One of the pleasures of co-leading CNI’s recently completed, 17-day study tour of the Arab-Israeli region was the fact that the other co-leader was Amb. Jack Matlock, who’d been Pres. Reagan’s last ambassador to the Soviet Union.  Matlock’s wife, Rebecca, was also a pleasure to have in the group. In addition to taking photos for us, she was just a constant font of kindness and good humor.

When we had our Nov. 4 meeting in Damascus with the head of Hamas’s political bureau, Khaled Meshaal, there was a fascinating exchange between Jack Matlock and Khaled Meshaal in which Meshaal revealed (yet again) both his sense of humor– and the sense of relaxed self-confidence that comes with being able to express that in a large group– and his awareness of the need, as a political and potential national leader, not to have that sense of humor misunderstood.

Matlock initiated the exchange in question, at some point soon after the opening pleasantries had been exchanged.  He gave a fairly lengthy and very thoughtful presentation in which he reviewed some of the experiences he had had in the late 1980s, as Reagan’s ambassador to Moscow, at a time when Mikhail Gorbachev was starting to introduce some really serious reforms within the Soviet Union, and meantime the citizens of the three Baltic nations, which had been subsumed within the Soviet Union for many years, were starting to become eager to exercise their independence.

He explained the nuance of the position adopted (at, I think his urging) toward these developments by the Reagan administration.  He was careful to note that, though the US had long supported the abstract right of the three Baltic nations to national independence, the fact that none of them in fact exercized any independent authority on the ground meant that Washington could not, under international law, actually provide any challenge to Soviet control over the three Baltic countries.

“In diplomatic practice, governments do not recognize the right of other states to exist,” he said to Meshaal, as he said to many others of the people we met with on the tour. “They recognize the fact of their existence, as evidenced in the fact of their control over certain territory. And the Baltic countries did not exercize any such control.”

He noted that President Reagan had great sympathy toward the desire of the three Baltic peoples for self-rule.  But he noted, too, that Reagan-era officials were clear when dealing with representatives of the Baltic states that if their people should engage in any provocative act that might invite a Soviet crackdown, then there was nothing Washington could do to intervene to save them.

However, he then went on to describe a confrontation in which the Soviets undertook what he described as a provocation, in Lithuania… and the Lithuanian nationalists responded not with violence but by peacefully massing in front of their parliament building to defend it– and then Gorbachev, crucially, decided that if he was to save the democratic reform process he was undertaking at home, then he could not use his army to use use force to crush the Lithuanian independence movement.

Matlock’s intention, of urging Meshaal and Hamas to use only non-violent means to confront Israeli power, was clear.  He was also clear, in that discussion and elsewhere, that during Reagan’s negotiations with Gorbachev, the American intention was never to aim at the breakup of the Soviet Union…  However, the effect of US policy and of the decisions Gorbachev made with respect to the three Baltic nations was in fact that, starting with their secession, was that the Soviet Union did indeed break up…

Meshaal listened carefully and courteously, just as, I know, he has earlier listened to numerous other well-intentioned westerners– myself included– urging on him the virtues and values of nonviolence.

When Matlock finished, Meshaal took a moment to reply.  (The whole exchange was conducted with interpretation.)  Then he made quite clear that his first response would be “just a joke”– not to be taken seriously.

“So can you assure me,” he said, “that if we negotiate with Israel in the same way that you negotiated with the Soviet Union, that we’d get the same result– that just as the Soviet Union then broke up, so would Israel?”

The joke did indeed reveal a pretty sophisticated understanding of what Matlock had been talking about; and it elicited chuckles from many of those present.

But I noted the care with which Meshaal had made clear beforehand that what he was about to say was indeed “only a joke.”  He did not want to be misunderstood.  And throughout much of the rest of our discussion, he was positioning himself to be someone who could negotiate in good faith with Israel, if need be.  (Though he still held to Hamas’s longstanding position that it will allow Mahmoud Abbas and his team to do the actual negotiating, provided they bring back the results of any negotiation to a pan-Palestinian referendum.)

Later in the same meeting, indeed, he spelled out– as noted here– that in the context of the Palestinians winning what Hamas considers a satisfactory “two-state-based” final peace agreement with Israel, then it would be open to considering having open relations with Israel.

… Anyway, many of us in the delegation thought this exchange was interesting and notable.  Our videographer, Dominic Musacchio, captured it in the video record he made of the meeting– and he showed his first cut of this portion of the video at our gala dinner, Tuesday night.

I can’t wait till he has the final cut of that exchange ready to share more widely! Hurry up, Dominic!

Gaza Marine gasfield. © Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2009

For nine years a slow and painful discussion has been going on. The people of Gaza, oppressed and frustrated (over 70% of the population of the Gaza Strip are UN-registered refugees), have an offshore gasfield in their territorial waters estimated to be worth at least $4 billion.

In 1994, the Gaza–Jericho first agreement (withdraw of the Israeli Defence Force from Gaza) allocated the territorial waters of the coast of Gaza to an extent of twenty nautical miles as territory of the Palestinian Authority. However, the other side of the agreement was that Israel retain full security control over the area.

In 2000, British Gas, whose product I burn to keep warm here, discovered the Gaza Marine gasfield. British Gas received its licence to explore the Gazan coast not from its owners in accord with the 1994 agreement, but from the Israeli government. It looks like the Israeli government had timed things so that the gas exploration licence would be granted before formally handing the waters over to the PA, to keep Israel ‘in charge’ of the resources. Since the gas discovery, IDF gunboats (made in Britain) have been active in the waters, destroying Gazan fishing industry by forcing fishing boats to return home (as reported by Amnesty International: 15 fishermen killed, over 200 injured). It is clear that Israel considers that the gas is theirs.

British Gas originally wanted to link Gaza Marine by pipeline to Ashkelon on the Israel coast, already a hub for gas pipelines. The PA would have got some profit from the sale, but this would go to a not-so-accountable bank account in the favour of the Fatah presidency. In 2003, Ariel Sharon, as Prime Minister of Israel, vetoed the deal, fearing that independent income for the PA would fuel terrorism against Israel. In 2005, as Sharon was ‘disengaging’ from Gaza (but still besieging it), British Gas tried a different deal to link Gaza Marine to the Egyptian offshore gasfields. The deal progressed well, being a more ‘neutral’ option without direct Israeli involvement.

