN ignores these little “hindrances”, and the rest of the Human Rights Activists just keep their mouths shut. Do you know why??? Because not only do they not care, they do not like Israel, and guess what, most of them don’t like Jews being in Israel.

Violence is on the rise in Judea and Samaria also, but the lives of Jews in these regions do not deserve the same rights and protection as others. Indeed, actions against the Jewish populous are applauded in the halls of the UN. Organizations such as Brit Tzedek, Gush Shalom and J Street to name a few support violence against our people in the Jewish heartland, and there are claims that not just verbal support.

Over here in Israel, we read also the claims of how lifting the roadblocks are one of the major causes of this rise in violence, not true. The recent lifting of the roadblocks is causing a 500% rise in theft, weapons transfers, strengthening of the terror infrastructure. It has eased the lives of many Arab residents of Judea and Samaria, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is not the cause of the increase in terror, it is helping, but it is not the cause or reason.

The reason is very simple, the Terrorists of Judea and Samaria want to kill Jews. They will continue to want to kill Jews, why not, this is what they are taught, and the world is not against it, as long as it is done in Israel. They are being incited in their Mosques, in their coffee shops, and most heinous, in their schools. One of the motives we are seeing is the feeble attempt of Fatah trying to gain strength outside of Ramallah, by renewing the “struggle”. You see, a “Palestinian” Campaign strategy includes how many Jews you will kill, simply put, kill more Jews, get more votes, and get more money. Let’s not forget how they are enjoying a new status and their new friends. This support they are enjoying in their fight against Israel from many nations, and “Leaders” is a strong catalyst in the increase of terror. As more and more Western nations are adopting a stronger Islamic presence and identity among their ranks, we will see this spread and grow, all over. So again, the reason for this increase in terror is not the removal of roadblocks.

I admit to even being a little comforted by the waking up of many Jews in America, as to the realizing of the goals of the Arabs, that in the destruction of Israel, as a Jewish State, and as a Country. Achminajad is also helping, his persistent ranting against Israel, his threats, his insanity is also scaring some more people into our corner. He has people waking up to the fact that many of Israel’s friends are only “fair weather friends”, and not really at our side. Strange isn’t it when there are reports of Arab Nations that claim they will permit Israel to fly over their territory to attack Iran, while the US, or Zbinew, claim they will stop Israeli jets from doing so. Most do not realize the reason the Arab nations want to stop Iran is that they are afraid that if he launches a nuclear attack on Israel, the winds will carry the “cloud” over to their countries, what would they say if Israel was located in Africa?

There is still a long way to go, but more and more of our people are waking up. If we could only get more of them out to see and understand the real picture, and the real face of our adversaries, we would have a flood on our hands, the good kind of flood. But that too will come.

Bibi’s speech touched many, whether his intentions are honorable or not is a separate issue, but we see how when Jewish strength and identity is spoken of, it reaches our core. When a “Jewish State” is mentioned, it reaches our soul and sparks are rekindled. It is these sparks that terrify our enemies, it is these sparks that can help stoke the fires of the continued Jewish presence in Israel, all of Israel.

We must continue as a people to rekindle these sparks, the sparks in all of us, as a people, as one people, wherever we are, until the fire returns to burn brightly in our midst. We are all we have and we must work together and continue to be strong in our land, in our Jewish Land, in all of our Jewish Land, it is, our right.

AM YISRAEL CHAI V’ KAYAM!

Love of the Land: Sparks

Love of the Land: Harsanyi: How to lose friends ...

Harsanyi: How to lose friends ...

David Harsanyi
Denverpost.com
25 September 09

The United States does not negotiate with terrorists — but we insist Israel do without preconditions.

We will not get entangled in the distasteful internal politics of Iran — but we define Israel's borders.

We will remove missile defense systems in Eastern Europe so we do not needlessly provoke our good friends in Russia — but we have no compunction nudging Israel to hand over territory with nothing in return.

This week, President Barack Obama spoke to the United Nations' General Assembly and insisted that Israel and the Palestinians negotiate "without preconditions." (Well, excluding the effective precondition that Israeli settlements are "illegitimate," according to the administration — so no pre-conditions means feel free to rocket Israel while you talk.)

This tact, Obama hopes, will lead to "two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people."

Hate to break the news to you, but there already exists a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis. This security is attained through a perpetual war against terrorism and Arab aggression.

