Hat Tip: BB
And humiliation, as far as I am concerned. We have handed a victory to the bad guys just in order to bend over backwards, like a contortionist, a pretzel, to show the world how “eager” we are to bring the Palestinian Arabs to the table.
What I see is that chances that the government will reverse itself with regard to the 26 terrorists prisoners that are to be released tomorrow is almost non-existent. They are standing by their decision and the court is standing by their right to make that political decision, grief of families notwithstanding.
I cringe at what’s coming tomorrow, with the celebrations as they are released. (Photo is of a previous such occasion.)
But I believe we must keep our eye on the way to be most productive in fighting the current situation.
This means — among other things — letting the world know what low-life scum they are. (I never call such people ‘animals,’ because I’m an animal lover and I think this would insult good creatures.) There should be every effort made to publicize their true nature, so that they are not idolized and not mistakenly perceived as political prisoners who were wrongly incarcerated by Israel. (See more on this below.)
This is a job that falls to all of us. Do it by sharing this posting, and by writing letters to the editor, and by calling in to talk shows, and writing op-eds where you can, and simply talking to friends and acquaintances.
The decision on which prisoners to let out in this go-round was made last night by a special committee that had been appointed for this purpose. Chaired by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, it included Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Science Minister (and former Shin Bet head) Yaakov Peri. Absent from the panel were Prime Minister Netanyahu, recovering from hernia surgery, and Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch, who is on official business in Russia.
Other senior officials present included Shin Bet head Yoram Cohen, Prisons Service head Aharon Franco, and representatives from the IDF, Justice Ministry, and other agencies.
The Shin Bet had provided information on the security risks each prisoner represented and this data was drawn upon as the decisions on whom to release were made. These particular terrorists were considered low risk. Some were coming close to the end of their terms. Some were accomplices and didn’t directly have blood on their hands — 17 of the 26 to be released have Jewish blood on their hands.
Fourteen will be released to Gaza, and some of them are Hamas members. According to YNet, “The ministers’ choices were influenced by the aim of improving Abbas’ standing among the Palestinians, but also not to arouse public scrutiny in Israel.”
Among those who are presumably not the “worst,” and who will be released, are:
Ra’ai Ibrahim Salam Ali of Fatah, who was convicted in 1994 of the murder of 79-year-old Morris Eisenstatt, 79. Eisenstatt was sitting on a bench reading a book when his murderer delivered ax blows to his head.
And Abu-Musa Salam Ali Atia of Fatah, who murdered Isaac Rotenberg at a construction site, in 1994. Rotenberg was a Holocaust survivor whose family had perished in Sobibor and had fought with the IDF in the War of Independence. He was also attacked by axes, wielded by Ali Atia and his accomplice.
Then there are Abu Satta Ahmad Sa’id Aladdin and Abu Sita Talab Mahmad Ayman, convicted in 1994 for the murder of David Dadi and Haim Weizman. After accomplishing the double murder, they slept in Weizman’s apartment, cutting off their victims’ ears as proof of what they had done. Perhaps you didn’t know that Arab terrorists often “indulge” in bodily mutilation of their victims, but they do.
If it were up to me, none of these murderers would ever see the light of day again. If it were up to me, they’d spend the rest of their lives in solitary, in five foot square cells. But it’s not up to me, of course. And tomorrow they are scheduled to go free.
You can read more about the terrorists and see the full list of those to be released here:
The “Palestinian foreign ministry” issued a letter, made public yesterday, that advises “Palestinian ambassadors” to emphasize to international diplomats that the prisoners who are about to be released are not terrorists but “freedom fighters.”
The letter, which was first obtained by Haaretz, says that these are political prisoners who were merely reacting to the “terrorism” of Israel:
“A terrorist is someone who forcefully occupies the other’s land, expels him and comes to live in his place not the Palestinian political prisoner, [who is] a freedom fighter.”
You may find this ludicrous. But remember that there are people who became convinced that Israel is an “apartheid” state simply because our enemies kept saying it, and in spite of the fact that it’s absolutely not the case. And the PA, similarly, has convinced a good part of the world that Israel “belongs” behind the “1967 border,” when in fact that line was only a temporary armistice line and it was understood at the time it was set in 1949 that a permanent border had yet to be negotiated.