In 2006, the people of Gaza, unaware that democracy should be boring, ‘accidentally’ elected the ‘wrong party’, Hamas, to power in the PA. The US and EU condemned the Palestinian electorate for not voting for their preferred party — so much for ‘exporting democracy’! Ehud Olmert, Israeli PM, drew Tony Blair into an ‘attractive’ intervention on the issue. If the deal with Egypt were scuppered and the Ashkelon deal put back on the table, the Fatah presidency (the likely corrupt Palestinian party everyone else wanted to win) would be bound more closely with Israel and have the financial weight from the sale of gas to undermine Hamas. This intervention clearly fits with Blair’s neoliberal foreign policy: forcing the opening up of new economic markets, creating economic relationships as the basis for peace and security. Wider energy security policies were discussed, including using the Gaza pipeline to complete a circuit between Eilat on the Red Sea and the Baku–Tblisi–Ceyhan Trans-Caspian Pipeline (under BP leadership) from Turkey. Blair’s intervention worked, but British Gas pulled out of negotiations with Israel on a deal that would leave the PA being paid ‘in kind’ for its gas.

When in 2007, Tony Blair resigned as British PM and immediately became Middle East envoy for the Quartet with a special remit for the economic development of the Occupied Territories. Although on paper, he is committed to the development of the Wadi Arabah, it is more likely that the development of Fatah–Israeli symbiosis via the sale of Gazan gas was his top priority. British Gas were brought back into negotiations, and Israel began bargaining fast during its six months of preparation for the invasion of Gaza. The war, misunderstood by most global media, was about securing energy supply, just as the 2006 Lebanon war was timed to coincide with the opening of the Baku–Tblisi–Ceyhan Trans-Caspian Pipeline. Perhaps it’s no wonder that Blair was quiet about the invasion of Gaza. It has been almost a year, and British Gas, the Israeli government, Fatah and Tony Blair are ready to sit down and divest Gaza of its oil with minimal benefit to its compressed hordes. Meanwhile, Gazan fishermen are still being fired on by British-made IDF gunboats as they attempt to take the fish from the sea, one of the very few other natural resources of the Strip.

Israeli military says its aircraft struck two factories in Gaza and a smuggling tunnel between the Gaza Strip and Egypt; Palestinian medics say the air assault wounded at least seven people… From VOA. Full story

This site may contain information about: travel tickets. For a different topic see type of bra. The blog is also related to: airport shuttles.

Le journal Haaretz rapporte ce lundi que le rabbin Yitzhak Shapiro responsable d’une Yechiva (un centre d’étude de la Torah et du Talmud) dans la colonie Yitzhar en Cisjordanie occupée vient de publier ce lundi 9 novembre un livre « La Torah du Roi » autorisant les juifs à tuer les non-juifs (les Gentils) qui menacent la « nation » juive, même s’ils sont des enfants ou des bébés.

Le rabbin se base sur des passages de la Bible pour émettre son avis et il écrit : « Il est autorisé de tuer les Justes parmi les nations même s’ils ne sont pas responsables de la situation menaçante », et il ajoute « si nous tuons un Gentil qui a pêché ou transgressé l’un des sept commandements, …, le tueur n’aurait fait aucune erreur » !
haaretz
ism

La fameuse haine du Gentil, lol, c’est pas un taré ce rabbin sioniste, franchement, oser dire que ce n’est pas grave de tuer des enfants !!!
Maintenant, j’imagine que certains pourraient me rétorquer qu’en Algérie, lors de la guerre civile, des censés imam faisaient des fatwa en disant qu’il était licite de tuer des bébés, le truc c’est que nous savons maintenant que ces groupes de tarés étaient totalement téléguidés et manipulés par les militaires, et que ces derniers s’étaient lancés dans un violence hallucinante pour discréditer les islamistes.
Cela n’a donc rien à voir; d’un coté, nous avons un rabbin sioniste totalement givré qui, de manière autonome décide de qu’il est possible de tuer des enfants pour sauver ” israél ” et de l’autre nous avions une opération psychlogique destinée à totalement discréditer le FIS.

Israél a de plus en plus de mal à gerer ces extrémistes religieux, déja en janvier 2009, hareetz mettait en avant le poids des religieux et leurs messages exterminateurs :

” Le rabbinat militaire israélien, dans plusieurs de ses publications, a justifié le meurtre de civils palestiniens. Il a utilisé durant l’offensive sur Gaza un ton raciste et fait usage de propagande nationaliste, a révélé lundi 26 janvier le quotidien israélien «Haaretz».
«Haaretz» relève qu’un survol de certaines publications du rabbinat militaire israélien mis à disposition des soldats durant les combats utilise un ton raciste et peut être interprété comme un appel à remettre en cause la loi internationale quand il s’agit de traiter avec les civils ennemis.
Selon Amos Harel, du «Haaretz», les officiers et les soldats religieux ont joué un rôle substantiel en première ligne sur le front de Gaza. Ils étaient pour la première fois soutenus aussi par une importante présence de rabbins.
Encouragés par des rabbins
Le grand rabbin militaire, le brigadier général Avichai Rontzki, a rejoint les troupes au combat à plusieurs reprises comme l’ont fait les rabbins sous son commandement. Ils ont prodigué leurs encouragements aux soldats qui se rendaient au combat, selon le quotidien.
«Haaretz» s’est procuré certaines publications recueillies par un groupe d’anciens soldats, «Breaking the Silence», qui ont documenté le comportement inacceptable de l’armée vis-à-vis des Palestiniens.
On peut lire dans ces brochures distribuées par les religieux des phrases du genre: «Avoir pitié envers un ennemi cruel revient à se montrer cruel envers nos justes soldats… Nous sommes en guerre contre des assassins».
Cette propagande rappelle «l’interdiction biblique» de rendre «un seul millimètre du sol d’Israël aux gentils» (c’est-à-dire aux non juifs).
Ces extraits «religieux» se trouvent dans la publication «Etudes journalières de la Torah pour le soldat et le commandement dans l’Opération Plomb durci», édité par le rabbinat militaire.
Ce texte est issu des livres du rabbin Shlomo Aviner, qui dirige une école religieuse ultranationaliste, l’«Ateret Cohanim yeshiva», située en plein cœur du quartier musulman de la vieille ville de Jérusalem.
Il compare les Palestiniens d’aujourd’hui avec les Philistins du passé et affirme que les Palestiniens ne sont pas des natifs de la région, mais sont arrivés pour la plupart peu de temps avant la «guerre d’indépendance» d’Israël.
Une pitié jugée immorale
Cette brochure affirme encore que si le soldat israélien montre de la pitié envers un ennemi cruel, «il sera cruel envers les soldats purs et honnêtes… c’est terriblement immoral».
Figure de proue de la colonisation des territoires palestiniens, l’ultranationaliste Aviner écrit aux soldats que «la Torah nous interdit de remettre un seul millimètre» de la Terre d’Israël à des non-juifs, «que ce soit par des enclaves, des zones autonomes ou d’autres concessions manifestant notre faiblesse nationale».
D’autres textes ont été distribués par des groupes d’extrême-droite, justifiant la mise à mort de civils et l’extermination de l’ennemi. “
source

C’est dingue de lire ça !!!!! Ils sont complètement fous, ” dieu m’a dit que j’ai le droit de tuer pour garder cette terre ” LOL, comme ils sont à la masse quand même !!!