And the last time Israel withdrew from disputed lands without pre-conditions to allow the potential of the Palestinian people to shine through was in Gaza. The Arabs, hungering for the light of freedom, used the gift to elect Hamas — now an Iranian proxy and always a terror organization — to rain rockets down on the civilians that voted to allow the first democratic Arab entity in history.

If Obama expects Israel to end the "occupation" that began in 1967 he is also demanding Israel abandon parts of Jerusalem. If he really anticipates a Palestinian state will be "contiguous territory," what he expects is that Israel can't be contiguous.

And when he uses the word "occupation" he is negotiating for the Palestinians. None of the lands up for discussion are "occupied" territory. The president, a highly educated man, knows well that there has never been an ultimate agreement on borders, nor has there ever, in history, been a Palestinian state to occupy.

There is an ethical question that the president might want to answer, as well. Why would the United States support an arrangement that scrubs the West Bank of all its Jews? Why is it so unconscionable to imagine that Jews could live among Muslims in the same way millions of Arabs live within Israel proper? Not many international agreements feature ethnic cleansing clauses.

Isn't this, after all, about peace?

Of course, we all know the answer to this question: Jews would be slaughtered, bombed from their homes, rocketed from their schools. This indisputable fact reveals the fundamental reality of these negotiations.

Instead of reaffirming the importance of our relationship with Israel, Obama has renewed our membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council, presided over by exemplars of self-determination and human dignity like Libya, Syria and Angola. The hobbyhorse of this organization is accusing Israel of war crimes, which isn't surprising.

Noted intellectual George Gilder argues in his recent book, "The Israel Test," that where you stand on Israel — not always, but in general — is an indication about how you feel about the ideals of liberty and capitalism. The debate over Israel, he claims, is the manifestation of a deeper moral and ideological war around the globe.

"The real issue," writes Gilder, "is between the rule of law and the rule of leveler egalitarianism, between creative excellence and covetous 'fairness,' between admiration of achievement versus envy and resentment."

This nation has no inherent duty to wage endless wars to secure freedom for the world's masses — often against their will. But shouldn't it stand with those nations that already value the basics tenets of a free and peaceful society?

Or, are all people now equally deserving of our friendship simply because they exist?

E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

Love of the Land: Harsanyi: How to lose friends ...

Love of the Land: President Obama's Remarks at UN:

President Obama's Remarks at UN:

U.S.commitment to Israel's security conditioned on accepting what he sees as legitimate Palestinian claims

IMRA
23 September 09

The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Is this a threat to take us back to the toolshed for a thrashing if we don't dance to his tune - or worse?

Here is how this kind of threatening talk boomerangs:

What kind of "risks for peace" can we take if the President of the United States says in a carefully prepared address to the UN that as far as he is concerned if at any time in the future - no matter what concessions and withdrawals we make - if we find ourselves in a dispute with the Palestinians and American thinks the Palestinians have a point then we can kiss America's "unwavering commitment to our security" goodbye.

Set up a patchwork arrangement of sovereignties in Jerusalem after that warning? No thanks boss.

How about pull out of the Golan? Sorry - got to pass on that one too.]

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 23,
2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York

10:10 A.M. EDT
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-United-Nations-General-Assembly/

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to address you for the first time as the 44th President of the United States. (Applause.)... No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together.

...Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states -- Israel and Palestine -- in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected.
..
We've also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. (Applause.)

... The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves. They offer nothing but hatred and destruction. In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, and coordinate law enforcement and protect our people.

...Our efforts to promote peace, however, cannot be limited to defeating violent extremists. For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings -- the belief that the future belongs to those who would build and not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end and a new day can begin.

...I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. (Applause.) We will continue to work on that issue. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end
incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.)

The time has come -- the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. (Applause.)

As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.

Now, I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us -- not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but all of us -- must decide whether we are seriousabout peace, or whether we will only lend it lip service. To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. (Applause.) And -- and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel's
legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security. (Applause.)

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It's not paid by politicians. It's paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night. It's paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are all God's children. And after all the politics and all the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why, even though there will be setbacks and false starts and tough days, I will not waver in my pursuit of peace. (Applause.)

Love of the Land: President Obama's Remarks at UN:

Israel Matzav: Golda and the terrorists

Golda and the terrorists

Mrs. Carl sent me this article which is somewhat political.

You must go to the link and read the article to the end or you will miss the entire point of it. I'm going to start you off.

