Which Would You Choose?

Here are two articles that show the difference between living under Palestinian rule and living under Israeli rule.

The first one describes the human rights situation in Gaza over the past year.

Palestinian Mazen Shahin says the torture he suffered in a month spent as a prisoner of the Islamist Hamas in the Gaza Strip was worse than the several years he spent in Israeli jails.

He says he will never forget his time in Mashtal prison: "It was a lot worse than being in jail in Israel," he told AFP at his modest home in Khan Yunis refugee camp in the south of the Palestinian territory.

The Israelis arrested him four times and he spent "several years" behind bars inside the Jewish state, said Shahin, a member of the Fatah movement of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.

Sadly, the article buys the Hamas propaganda that this was carried out by rogue elements of the security forces and that the public can now complain if they wish. No doubt, those who dare to complain will be given their own private tours of the Hamas penal system. A place where:

He says he had the soles of his feet beaten with heavy electric cables. His captors also made him suffer the indignity of shaving his head and beard.

"They told me I was not a religious person and that I wasn't allowed to pray because God would not hear my prayers,"

By the looks of it, Meshtal prison makes Abu Ghraib look like a sanatorium.

The second article deals with Palestinian collaborators with Israel who now live in Sedorot - the same town that is constantly bombarded by missiles from Gaza. According to the Guardian - a newspaper that rarely if ever has something positive to say about Israel, these collaborators unanimously asserted like "Samir" that:

"I'm very happy that I helped the state of Israel. Here everything is straightforward, not like with the Arabs. Here there is a law and there are rights."

So basically, people prefer to live under a rain of deadly missiles rather than live in Gaza under Islamofascists. Ponder that the next time you hear about how some leftist, "peace-loving" organization or Carterite has expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians. Too bad Rachel Corrie did not live long enough to enjoy the type of hospitality reserved for Alan Johnson and Mazen Shahin.

Canary in the Coal Mine

Israel has often been called the canary in the coal mine - what happens in Israel tends to repeat itself elsewhere, usually sooner rather than later. Ironically, this is no where more true than in the Muslim world. The terrorism that was first tested out on Israeli children is now de rigeur in Baghdad. Suicide bombings - which were unheard of twenty years ago, are now common from Mauritania to Pakistan. The fighting skills that Hamas perfected against Israel was used to throw their brothers off of rooftops and to undemocratically maintain power in Gaza.

Moreover, while countless articles have been written about how the conflict has been bad for Israel, it seems to me the Arabs have fared much worse. Israel remains a vibrant democracy with an enviable economy and a strong legal system. Palestinian society is in shambles. When they remember the Nakba, they do not have to hearken back 60 years, but rather can just look around them. Sure, they blame Israel, but it is they - and not Israel - that has to endure daily suffering at the hands of their own brothers.

The Palestinians - who were once led by the secular PLO and famously included many Christians, has now been replaced by Hamas - which is rapidly weeding out Fatah along with the minuscule Christian community in Gaza. While Israel is roundly attacked for "human rights abuses" Hamas in Gaza has perfected its societal oppression and waiting for the chance to spread it to the West Bank and all of Israel. If it works in Israel, you can be sure this will impact Jordan Egypt and Lebanon.

Though I am opposed to the way Kossovars declared independence, I commend them for instinctively realizing this. Michael Totten, who usually reports from Lebanon is presently doing a series on the Balkans. Recently (April 30), he wrote:

Kosovo is the world’s newest country, and its unilateral declaration of independence is more controversial than the existence of Israel. It should be only slightly surprising, then, that many Kosovars, though most are Muslims, identify to an large extent with the Israelis. “Kosovars used to identify with the Palestinians because we Albanians are Muslims and Christians and we saw Serbia and Israel both as usurpers of land,” a prominent Kosovar recent told journalist Stephen Schwartz. “Then we looked at a map and woke up. Israelis have a population of six million, their backs to the sea, and 300 million Arab enemies. Albanians have a total population of eight million, our backs to the sea, and 200 million Slav enemies. So why should we identify with the Arabs?”

So, while columnists the world over are busy eulogizing Israel on the 60th anniversary of its founding, they may want to consider also asking about the odds of the Palestinians surviving as one people for another 60 years. Or will the fault lines of Fatah and Hamas, Christian and Muslim, Secular and Religious, and Refugee and those living in the territories, West Bank and Gaza, and Israeli Arab and non-citizen Arabs prove too much? The same could be said for most of the repressive Middle East states, where tribe, religion, ethnicity and politics are all regularly suppressed by the totalitarian regimes that rule the region.

Sure, Israel has its societal divides as well, but they are out in the open and are regularly discussed. As New York Times columnist Freedman noted in his book The World is Flat, the difference between India and Pakistan is that in India, when a poor boy looks up the hill and sees a mansion, he says "One day I will grow up and be that man." When a Pakistani boy looks up, he says, "One day I am going to kill that man." The only discussions that occur at present in Palestinian society and Muslim society as a whole, occur at the end of a rifle.

I doubt I will be around in 60 years and don't really know if Israel will be around in 60 years, but am pretty sure that Muslim dictators and the Palestinians should be the most worried right about now.

Yes He Does!

Not surprisingly, few Western newspapers reported this story because they don't believe that Abbas could really mean what he said.