Si théodore Herzl voyait que ce sont les réligieux le fer de lance du sionisme, il deviendrait fou !!!!

Certains en Israél vont même jusqu’à dire que l’armée est sous l’emprise des religieux sionistes :

” La conférence annuelle tenue par des officiers supérieurs de l’armée israélienne et présidée par le chef d’état-major Gabi Ashkenazi, a récemment eu lieu dans une base militaire dans le centre d’Israël et a été suivie par tous les officiers de grade de lieutenant-colonel ou supérieur.
L’écrasante majorité des officiers ayant assisté à la conférence font partie du courant religieux sioniste ; un reportage diffusé par les chaînes de la télévision israélienne de cette réunion montrait une pléthore d’officiers supérieurs portant une kippa crochetée, ce qui a poussé le chef du renseignement militaire israélien, le général Shlomo Gazit, à déclarer : ces images prouvent que « l’armée israélienne est tombé sous l’emprise des religieux sionistes. »
L’éruption du courant sioniste religieux aux postes de direction dans l’armée et dans les unités d’élite militaire à conduit à une vive polémique en Israël concernant la répercussions de ce phénomène sur l’avenir de l’Etat sachant que les religieux sionistes ne représentent que 8% de la population juive en Israël, tandis que les adeptes du courant religieux ultra-orthodoxe ne constitue que 22% de la population, ces derniers ne sont pas mobilisables dans l’armée et sont exemptés du service militaire afin de leur permettre la poursuite des études à temps plein dans les écoles religieuses.
Le différend entre les religieux sionistes et les religieux orthodoxes réside dans la justification de la création de l’Etat d’Israël. Au début, le courant religieux orthodoxe, s’est opposé à la création d’Israël qui, selon lui, ne pourra intervenir que lors de la venue du Messie, alors que le courant religieux sioniste considère que la création d’Israël est une condition de la venue du messie et non le contraire.
C’est pour cette raison que les religieux sionistes se sont engagés dans les différentes institutions de l’État, en particulier l’armée, alors que les religieux orthodoxes ont accepté Israël comme un fait accompli.
Données significatives
Selon les chiffres publiés par le ministère de la défense en 2008 : 60% des officiers des unités de combat, 70% des brigades d’infanterie et 75% des unités spéciales sont des religieux sionistes. “

Lire la suite sur alter info

Vous vous rendez compte des chiffres, n’allez pas me dire que cela ne reflète pas une volonté politique.
Les dirigeants israéliens ont bien compris que la guerre contre les palestiniens devenait de plus en plus immorale, mais la morale étant elle aussi subjective, ils ont du trouver des gens dont la structure mentale et psychologique leurs permettent de tuer des civils sans une once de pitié. Et rien de mieux que des gens qui croient réellement que ce n’est pas mal de tuer des innocents, parceque Dieu le veut.

Je ne pense donc pas que tsahal soit sous l’emprise des religieux, ou du moins que cette emprise est volontaire, c’est la seule solution que les dirigeants ont trouvé.Radicaliser une partie de la jeunesse et la mettre sous les drapeaux pour aller faire le sale boulot.

C’est une structure normale dans un état fasciste et raciste, comprenez que pour les élites, les concepts les idées, la religion, ne sont que des supports psychologiques qui permettent de socialiser dans un but précis.Que ce soit, le nazisme, le communisme, les extrémistes juifs, musulmans ou chrétiens, les dirigeants se servent de ces idées dans lesquelles les gens croient pour ensuite les manipuler et manoeuvrer pour la réussite de leur projet politique personel ou collégiale.

Il y a peut de temps j’ai vu un documentaire sur l’établissement du communisme en Allemagne de l’Est et j’ai été sidéré de voir dès la fin de la guerre des grandes manifestations, des parades pro communistes, alors que quelques années plus tot, les communistes étaient le super ennemi !!! Je veux bien que le régime n’était pas aimé de tous et que la stasi veilait mais quand même !!!
Quelque soit la musique, les gens dansent !!!!!

Enfin bref, ces rabbins sionistes sont une menace gravissime pour les palestiniens, une sorte de SS rabbinique prête à tout a été mis en place par les dirigeants israéliens, dans une dangereuse fuite en avant.La radicalisation de la population israélienne est la seule option possible, la surenchère dans la violence va nous mener au désastre, comme par exemple ashkenazi qui menace Gaza d’un autre « petit holocauste. “

The Palestinian political group Hamas has reached an agreement that other militant groups will stop firing rockets into Israel for a year. The agreement also suggests that Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who has been held in Palestine for over 3 years, may be released soon in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners being held in Israel, Guardian.

23 people are dead after a ferry sank in Indonesia. Over 200 people had to be rescued, BBC News.

The United States is one step closer to health care reform after the U.S. Senate voted last night 60-39 on a procedural motion to move debate further, Voice of America.

Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan had his first hearing for charges in the deaths of 13 people. Hasan, who is paralyzed from the chest down after being shot by a civilian police officer, had the hearing in his hospital room. New evidence has emerged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the FBI had intercepted emails from Hasan to people connected with al Qaeda but that information was not passed on to the military, BBC News.

A Canadian woman has lost her long-term disability benefits for depression after an insurance agent for her private supplemental insurance saw a picture of her on Facebook smiling and having a good time on vacation, Associated Press.

Panorama | Israele-Hamas: trattative serrate

Israele-Hamas: trattative serrate Israele-Hamas: trattative serrate 2009-11-22 12:18:00(ANSA) – TEL AVIV, 22 NOV – Uno sforzo diplomatico serrato viene compiuto nel tentativo di giungere ad un’intesa per uno scambio di prigionieri fra Israele e Hamas.Cosi’ il quotidiano Israel ha-Yom, vicino al premier Netanyahu.

In cambio del caporale israeliano Ghilad Shalit, prigioniero di Hamas, Israele libererebbe centinaia di palestinesi.