Truth is irrelevant to those attacking us. And the most effective way to combat this is via facts exposed with solid documentation and firm conviction.
We cannot now permit the terrorists to be turned into “freedom fighters.” “Freedom fighters” don’t use an ax to bash in the skull of a 79 year old man who is reading a book. And “freedom fighters” don’t mutilate the bodies of their victims.
As to Israel as “terrorist” because we are “occupying someone’s land,” this too needs to be vigorously fought with truth.
Judea and Samaria constitute Jewish land. This is the case historically — for the area beyond the Green Line represents the ancient heritage of the Jews — and legally. In 1922, the League of Nations, via the Mandate for Palestine, gave all the land of Palestine from the river to the sea to the Jews for a homeland. This was an article of international law that has never been overturned or reversed.
What is more, the notion that Judea and Samaria are meant to be a “Palestinian State” is doubly ludicrous. For when Israel liberated this land from occupation in 1967, it was Jordan that was the illegal occupier there, not a Palestinian entity. As I’ve mentioned many times before, Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, which talks about negotiations to determine the border, never mentions a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state.
Now is no time to be silent, as the enemies of Israel wield their weapons of words and inverted concepts.
Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin (Likud), definitely one of the good guys, in giving voice yesterday to his deep distress about the government’s decision to release the terrorists, alluded to this inversion of concepts:
“I am angry at the approach that says that releasing terrorists brings peace nearer, and building a kindergarten [i.e., over the Green Line] prevents peace.
“If [the Palestinian Authority] asks for the release of the murderers as the first step, that says something about their priorities.”.
Elkin pointed out that the highest salaries paid by the PA are to terrorists in Israeli prisons. “While a person serving in the PA security forces makes about 3,000 to 4,000 shekels per month [$850 to $1,150], the salary of a terrorist prisoner is between 10,000 and 12,000 shekels [$2,850 to $3,400].”
And the more serious a terrorist’s crime was, the higher his salary. “There is a very problematic educational message here.”
Two additional articles to share in this posting. The first, a blog posting by Captain Barak Raz, who has just completed two years as the spokesman for the Judea and Samaria Division of the IDF. He wrote, in part:
“…I always try to explain: the threat is real. The lack of ‘successful’ terror attacks from the West Bank in recent years should never be confused with a lack of motivation or desire on the part of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or the dozens of other organizations that work tirelessly in order to reestablish themselves in the region. The relative calm and security stability that exists in the West Bank today has by and large resulted from an ongoing security effort headed by the IDF.
“…The consequences of a destabilized West Bank are dire – for Israelis, for Palestinians, for the region, and perhaps the world.
“…a destabilized West Bank would no doubt affect the region beyond our borders, when considering the situation in other Middle Eastern countries, therefore becoming a concern of global proportions. Certainly when considering Israel’s overall strategic security situation and the wide-array of threats facing our small vulnerable country, both near and far, one can understand why we must do everything in our power to prevent a deterioration in the West Bank.”
Now Captain Raz, a military person, declines to draw political conclusions. But those conclusions stare us in the face. To turn any part of Judea and Samaria over to a weak and ineffective PA, with a security force that has collaborated with Hamas in some instances, is to guarantee instability in Judea and Samaria.
As “we must do everything in our power to prevent a deterioration in the West Bank,” then it goes without saying that negotiating a “two-state solution” is a non-starter for Israel.
And this from Geoffry Alderman, who writes commentary for the Jewish Chronicle:
“…I must, in this connection, draw your attention to an authoritative statement made by Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a senior Palestinian Authority spokesman, who on July 21 declared that any deal reached with Israel would only bind the Palestinians ‘temporarily.’ This warning echoed that made earlier the same day by the other authorised spokesman, Yasir Abed Rabbo, who had declaimed in almost identical terms. The government of Mahmoud Abbas will not sign a final all-encompassing peace treaty. The very most they might agree to is a hudna — a truce, a tactical device to allow them to regroup and rearm.”