I believe that this denial stems from several factors: 1) A strong desire for things to work out; 2) An inability to appreciate the fact that not everyone in the world shares our humanistic and enlightenment values. This leads to what Salman Rushdie called "soft prejudice" or the inability to believe that the "other" could really mean what they say. It is prejudice because it stems from a patronising attitude. It is dangerous because it inevitably leads to cognitive dissonance.

This, in turn, leads Westerners to not report these stories or to write them off as sops for internal consumption that should not be taken too seriously.

Yet, the very fact that these statements are most often made in Arabic to Arabic news outlets and not in English to Western audiences should actually set off alarm bells.

For starters, it is much easier to lie in a language that is not your mother tongue. Foreign languages simply do not have the emotional resonance and are not as fraught with meaning as one's mother tongue. Anyone who has learned swear words in a foreign language understands this dynamic.

Secondly, the fact that these statements are primarily for internal consumption suggests that Abbas and others who employ this tactic are aware of what they are saying and how it will "play in Peoria"

So, without further ado, this is what the "moderate" Abbas said to the Jordanian newspaper Al Dustur (emphasis mine):

...Abbas said that he is against an armed conflict at this time, but things may differ in the future.

Abbas, a leading figure of the Palestine Liberation Organization, was quoted as boasting about the fact that he was the one to "fire the first bullet of the resistance" back in 1965, adding it was the PLO that taught many around the world "how to resist, when resistance is most effective and when it is not."

"I had the honor to lead… we taught everyone, including the Hizbullah, the ways of resistance. They were all educated in our training camps."

According to al-Dustur, Abbas does not demand of Hamas to acknowledge Israel, but rather wants it to join a government which will negotiate the recognition.

"I demanded that a unity government be formed, to negotiate with Israel… that is what I told Syrian President Bashar Assad – and he backed me up.

"Hamas entered an election based on the Oslo Accords, which recognize Israel. I am not the only one pushing for such recognition, the Arab initiative – which is a consensus in the Arab and Muslim world – calls for it as well."

The Palestinian president also said he objects to Israel's definition as a Jewish State: "We negated the concept in the Annapolis peace conference and it almost ended because of it… they wanted us to state we recognize Israel as a Jewish State in the closing statements, but we wouldn't hear of it."

So, please remind me what exactly is the difference between Hamas and Fatah? Clearly their differences are over tactics and strategy and not over substance.

Peace at all Costs?

So it took a little while for the actual outlines of this deceit to come through, but here is how the Palestinian spinmeisters have decided to try to get around thew incontrovertible fact that the Hamas government has not met the minimum requirements of the international community or the Quartet.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat noted that Abbas, not the Palestinian government, would lead negotiations with Israel. In asking Haniyeh to form a new government earlier this week, Abbas reiterated his commitment to all agreements signed with Israel, including the pact of mutual recognition, Erekat said.

"Since the negotiations ... are under the jurisdiction of the president and the PLO, it should be noted that the president reiterated the commitment to these principles," he said. (See here)

So, as I predicted here, Abbas would, "run cover for Hamas". Is there anyone who is fooled by this in any way. Hamas has reiterated that it will never recognize Israel's right to exist or cease from the murderous activities they call "resistance". And, just in case anyone doubted that Hamas was going soft, the recent homicide bombing in Eilat showed their commitment to this type of dialogue. Sure, the act was carried out by Islamic Jihad and the Fatah spin-off Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, yet it was denounced by Abbas and lauded by the Hamas government.

"So long as there is occupation, resistance is legitimate," said Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza.

In case you have not been following closely, the Eilat bombing happened in a local bakery during regular work hours - hardly a military target. Eilat has never been "occupied territory" and to be frank, it can hardly have ever been considered "Palestinian". Yet this is what falls under the category of "legitimate resistance" the kind which Hamas is loathe to abandon for the sake of peace.

The conventional wisdom was that if only Israel left the territories, then it would be possible to sit down with the Palestinians and reach an agreement. Finally, Israel said let's test this premise and leave part of the territories - the Gaza strip. The Palestinian response to this overture has been the election of Hamas, rocket attacks, weapons tunnels and incitement to violence. Worse, they have made it clear that they would not be satisfied with anything less than ALL of the territory that presently comprises Israel. If the Eilat attacks are not a definitive proof of this mindset, then I don't know what is.

If the world community accepts the new Palestinian coalition government without agreement to "honor" (and not just "respect") former agreements, without recognition of the right of the State of Israel to Exist and without any renunciation of terrorist violence, then those Israelis who have all along said that it was foolish to trust the International community were right. Though I personally hope these naysayers will be proven wrong, yet for some reason I am beginning to suspect that they won't.

An Agreement not to Commit but to Respect

As predicted here, Hamas and Fatah have managed to find a way to share power thanks to Saudi arm twisting and the promise of a billion dollars. Of course Hamas has conceded nothing with regard to the right of the State of Israel to exist and will not eschew the use of violence. All they are are promising is to "respect" previously signed agreements rather than "committing to" them.

I find this a bit ridiculous because Hamas is in power as part of an electoral process that were agreed upon and set up as part of those previous agreements that they are only now offering to "respect". These guys had no qualms about participating in a process that was set up by an agreement that they reject, though now the are willing to openly "respect" it. This is like the PLO Charter that was ammended back in 1998 in Clinton's presence. The only problem is that no copy of the ammended Charter has ever been made available to the general public!