Fonte:
http://www.panorama.it/home/articolo/idAA020001488493?template=templateSky

La Alianza del Atlántico Norte, que incluye a los países más ricos y mejor armados del mundo, ha decidido invitar a la marina israelí  a participar en unas maniobras conjuntas, es decir, al igual que Ucrania o Rusia, pasar al estatuto semi-oficial de potencia aliada que aun no es miembro de pleno derecho de la Alianza. Sólo Turquía ha puesto pegas a esta invitación, lo cual puede a la larga acarrear no solamente que se retrase para siempre su entrada en la Unión Europea, sino que en un momento dado también su expulsión de la OTAN. Esta invitación es una declaración no-oficial de guerra a Palestina, al no-Estado de Palestina en el territorio ocupado donde colonizan, explotan y asesinan a la población palestina no reconocida y desprotegida legalmente ante los ataques cotidianos de soldados y colonos israelíes.

La OTAN está por lo tanto en guerra simultáneamente contra Afganistán y Palestina, mientras mantiene contingentes de ocupación en numerosos países africanos y en Irak. Desde este punto de vista, es decir, desde el punto de vista de los agredidos por la OTAN, parece evidente que la OTAN ataca a los países más débiles de manera sistemática. Ahora bien, como la explicación oficial de las maniobras conjuntas con Israel es que forman parte de una estrategia global contra el terror, cabe hacer una síntesis y deducir de ambas perspectivas que la OTAN es una organización terrorista de una enorme magnitud que condena a los pobres a la miseria y a la violencia sin límite que merecen los terroristas. Es evidentemente una antisituación sádica en la que los ricos machacan a los pobres y los llaman, entre otras cosas, terroristas. El sadismo del capitalismo se encauza por lo tanto en la OTAN a la que pertenecemos. Nuestro Estado es por lo tanto cómplice de una agresión sádica y colectiva cuya ideología no asume en absoluto su sadismo. Si no lo asume es porque no puede hacerlo, por lo tanto hay una mala conciencia. Es la razón por la cual debemos seguir aireándola, porque así el Estado llegará a un punto crítico: cambiar o aplastar la libertad de expresión.

     I watched this viddy just to see what it was, then watched as Dacher Keltner began to talk about Charles Darwin and the concept of antithesis in nature.  I was hit with an almost immediate parallel.  A simple one, and perhaps not the best one, and it isn’t much of a stretch, but I’m tired, so you’ll forgive me.  There is a political variant to the Darwinian concept of antithesis, and it is playing in front of the entire nation every day. 

    And the stress reaction that Mr. Keltner speaks of, caused by the losses in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles has been playing off in front of the entire nation since that first series of losses of house and senate seats, as it did tonight in the talk of the Republican senators who spoke prior to the cloture vote to allow discussion of the $898,000,000,000 Health care bill.

    Read the CBO report on the bill here.

    The Republicans haven’t a leg to stand on, they have no legitimate arguments, so they use illegitimate arguments and attempt to pass them off as legitimate.  Examples include saying that medicare will be cut to the bone.  Untrue. Wasteful spending is trimmed, not ALL medicare spending.  If you have medicare, you are not in danger of having all your coverage cut and being set adrift by this legislation. But if you listened to the Republicans talk, anyone over 65 is in mortal danger… but that “danger” comes from government cutting wasteful spending in government programs….wait.  Weren’t Republicans for that idea at one point? 

     They talk of the great tax burden the bill creates…despite the fact that the taxes on the wealthiest The President gets away on a technicality here.  He said no family making less than $250,00 a year will see a tax increase of any kind, and in this bill their is a  tax added in the form of a hospital tax that will be paid by any individual making over $200,000 a year, or family over $250,000 a year.  The size of this tax increase?

    0.5%

    Sucks, but that .5% tax raises, from next year to 2019, over $53,000,000,000 in new tax revenue to help pay for the bill.  And if you republicans who are reading this winced when you saw that and said “How can he talk so cavalierly about raising taxes?”  Well, party of Reagan disciples, what party was it that made the AMT tax the onerous burden that it is today? Do you know what party he came from? Do you remember his name?

      It was Republican Ronald Reagan. 

     Ouch. 

     A .5% hospital tax on individuals who make $200,000 won’t turn into the ugly beast that the AMT is, thanks to Reagan being entirely too dead, and the Repubs too far out of power to be overly involved in fleecing the people.

   …

    I was better at capturing the concept of Darwinian Antithesis in republican thought than I thought I’d be.  Nice.  The Health care bill is now open for debate, by the way, the voted passed 60-39.  All dems voting for, all Republicans voting against, except George Voinovich, who missed the vote. 

_____________________________________________________________

     If you remember at the very end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, there was a fairly major engagement between Israel and the Izzadin Kassam, Hamas’ army.  Well, rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza yesterday, none were killed or wounded by the strikes,thought it was enough for the Israelis to decide to carry out several air strikes against Hamas, focusing on two weapons plants and an arms smuggling tunnel, said a spokesman for the IAF.  None are reported killed, and five people were wounded.  

    Luckily for everyone involved, this doesn’t look as bad as the heavy fighting that went on earlier this year and late last year.  Hamas has claimed that they have struck a deal with other forces in Gaza to not fire missiles into Israel. The Israelis, not surprisingly, reacted with little enthusiasm.  But the fact that Hamas sounds like they are trying to avoid a confrontation tells me they aren’t strong enough in their own eyes to handle the Israelis right now, and that means this may end up (fingers crossed) an isolated clash between these two mortal enemies. 

    More on this later, if necessary.

_____________________________________________________________

   That’s it for news.  I gave you a classical music viddy yesterday, and it was so nice I have to do it twice.  John Williams playing Bach BWV 1006, enjoy.

    Later!

Today’s nuggets, from John Milton’s “Paradise Lost” via Wikiquote:   For who can yet believe, though after loss, that all these puissant legions, whose exile Hath emptied Heaven, shall fail to re-ascend, self-raised, and repossess their native seat?

Freely we serve, Because we freely love, as in our will to love or not; in this we stand or fall.

I fled, and cry’d out, DEATH! Hell trembled at the hideous name, and sigh’d From all her caves, and back resounded, DEATH!

Nor love thy life, nor hate; but what thou liv’st live well; how long or short permit to Heaven.

A follow-up to yesterday’s post on the PBS documentary ‘Jihad in America’. The video below is an episode of Charlie Rose. It aired on PBS fifteen years ago today. Watch it.

Charlie Rose hosts the executive producer of the documentary, Steve Emerson, and three Muslims (3 on 1). They are one-time CAIR board member Anisa Abd El-Fattah, Mohammad Mehdi, and possibly the most irrational of the lot, Abdurahman Alamoudi. The twist we told you about in the last post is that the defiant, evidence-ignoring Alamoudi is now in prison, convicted of terror-related offenses. Read more, here, about Alamoudi – who set up the troubling U.S. military Muslim chaplain infrastructure and recruiting process (to ensure wahabbi-trained Muslims could infiltrate the military). Grab a snack/drink and watch.