There is an extensive and important history to the Palestinian Arab (or, more broadly, Muslim) concept of temporary treaties, which derives from the model of conduct set by Muhammad: In 628, assessing his people as not sufficiently strong to take Mecca, he concluded a ten-year treaty — the Hudaibiya Pact — with the polytheistic Quraysh tribe that controlled the city. Two years later, when had garnered considerably more strength, he abrogated the treaty and attacked the Quraysh overwhelmingly.
On May 10, 1994, a mere 10 days after having signed the Gaza-Jericho Agreement of Oslo, Yasser Arafat made a statement, publicly, but where he thought the media would not pick it up, that:
“This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh…”
Mahmoud Abbas is a disciple of Arafat. The more things appear to change….
The Palestinian Arab goal in negotiating with Israel is not peace, but a temporary lull that allows them to garner greater strength in order to destroy Israel.
The only way to repel the intentions of the Palestinian Arabs to destroy Israel is via uncompromising strength. It is all that they understand.
So, we have agreed to release terrorists for the “privilege” of bringing the PA to the table (and, of course, to keep Kerry happy).
And on Wednesday those negotiations will begin.
JUST HOW CRAZY ARE WE?
Egypt and other issues will have to wait a bit more….
Hat Tip: BB
Highly disturbing and blasphemous. The sacrifice of children at the Marxist alter. Just plain evil and despicable.
I thought it was funny and the Clown has a constitutional right to mock Obama if he wants. As Glenn Beck, says: “Obama is not Mohammed.” Obama is not G-d.
Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day. This week’s question: Do you think the House will pass some version of amnesty for Illegal aliens? Why Or Why not?
Rhymes With Right: Will the House pass some form of amnesty? Yeah, they will — there is absolutely zero possibility of the House NOT passing some form of amnesty. There is simply too much pressure from the political class and the 1%ers in the media for it not to happen, regardless of the wider views of the American people.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. The United States needs to do something to deal with the immigration crisis. If we can get border security and employer sanctions and some sort of penalty for the illegals, then the amnesty might not be so bad. Personally, I’d like to see that amnesty contingent upon a constitutional amendment banning any future amnesty plan from being adopted, but that won’t happen. At a bare minimum, though, there needs to be some limitation on those who get amnesty sponsoring other family members who want to come to this country — perhaps a 10 year ban AFTER they get citizenship.
For me, the big issue comes to the so-called “DREAMers”. I teach those children. What do you say to a kid who has lived in this country since he or she was 18 months old when they want to go to college — or get a job — like the rest of their classmates, only to discover that neither is an option because of an immigration status they have no control over. Frankly, I think that we in the GOP have to support something to provide relief to these young people — but it cannot be as broad as the plan put forth by Obama and the Democrats.
The Independent Sentinel: They will try to cave because they are a combination of wusses and covert liberals. They also heed the advice of Democrats on how to get elected.
I have a question. Why do we owe them a shorter line to citizenship again? Why can’t they go to the end of the same line everyone else is on?
Oh, I forgot, we have to reward them for coming here illegally. I thought they only do that in California but apparently not.
JoshuaPundit: To answer the question directly, I’d be pleasantly surprised if they didn’t.
But I have a few questions to ask Republican/conservative proponents of amnestia… just to enlighten me as to their way of thinking.
1) The Democrats have never enforced US laws on border security, including the ones incorporated in the 1986 amnesty or the 2005 legislation mandating a border fence. What makes you think this latest amnestia bill is going to be any different? Especially if the Democrats maintain control of the Senate and perhaps even retake the House in 2014?
2) What are the advantages to America? Amnnestia will not get rid of a permanent underclass, something its proponents use as a talking point. In fact, the recent Congressional Budget Office analysis says that amnestia at best will only cut illegal migration by 25%. And that’s assuming that the enforcement policies in the Senate bill are actually carried out. It will bankrupt the country while creating a reliable Democrat/Big Government supporting group of voters for years as it has in places like California. There are reliable estimates that amnesty for the illegal migrants here will add a whopping $6 trillion to the national debt, a figure I personally think is understated because no one can accurately guess the fiscal impact of chain migration and family unification. So anyone who claims to be a ‘fiscal conservative’ and supports this is either lying to himself, his constituents or both. There’s no political advantage either for Republicans. Aside from alienating at least a part of the 2/3 of the Hispanic electorate that’s up for grabs and either didn’t show up or voted Republican in 2012, it will also alienate the Republican base… permanently, as even more of them stay home in 2014 and 2016 than did in 2012.