To my consternation Golda never enunciated a single one of these words. Instead, she scanned the assembly from end to end, jaw jutting, her expression defiant, and after combing back her hair with the fingers of both hands, brandished the written speech, and in a caustic tone said, "I have here my prepared address, a copy of which I believe you have before you. But I have decided at the last minute not to place between you and me the paper on which my speech is written. Instead, you will forgive me if I break with protocol and speak in an impromptu fashion. I say this in light of what has occurred in Austria during the last few days."

Clearly, the woman had decided it was idiotic to read her formal address after the devastating news which had reached her just before leaving Israel for Strasbourg:

A train carrying Jews from communist Russia en route to Israel via Vienna was hijacked by two Arab terrorists at a railway crossing on the Austrian frontier. Seven Jews were taken hostage, among them a 73 year-old man, an ailing woman, and a three-year old child. The terrorists issued an ultimatum that unless the Austrian government instantly closed down Schoenau, the Jewish Agency's layover near Vienna where the émigrés were processed before being flown on to Israel, not only would the hostages be killed, but Austria itself would become the target of violent retaliation.

The Austrian cabinet hastily met and, led by Chancellor Bruno Kreisky, capitulated. Kreisky announced that Schoenau would be closed forthwith, and the terrorists were hustled to the airport for safe passage to Libya.

The entire Arab world could hardly contain its glee, and a fuming Golda Meir instructed her aides to arrange for an early flight from Strasbourg to Vienna where she intended to confront her fellow prime minister, her fellow socialist, and her fellow Jew, Bruno Kreisky, herself.

To the European Council she said, "Since the Arab terrorists have failed in their ghastly efforts to wreak havoc in Israel they have, of late, taken their atrocities against Israeli and Jewish targets into Europe, aided and abetted by Arab governments."

This remark caused a fidgety buzz to drone around the packed chamber, and it seemed to deepen when she spoke bitterly about the eleven Israeli athletes kidnapped and murdered at the Munich Olympics the summer before, an outrage compounded by the German government's subsequent release of the surviving killers in return for the freeing of a hijacked Lufthansa plane and its passengers.

"Oh yes, I fully understand your feelings," said Golda cynically, arms folded as tight as a drawbridge. "I fully understand the feelings of a European prime minister saying, 'For God's sake, leave us out of this! Fight your own wars on your own turf. What do your enmities have to do with us? Leave us be!' And I can even understand" -- this in a voice that had gone grimmer than ever -- "why some governments might even decide that the only way to rid themselves of this insidious threat is to declare their countries out of bounds, if not to Jews generally then certainly to Israeli Jews, or Jews en-route to Israel. It seems to me this is the moral choice which every European government has to make these days."

And then, chopping the air with balled fists, her face as granite as her eyes, she thundered, "European governments have no alternative but to decide what they are going to do. To every one which upholds the rule of law I suggest there is but only one answer — no deals with terrorists; no truck with terrorism. Any government which strikes a deal with these killers does so at its own peril. What happened in Vienna is that a democratic government, a European government, came to an agreement with terrorists. In so doing it has brought shame upon itself. In so doing it has breached a basic principle of the rule of law, the basic principle of the freedom of the movement of peoples -- or should I just say the basic freedom of the movement of Jews fleeing Russia? Oh, what a victory for terrorism this is!"

The ensuing applause told Golda Meir that she had gotten her message across to a goodly portion of the European Council, so off she flew to Vienna.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: Golda and the terrorists

Love of the Land: Israel's Analysis and Comments on the GAZA FACT FINDING MISSION REPORT

Israel's Analysis and Comments on the GAZA FACT FINDING MISSION REPORT

Communicated by the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson

General:

· Israel is appalled and disappointed by the Report published on 15 September 2009 by the Gaza Fact Finding Mission. The Report effectively ignores Israel's right of self defense, makes unsubstantiated claims about its intent and challenges Israel's democratic values and rule of law.

· At the same time the Report all but ignores the deliberate strategy of Hamas of operating within and behind the civilian population and turning densely populated areas into an arena of battle. By turning a blind eye to such tactics it effectively rewards them.

· The Report barely disguises its goal of instigating a political campaign against Israel, and in its recommendations seeks to involve the Security Council, the General Assembly the International Criminal Court, the Human Rights Council, and the entire international community in such a campaign.

The Mandate of the Mission:

· The one-sided mandate of the Gaza Fact Finding Mission, and the resolution established it, gave serious reasons for concern both to Israel and to the many states on the Council which refused to support it - including the member states of the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Japan.

· It also troubled many distinguished individuals, including former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who refused invitations to head the Mission and admitted that it was "guided not by human rights but by politics".