The tactics used 15 years ago are the same tactics used today. Deflect questions, ignore evidence, provide cover for the Islamist threat, blame the messenger for the words and actions of Muslims, blame Israel, dominant the discussion and waste time with irrelevant chatter, portray Muslims as victims in the wake of Americans being killed by Muslims, and so on.

No politician, young or old, has any excuse – this issue has been known for at least 15 years, yet still has been ignored, if not aided, by most in office.

Link

November 22, 2009

US-trained Palestinian Security Force under US General Dayton

by Aisling Byrne – Afro-Middle East Centre – 13 November 2009

“Sincerely speaking,” said General Dayton, “as far I am concerned, Hamas is a political issue. I do not interfere in this matter.” He continued: “I would appreciate if you do not ask me political questions because, as a soldier, I do not speak in politics.” Such innocuous protests from General Dayton – who, since 2005, has been the US Security Coordinator for the Palestinians – are untrue: Dayton is a political actor who essentially is overseeing and facilitating a process of political cleansing in the West Bank, the consequences of which are damaging, if not disastrous, for the Palestinian national project, for political reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, and for political engagement and prospects for peace. In essence, Dayton’s work serves to enforce Israel’s occupation, even if this is not its explicit intention.

Dayton’s initiative has gone well beyond helping Palestinians build a future state through institution-building – the aim, it is claimed, of the initiative. And far from bringing peace closer, Dayton’s ‘capacity-building’ initiatives are facilitating the creation of an autocratic and totalitarian ‘state’ led by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad: political debate is almost non-existent, criticism not allowed, and the extent of collusion between the Abu Mazen/Salam Fayyad government and their security forces with Israel is so extensive that both the Palestinian public and members of the security forces themselves are beginning to question and criticise “what they see as the PNA’s attempt to increase repression and curtail freedoms”¹: “We have security forces serving the United States Security Coordinator and Israel. Where is our executive authority? Who decided to bring in the United States Security Coordinator?” a resident of Nablus asked.² “It is known to everybody,” said another, “that we have the occupation at night and the Palestinian forces during the day.” Another commented: “Now we start to live under the same conditions as our brothers in other Arab countries: oppression, unlimited power and fear.”

Members of the Palestinian security forces themselves beginning to question their role. An article in the Wall Street Journal last week quoted one Palestinian major saying: “We didn’t join the Palestinian security forces to fight Hamas or train with the Americans, we came here to serve our homeland and build our state.”³ Furthermore, as the Wall Street Journal warns: “The more the Palestinian Authority Security Forces cooperate with the US and Israel to suppress Hamas, the more they threaten to undermine popular support for [Mahmoud Abbas] – who is key to Washington’s Mideast peace effort.” A senior Hamas leader endorsed the Wall Street Journal’s view that the continuing suppression of Hamas only served to further delegitimize and undermine Abbas.

Dayton has been clear about his aim: to reduce the “IDF footprint” in the West Bank by developing Palestinian capabilities and “proven abilities”, that is, capacity-building and training of the Palestinian security forces (“paramilitaries”, as the Wall Street Journal describes them); turning them, as he explained, into the “new men of Palestine”. “What we have created – and I say this with humility,” Dayton said at his first public talk on his work in Palestine, “are new men… [men who] believe that their mission is to build a Palestinian state… Upon the return of these new men of Palestine, they have shown motivation, discipline and professionalism, and they have made such a difference – and I am not making this up – that senior IDF commanders ask me frequently: ‘how many more of these new Palestinians can you generate, and how quickly, because they are our way to leave the West Bank.’”⁴

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, 2,100 “paramilitaries” have been trained to date as part of Dayton’s initiative, and the plan is to train “over 5,000 men, out of a total West Bank security force of roughly 25,000 men.”⁵ According to various sources, it is planned to take two years for ten “Dayton” battalions to be established, “which the American general says will be made up of combatants of the ‘new Palestinian’ breed that he is creating.”⁶ Funding for the training, arming and employment of these new forces is provided by the US, as well as the British and Canadian governments, and Arab countries from the “moderate axis” – Jordan, Egypt and the UAE. On the ground, Dayton is assisted by a private security firm – Libra – which, according to Palestinian analyst Abdel Sitta Al-Qassem, is essentially a firm of mercenaries.⁷ A recent report in the British newspaper the Mail on Sunday exposed “the horrific torture of hundreds of people by Palestinian security forces in the West Bank [which] is being funded by British taxpayers.”⁸ The report documents how “not only are PA forces carrying out torture… but that the authority [also] ignores judges’ orders to release political detainees,” and how one victim was beaten to death during his interrogation by the security forces.

Up to 70% of these new forces are made up of second and third generation Palestinians born and brought up in Jordan; they therefore are not from communities in the West Bank and without social or community connections; they are seen as “outsiders”. On the street in the West Bank, they are known as the “Palestinian sahwa” after the Iraqi sahwa (awakening councils) – the militia forces set up and armed by the US in Iraq with the aim of taking on Al-Qaida. Needless to say, recruits to the “Dayton battalions” cannot previously have been involved in resistance activities against Israel and the occupation – including the second intifada – and preferably should not have a tawjihi (end of high school) certificate – i.e. people who, for whatever reason, did not complete their high school education. One Palestinian commentator described the new recruits as being “saturated with ideological ideas against the resistance”. This is how, he explains, the PLO army has been moulded to be the security forces that “protect Israeli settlements… and who protect the Israeli army from Palestinians and all forms of resistance”.⁹

The criterion not to recruit anyone who might have previously been involved in any resistance activity against Israel or against the occupation has meant that, to date, under Dayton’s auspices, over 7,000 Fatah members have been removed from their jobs as members of the security forces because many had participated in resistance activities against the occupation during the second intifada. This is very unlike in Northern Ireland where a key component of the peace agreement has been the setting-up of a police force that represents both communities, and in Iraq where the policy is to have all sects and communities represented in the security forces. But there are no “Catholics” in the security forces in the West Bank; what Dayton has created is a polarized political enforcement militia. When it comes to Palestine, the policy is for the security forces to be as sectarian and ‘occupation-friendly’ as possible.