3) Are we now in the business of endorsing the moral stance of selective compassion, the idea that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others? There are over 3 million people in Europe, Asia and elsewhere who want very badly to come here, have applied legally and in many cases have skills and backgrounds much more valuable to the U.S, than that of an uneducated, unskilled laborer from Sinaloa. The first group is stuck in the morass of our present immigration system, which was largely crafted by Ted Kennedy expressly to favor the second group… which are now going to have a massive, expensive piece of legislation crafted especially for them based on their ethnicity, their proximity to the US border, and because so many of them have chosen to break our laws because our politicians refuse to enforce them. Isn’t this both racist and unjust? Shouldn’t we have a race neutral points system like Canada and Australia do that applies to all migrants? And is there any reason why those whom came here illegally should be able to jump the line?
The Glittering Eye: Until roughly a month ago I thought that some sort of comprehensive immigration reform that would include something that some people would call “amnesty” while others denied that bitterly would pass both houses of Congresses and be signed into law. Now I’m not so sure.
If I had to guess and based on conditions on the ground right now, I think I would say no comprehensive immigration reform at all. As I see things there’s a stand-off with House Republicans demanding an unachievably high level of border control before all else and Senate Democrats insisting on a “path to citizenship” as the sine qua non of immigration reform. I don’t see the makings of a compromise there.
Well, there you have it.
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it.
Hat Tip: BB
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
Evidence is emerging that powerful Republican K Street lobbyist Tom Korologos is the main factor behind the failure of the House of Representatives to do its duty and investigate the activities of Al Jazeera on U.S. soil. Korologos has been described as a Republican “heavy hitter” who can work his will on Capitol Hill. His clout explains why Rep. Michael McCaul (TX), Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has failed to open hearings on Al Jazeera.
Big money has bought access to the U.S. media market for the latest version of terror television. And Republicans who should be on guard against this have sold out.
The channel has Arabic and English versions, and works hand-in-glove with the Muslim Brotherhood and its associated terrorist groups, including al Qaeda and Hamas. The channel is well-funded by the regime in Qatar, where the country’s citizens are denied freedom of speech and press and there has been no “Arab Spring.” Indeed, a poet got life in prison in Qatar for insulting the emir, a multi-billionaire.
The official launch of Al Jazeera America is less than two weeks away, on August 20. Upon its launch, the new channel reports that Al Jazeera English will no longer be available in the U.S. on television or as an online stream.
Asked for an explanation as to his inaction, McCaul’s press spokesman Mike Rosen had no comment.
But the involvement of Korologos explains a lot. A former Ambassador under President George W. Bush and now a “strategic adviser” to lobbying firm DLA Piper, Korologos gave an amazing interview on March 14 to Brian Lamb of C-SPAN in which he acknowledged his work for Al Jazeera, but said that he was “not really” concerned about the channel’s ownership by the terrorist-supporting government of Qatar.
Korologos said, “I’m a journalist. I was born and raised in journalism. I got a graduate degree from Columbia Journalism School, one of the Pulitzer traveling fellows for finishing number one, two or three, whatever, pick your choice, in the class. I’m for freedom of the press, the more the merrier. Al Jazeera America is not Al Jazeera English nor is it Al Jazeera Arabic. They’re going to have bureaus all over the country. They’re going to have news outlets today. Today you can go watch Fox or NBC or one of those and it’ll show on the bottom of the screen, Al Jazeera reporting. That fire they had where all those people were killed in South America and Chile, I think it was, had Al Jazeera reporting. They’ve got more bureaus than networks do.”
Korologos went on to compare Al Jazeera to the BBC and the Voice of America. “Those guys [at Al Jazeera] are going to be journalists,” he claimed.