The Conduct of the Mission:

· These concerns were exacerbated by the conduct of the Mission itself, including reports in the Palestinian media that, throughout its visits to Gaza, it was continuously accompanied by Hamas officials and its refusal to recuse members of the mission with clear political views on the issues under investigation. One mission member signed a letter to the Sunday Times saying that Israel's actions against Hamas attacks were acts of "aggression not self-defense", prejudging the investigation before it had even begun.

· The unprecedented holding of telecast hearings also gave cause for concern. The fact that all the witnesses were prescreened and selected, and none were asked questions relating to any Palestinian terrorist activity or the location of weaponry and terrorists in civilian areas only supports concerns that they were part of an orchestrated political campaign.

A "non-judicial" document

· Justice Goldstone as Head of the Mission repeatedly insisted that the Mission was not a judicial inquiry and so "could not reach judicial conclusions". On this basis that he justified the inclusion of partisan mission members, admitting that their involvement "would not be appropriate for a judicial inquiry'. The Report however is highly judicial in nature, reaching conclusive judicial determinations of guilt, and including 'detailed legal findings' even in the absence of the sensitive intelligence information which Israel did not feel able to provide. These determinations are made notwithstanding the Report's admission that it does "pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials".

Elements Ignored by the Report:

· The Report all but ignores the deliberate terrorist strategy of operating in the heart of densely populated civilian areas which dictated the arena of battle. Even when the Hamas terrorists mixed among civilians, the Report rejects the notion that there was an intention to put the civilian population at risk.

· Astonishingly, despite the many widely reported instances in the international press of the abuse of civilian facilities by terrorist groups, and the statements of Hamas own leaders praising women and children who acted as human shields, the Report repeatedly stated that it could find no evidence of such activities. This, even despite its admission that those interviewed were "reluctant to speak about the presence or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups".

· The Report also ignores Israel's extensive efforts, even in the midst of fighting, to maintain humanitarian standards. While it does, reluctantly, acknowledge Israel's "significant efforts" to issue warnings before attacks, it does not find any of these efforts to be effective

· While the Report passes judgment against Israel in respect of almost any allegation, it seeks to absolve the Hamas of almost any wrongdoing. The word "terrorist" is almost entirely absent. Soldier Gilad Shalit, now held incommunicado in captivity for over three years, was "captured during an enemy incursion" and the Hamas members that the Mission met with in Gaza are thanked as the "Gaza authorities" for extending their full cooperation and support to the Mission.

· Even the thousands of rocket attacks against Israelis which necessitated the Gaza Operation are given the most cursory treatment, and indeed the Report indirectly blames Israel even for these by terming them "'reprisals".

Rejection of democratic values:

· In a Report which relies so heavily on Israeli human rights organizations and which also petitions on sensitive security issues to Israel's Supreme Court the Report devotes considerable attention to "repression of dissent in Israel". It bases this assertion in large part on the widespread support for the military operation in the Israeli public, assuming that Israel has "created a political climate in which dissent is not tolerated. The notion that the majority of Israelis genuinely supported action to bring years of continuous rocket and missile attacks against Israeli civilians to an end does not appear to have occurred to the members of the Mission.

· The Report is also critical of Israel internal investigations even though these compare favorably to investigations of allegations in military matters in most western countries, and have regularly resulted in criminal investigations and convictions.

Recommendations:

· The Report's recommendations are as one-sided as its findings. It seeks to harness the Human Rights Council, the Security Council the General Assembly, the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court and the international community as parts of its hostile political campaign.

· Despite token recommendations in respect of the Palestinian side, all the international pressure is directed solely against Israel.

· The true test of such a Report can only be whether in future conflicts it will have the effect of increasing or decreasing respect for the rule of law. Regrettably a one-sided report of this nature, claiming to represent international law, can only weaken the standing of law in future conflicts. At the same time, it will broadcast a deeply troubling message to terrorist groups wherever they are that the cynical tactics of seeking to exploit civilian suffering for political ends actually pays dividends.

MFA Links: Gaza Facts – The Israeli Perspective

Behind the Headlines: Human Rights Council/Goldstone Fact-Finding Mission

Non-MFA Related: Goldstone’s Report: Fundamentally Flawed or a Step Towards Sanctions?

The Goldstone Show-Trial

The Assault On Israel's Right to Self-Defense

Love of the Land: Israel's Analysis and Comments on the GAZA FACT FINDING MISSION REPORT