“The Palestinian Authority changed in front of our eyes”
This process of creating “new Palestinians” has complemented the political metamorphosis of the Palestinian Authority. A high-ranking Israeli defence officer explained to leading Israeli journalist, Nahum Barnea, in early October: “The Palestinian Authority changed right in front of our eyes… The Fayyad government was formed [and] it was clear that they wanted to give Hamas a fight. We began to meet with the heads of the [Palestinian] security organizations.” The decision, he explained, “was to talk with them only about work-related matters — not about the right of return and not about the peace process. At the top of our agenda we put law and order in the cities and the war on Hamas. We said we will work with you directly, without mediators. We were surprised by the intensity of their willingness to cooperate.”¹⁰

The Officer continued: “We redefined the enemy. Previously we talked about terror organizations. Now we said: ‘Hamas’. [Palestinians] now had a state within a state. Our approach was to destroy it.” He explained how this has been done, systematically and collaboratively: “We took the 200 wanted men in Judea and Samaria and marked 15 who were the explosives experts. We assassinated most of them and arrested the others. What ensured our success was the cooperation between the IDF and the [Palestinian] GSS… We discovered that [Hamas’ supporters] owned malls, cow farms, bakeries, clinics, residential buildings. By means of investments they produce the money that feeds terror. We created a legal infrastructure to confiscate their assets. We made arrests.”

“[A key] turning point,” the Officer explained, “was the intensification of American involvement. This also happened in wake of the failure in Gaza. The Americans trained four battalions of [Palestinian] soldiers who obey their commander and not the clan. This was a rare combination of interests… We learned the lessons that the Americans learned from the fighting in Iraq. You take one place, Jenin for example, you crush terror there, you put a strong police force there and move on. We started with Jenin because there was a fence there and no settlers. At first, it failed. Fayyad said, ‘Let’s try again.’ We tried again, and it caught. We needed a lot of patience… The greatest achievement was that the moderates defeated the extremists.”

“We have a common enemy”
“Hametz removal” were what the IDF and Civil Administration called the “intensive operations” conducted against Hamas’ political and economic infrastructure during the last few years: “Each month, dozens of operations would take place, such as the closing of charity organisations, searches in mosques, seizures of bank accounts and companies related to Hamas.”

“Today,” explains Israeli journalist Alex Fishman, “such operations are being conducted by Dayton’s forces, and effectively. Perhaps even more effectively than the IDF.” They handle Hamas, he explained, with “appropriate aggressiveness”.¹¹ In a similar fashion, elected political figures belonging to Hamas are removed from office: in addition to the 40-odd Hamas parliamentarians currently in Israeli jails, 14 out of 64 Hamas local authority heads have also been replaced by the Abbas/Fayyad Authority after they were accused of corruption or “faulty performance”.¹²

In the summer of 2008, Nahum Barnea was, to his surprise, allowed to sit in on a joint liaison meeting between what had been hitherto unpublicised meetings between the heads of the Abbas/Fayyad Palestinian security forces and the IDF. The extent of what he heard shocked even him: “Such far-reaching willingness to work with Israel is something that I have never heard from the Palestinian leadership, with the exception of a brief period in the spring of 1996.”¹³ One of the people present at the evening’s meeting that he attended in Beit El settlement just outside Ramallah was Abu al-Fatah, commander of the General Security Service(GSS), the Palestinian military force; Abu al-Fatah is the most senior Palestinian security service commander. His words reassured the IDF officers present: “There is no rivalry between us… We have a common enemy.” Majed Faraj, director of Palestinian military intelligence, who was also present, concurred: “We’ve decided to put all our problems on the table. Everything is above board; there are no more games. Hamas is the enemy. We have decided to go to war against it. I am telling you, there will be no dialogue with them: whoever tries to kill you, kill him first. You made a hudna (ceasefire) with them. We didn’t”.

Faraj continued: “For the sake of fairness, it should be said that in the past we behaved differently. Now every name of a Hamas institution you give us is handled. You recently gave us the name of 64 institutions—until today, we have finished dealing with 50 of them. We closed some. In others, we changed the management. We have also laid a hand on their funds.” Barnea explained that Israel gave the PA details of 150 bank accounts that were suspected of being connected to “terror organizations”. The PA responded by closing 300 accounts. “Once we used to think 1,000 times before entering a mosque,” explained Faraj to the Israelis. “Today we enter every mosque when necessary. Don’t understand from this that you are also permitted to enter. On the contrary: because you don’t enter, we are able to.”¹⁴

The extent of collusion, explains Palestinian analyst Ramzy Baroud, illustrates how the Palestinian Authority functions “more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration”, part of what he describes as the post-Oslo culture of “contractors” – “businessmen… posing as revolutionaries [who have] encroached on every aspect of Palestinian society.”¹⁵

Dayton has said publicly that he is “working closely with the Israeli military commanders in the West Bank.” It is, wrote one Israeli commentator, “an ideal relationship”. It is clear too that Dayton is working with others. Despite denials, “the selection of those entering Dayton’s [training] units is conducted initially by three external intelligence bodies: the CIA examines the candidates, the Israeli [General Security Services] goes through the names, and in the end, when the new recruits arrive at the training facilities in Jordan, the Kingdom’s security mechanism conducts yet another thorough examination. To all these must, of course, be added the internal examinations of the Palestinian security forces themselves.”¹⁶ The training of these new forces takes place in a training facility close to Amman, Jordan, where a life-sized model refugee camp has been built; incidentally, this is also where the US is involved in training Iraqi security forces. The training programme is prepared jointly by the US and Israel (Israel has veto rights over the content of the programme) and training is done by Jordanian and American security and intelligence officials. Each training course is four months long and includes such things as “handling of riots, the correct use of force, human rights, maintaining law and order, and the arrest of opposition forces … When graduates return to the West Bank they undergo additional professional training such as driving, providing medical care, and other logistical matters.”¹⁷

It is not only the recruits and the training programme which are individually vetted by Israel. A second batch of 1,000 Kalashnikovs was transferred to the Palestinian security forces in July 2009, and as with the first batch, all weapons provided to the Palestinian Authority undergo ballistic testing by the Israel Police forensic lab, the aim being “to prepare a precise list so that in the event that these weapons are involved in terrorist activity aimed against Israelis, [each weapon] can be identified”.¹⁸ In addition to Jordanian and Egyptian-provided weapons, Israel has also provided Kalashnikov rifles and ammunition, as well as “crowd control measures such as gas grenades and rubber bullets”. And as one Israeli report explained: “The Palestinians have already made use of these measures.”¹⁹ Examples abound of how the Palestinian security forces undertake “Hametz removal” operations on behalf of the IDF; an editorial in June 2009 in Al-Quds al-Arabi revealed that a Palestinian security forces’ patrol “came to arrest the two men and surrender them to the Israeli forces [who] had been pursuing them for seven years after they carried out operations against Israeli targets.”²⁰ The editorial concluded that the Palestinian forces “acted as though they were an extension of the Israeli security troops and were carrying out their dirty acts on [Israel’s] behalf.”