Since he made these comments, Al Jazeera has been completely discredited in Egypt, as its propaganda activities on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood have been exposed for the world to see. A mutiny among its staff occurred and Al Jazeera has been ostracized by most of the Egyptian media. Even before this transpired, Al Jazeera English had been heavily criticized, even by American liberals, for ignoring the sexual assault on CBS News correspondent Lara Logan during the Egyptian revolution. At the time, Al Jazeera was cheering the overthrow of pro-American Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.
Still, Rep. McCaul has consistently refused to investigate the launch of Al Jazeera America, even after it paid Al Gore and his partners $500 million in a questionable transaction for ownership of the American television company Current TV. The deal gets Al Jazeera America into 40 to 50 million homes.
Yet, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has said, in regard to Al Jazeera, “I think if an American medium is controlled by a political force from abroad, that’s a proper subject for inquiry.”
As AIM has reported, Al Jazeera’s current operations in the U.S. are illegal, since its broadcasts are not labeled as foreign propaganda, as required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The law was originally enacted to discourage pro-Nazi agents from spreading propaganda inside the United States but it applies in general to agents of foreign governments and foreign political powers.
Meanwhile, Rep. Tim Murphy’s (R-PA) letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about the need to review Al Jazeera in the context of “foreign ownership of media outlets” in the U.S. received a belated response. William T. Lake, chief of the FCC’s Media Bureau, simply told Murphy the agency has no jurisdiction over the matter.
However, former FCC commissioner Michael Copps told me in an interview that the activities in the U.S. of Al Jazeera, Russia Today, and other foreign propaganda networks were a proper subject of inquiry by the FCC. “I think you conduct a thorough inquiry to understand what’s going on,” he said about these channels. He wondered about their impact on existing media and communities in the U.S.
Broadcaster Jerry Kenney has filed an FCC complaint about Al Jazeera programming being illegally aired on taxpayer-supported public TV stations. He has received no response from the FCC.
AIM has also reported that Al Jazeera evaded the law requiring federal approval for foreign investments in America that have national security implications. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department and is responsible for analyzing the transaction.
CFIUS investigated and approved China-based Dalian Wanda Group Corporation’s purchase of AMC Entertainment, one of the nation’s largest movie theater chains.
The writer Zach Coleman has noted, “News broadcasting is more politically sensitive than cinema operation and Al Jazeera is a much more controversial acquirer than Dalian Wanda, which was previously unknown in the U.S.”
In his C-SPAN interview, Korologos discussed his lobbying on Capitol Hill on behalf of various Republican presidents and said, when asked about his work for Al Jazeera, that “…I’m still working because I haven’t got anything else to do. I’d like to go be a ski instructor which I’ve been, we have a place outside of Aspen and by the way, we own an art gallery out there.”
Korologos is one-half of a “power couple” that includes his wife, Ann McLaughlin, who was previously married to commentator John McLaughlin. The art gallery is called the “Ann Korologos Gallery.”
This exchange about his firm DLA Piper then took place:
Brian Lamb: You’re with a company called DLA Piper, 3,400 lawyers worldwide, 64 offices in this country or worldwide?
Lamb: Senator Mitchell, Senator Daschle, others that are…
Korologos: Congressman Castle.
Lamb: Berl Bernhard, who used to work for Senator Muskie, you’re in this business, have been in it for years. Is this a good thing that people come to Congress, then go downtown?
Korologos: Of course it is, somewhere, you’ve got to go somewhere. You don’t want to be a hillbilly all your life in this town. What’s a hillbilly? Someone who just goes to the Hill and gravitates and stays there. I should correct you, since we came in, I think the number is up to 3,800 lawyers. It keeps growing. They’re all over the…
Lamb: Who owns that company?
Korologos: It’s a conglomerate of law firms that they have been buying and expanding. Their motto is, Everything Matters, so we do everything, from here to China to Singapore to South America. It’s a big firm and what I do, I’m a strategic adviser over there. What does that mean? Well it means that they come to me and ask for strategic advice and I give it to them. They wanted to make me senior adviser and I said that implies old, so I became strategic. Yes, everybody is entitled to representation. It’s in the Constitution.
This is how Korologos justifies his work on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood channel.
DLA Piper not only represented Al Jazeera in the acquisition of Gore’s Current TV, but is also active in the “Islamic financial services industry” in the Middle East.
Big money has trumped homeland security.
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].