As well as vetting all new recruits and testing each and every weapon that is given to the security forces, Dayton has confirmed that no item or weapon is given to the Palestinian forces unless Israel agrees to it. When Jordan recently requested that the Palestinian forces be supplied with RPGs to use against Hamas, the request was turned down by Israel. Israel decides where, when and for which hours of the day and night the Palestinian security forces can operate. On occasion they are allowed to operate at night, “and [they] report on every unusual movement sighted [to the Israelis]. The many successes are all listed in the [General Security Service] and IDF operations logs.” It is also agreed that Israel should turn over to the PA any security information that could require an Israeli intervention in Palestinian territories. In some areas, Israel prevents the Palestinian forces from operating between midnight and 5am, “among other reasons so that the armed policemen would not encounter IDF forces entering to operate against terrorists,” and that Israel has “a supervisory system that guarantees that the Palestinian battalions will only take on predefined assignments.”²¹

Speaking for the first time publicly about his work, in May 2009, General Dayton addressed an audience at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the US. He told of how the “new breed of Palestinians” had “caught the attention of the Israeli Defense establishment for their dedication, discipline, motivation and results.” Describing Dayton’s talk in the Israeli press, Alex Fishman explained how: “the Jewish audience responded with a wild surge of applause. Dayton was not satisfied with this, and went for another climax: ‘We, (the Americans) are creating a new Palestinian,’ he declared, ‘with motivation, discipline and professionalism.’ The Jewish audience was thrilled.”²²

“Sheep and wolves living together” — the shape of things to come
But Dayton then cautioned his Washington Institute audience: “Those who were joining the Palestinian security forces were doing this as a result of a sense that they were coming to fight for Palestinian independence. And if these people,” Dayton stressed, “are led to understand that an independent Palestinian state is not in the cards they’ll revolt. And then everything will fall apart. In other words: the weapons will be used against Israel.”²³

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy described the training as enabling “senior [Palestinian Security Force] leaders to feel as though they are entering the community of nations.”²⁴ Yet, despite being dressed up in language of “state” and “institution-building”, what Dayton is really coordinating is an initiative aimed at securing Israel’s position in the region in the wake of the US withdrawal from Iraq in two years time; the project is only indirectly aimed at helping Palestinians. His initiative is but one part of this wider jigsaw.

“Everything will fall apart” refers not only to the US’ plan for Palestine, but also to the part that the Dayton initiative plays in the wider American plan for “peace” in the Middle East. If Palestinians were to turn against their masters, it would have a domino effect across the Middle East. “It would be a collapse,” explains Alex Fishman, “of the entire political-defensive system Washington has constructed in recent years in preparation for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq two years from now. This system is intended to protect the interests of moderate Arab states alongside those of Israel amidst the threat of Muslim fundamentalists. If Israel does not play along with the United States, this would mean standing in the way of American interests with all that this entails.” To this end, Dayton was recently promoted to be US Envoy George Mitchell’s deputy on security matters and, with this, “his influence is even greater. He is not only dealing with the establishment of a Palestinian army, but rather with the entire region’s security arrangements in preparation for the moment to come some two years from now: the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.”

The leading figure in this wider strategic picture is US General James Jones, Obama’s National Security Adviser. A year ago, Jones prepared a comprehensive report on “Israel’s security needs for the day after the American pullout from Iraq, from the Iranian threat to the Palestinians”. The aim was to ensure Israel’s “security” in case everything falls apart in Iraq after the US withdrawal and to ensure that Iraq is not again antagonistic towards Israel. The plan – which was officially presented to the US State Department only at the end of July – has been “taken apart and examined for several weeks at the Pentagon, the White House and the foreign ministries of France, Egypt, Great Britain and Jordan.”²⁵

In an article in the Israeli press on 24 July, Alex Fishman revealed that during recent months a team of Israelis and Palestinians (all close associates of Mahmoud Abbas who gave his approval at each stage of the discussions), together with a former member of Dayton’s team, has been meeting in a Track Two process to draft a detailed annex – essentially the security annex to the Geneva Agreement. This annex “resolves the relations between the state and the state-to-be.”²⁶ This is how, Fishman says, “sheep and wolves are supposed to live together.” It is the only detailed security document that exists to which the Palestinians have agreed and will, it is reported, form the basis for the final status arrangements that will be proposed by President Obama for his final status agreement to be completed within two years. “This document,” explains Fishman, “is the closest thing to a practical and actual plan that was drafted by agreement by the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

The main components of the security annex are: the principle of non-militarization of the PA²⁷; precise details of what weaponry and equipment Palestinians may and may not possess²⁸; a third security force to be brought in “as a balance”²⁹; the stationing by Israel of an Israeli infantry battalion in the Jordan Valley (for “politics, psychology and public relations than real operational need”)³⁰; the stationing of three multi-national battalions to be deployed along the Jordan Valley, with one battalion to be deployed along the Philadelphi Road in Gaza; and an “Israeli presence” – two early-warning stations – in the non-militarized Palestinian state. The Israel Air Force would be able to carry out training flights over the West Bank and Israeli “involvement” at the border crossings between the Palestinian state, Egypt and Jordan would continue.³¹ In terms of timing, the agreement is supposed to be implemented in full within 30 months.

“An American peace event with Hollywood trappings”
There is, explains Israeli journalist, Nahum Barnea, a “sore point” to the “wonderful story” as recounted in his interview with the IDF Officer quoted above. “Everything that [has been] achieved is fragile and reversible,” the Officer said. “Without a peace process, it won’t last, [and] the IDF realizes this – mainly the IDF realizes it.” Despite his own caution to the Washington Institute audience, the direction Dayton is heading is pushing the creation of a demilitarized state to the point where sovereignty is meaningless and essentially erased; demilitarization pushed to its limit essentially is occupation by another name. What type of sovereignty is it where Israel can turn off the gas, water, money supply, oil, electricity; when it can limit the amount of calories going into the “independent state” and when it effectively controls the boarders of the new “state”?

Sometimes, it is said that those on the right speak clearer and more bluntly than others; and so it was with Dr Uzi Arad, Netanyahu’s national security adviser – “the strongman of current Israeli policy”³² – who was candid and frank in a recent interview. Israeli journalist Avi Shavit asked him: “Will a Palestinian state be established on the watch manned by you and Netanyahu?” “That is a different story,” explained Arad. “I don’t see among the Palestinians a process of truly drawing closer to acceptance of Israel and peace with Israel. I also do not see a Palestinian leadership or a Palestinian regime but a disorderly constellation of forces and factions. But, possibly, someone might come along and say ‘I am an engineer of events; the depth doesn’t interest me – I am going to produce an event.’ And within three years – presto – four Annapolises, two disengagements, global pyrotechnics. And then suddenly, in 2015, there is a Palestinian state. Stamps, parades, carnival. That could happen. A fragile structure, yes; an arrangement resting wholly on wobbly foundations. But it could happen. There could be a Palestinian state.”³³ It would be nothing more, wrote Shavit, than “an American peace event with Hollywood trappings.”³⁴

The “new Palestinians” are not only the security forces; these are complemented by a political class – also “new Palestinians” (“businessmen… posing as revolutionaries”) who have “no destructive element like Arafat to prevent the effect of their actions” wrote one Israeli commentator.³⁵ There is, however, one basic flaw in the jigsaw: it is all based on one overriding objective: Israel’s security. The wider aim is to save Israel and the region in the wake of the US withdrawal from Iraq. Institution-building and Abu Mazen and his ilk are simply parts of the jigsaw; they have been brought in to destroy resistance to the US project. Both components have become the means to this wider end. The outcome, however, is that Dayton’s initiative has only served to undermine the quest for a political solution in Palestine and the prospects for a Palestinian state. Palestinians increasingly see this. And, as one senior US commentator wryly noted, the Europeans are holding the door open for Dayton and his initiative – and, indeed, helping to fund it.

Dayton’s straw man stands in contrast to Hamas and the resistance bloc’s vision. Theirs is not a vision aimed at building confidence for Israel and perpetuating the status quo, but is about liberating Palestine. As Khaled Meshal explained in a recent interview: “The Palestinian problem is not about autonomy, government, flag, anthem, security services, or money from donor countries.” The problem of Palestine, he explained, “is about homeland, identity, freedom, history, sovereignty, Jerusalem, and the right of return. Land for us is more important than authority, and liberation comes before the land.”³⁶ Some Israelis see the wobbly foundations and predict the impending collapse of the Abbas/Fayyad authority and have called for dialogue with Hamas. Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad and national security adviser, is one such person: “Neither Netanyahu nor Obama can avoid having to decide whether the investment in the creation of a ‘new Palestinian’ is a realistic policy,” he wrote, “or whether channels of dialogue with the homegrown ‘new Palestinian’ [he is referring to Hamas] should be examined. Is this not worth a serious examination at least?”³⁷

Aisling Byrne is Projects Co-ordinator with Conflicts Forum and is based in Beirut.

Endnotes
[1] Palestinian Security Sector Governance: The View of Civil Society in Nablus, Spotlight No. 1, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, May 2009.
[2] Op cit.
[3] Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces, Charles Levinson, Wall Street Journal, 15 October 2009.
[4] Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, Michael Stein Address on US Middle East Policy, Program of the SOREF Symposium, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 7 May 2009; full transcript of Dayton’s address.
[5] Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces, Charles Levinson, ibid. According to the article, the approximately 24,800 US-trained Palestinian Authority security personnel are made up as follows: National Security forces 8,500 people; Police trained by the European Union 7,200 people; General Intelligence (PA Intelligence Unit) 3,500 people; Preventative Security (Secretive CIA-trained internal security service) 3,000 people; Presidential Guard (Elite forces answering to Mahmoud Abbas) 2,000 and Civil defense/Firemen 600.
[6] The “New Palestinian”, Ephraim Halevy, Yedioth Ahronoth, 24 May 2009.
[7] Dayton: The Leader of Palestine, Abdel Sitta Al-Qassem, Al-Jazeera Website, 3 July 2009.
[8] Financed by the British taxpayer, brutal torturers of the West Bank, David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 31 January 2009 [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133032/Financed-British-taxpayer-brutal-torturers-West-Bank.html] According to the Mail on Sunday, Britain’s Department for International Development gave a total of £76million to the Palestinian Authority in 2008 for ‘security sector reform’ and fostering the rule of law – of this £20million goes to the security forces, of which £3million went directly to the PA police and £17million for salaries for the Authority’s array of security organizations, including the Presidential Guard intelligence service and the Preventive Security forces.
[9] The new political and security job for the duo – Fayyad-Dayton, Yousef Shali, Al Aser On-line Magazine, 6 July 2009.
[10] Anatomy of a Victory, Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronoth, 9 October 2009.
[11] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, Yedioth Ahronoth, 22 May 2009.
[12] How We Won, Ofer Shelah, Ma’ariv, 4 September 2009.
[13] Last Chance, Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronoth, 19 September 2008.
[14] Last Chance, Nahum Barnea, ibid.
[15] Abbas and the Goldstone Report: Our Shame is Complete, Ramzy Baroud, The Palestine Chronicle, 15 October 2009.
[16] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, ibid.; see also Qalqiliya attack is a prelude for explosion, lead editorial, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 June 2009 and Former Mossad Chief: Palestinian police elements go through Israeli check…, Walid Awad, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 25 May 2009.
[17] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, ibid.
[18] A Thousand More Guns for the Palestinian Police, Amir Buhbut, Ma’ariv, 6 July 2009.
[19] IDF Pulling Out of Cities in West Bank, Yossi Yehoshua and Roni Shaked, Yedioth Ahronoth, 26 June 2009.
[20] Qalqiliya attack is a prelude for explosion, lead editorial, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 June 2009.
[21] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[22] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[23] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[24] Peace through Security: America’s role in the Development of the Palestinian Authority Security Services, 2009 Soref Symposium, featuring Lt General Keith Dayton, rapporteur’s summary of General Dayton’s address, 7 May 2009.
[25] Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, Yediot Ahronot, 24 July 2009.
[26] Op cit.
[27] As an Israeli general involved in developing the plan explained: “our point of departure was that under no circumstances can Israel’s security situation after the final status arrangement takes effect be worse off than before or irreversible”.
[28] The agreement specifies that tanks, rockets, guided missiles, anti-aircraft or anti-ship weapons, artillery of any kind, mortar shells, mines, machine guns larger than 7.62 caliber, laser weapons or any other kind of radiation weapons, helicopter gunships, fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles, armed sailing vessels (except for light vessels up to 25 tons, armed with light weapons) and weapons of mass destruction. The Palestinian troops would possess 400 light armored vehicles that will carry only permitted kinds of arms: light weapons and non-lethal equipment to disperse demonstrations”. During the negotiations, the Palestinian team did ask for RPG launchers, explosives and grenades “for fighting terrorists. After all, the other side possessed such weapons”. What was agreed was that the grenades, explosives and armor-penetrating weapons which were not anti-tank rockets would be in the possession of the multi-national force [and] every time the Palestinians wished to fight a terror attack, they would simply come to request those weapons from the members of the multi-national force” (Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, ibid.)
[29] While US General Jones had recommended NATO forces being brought in, the solution suggested in the security appendix is… an armed multi-national force made up of four battalions, approximately three thousand armed combat soldiers, from countries to be agreed upon by Israel and the Palestinians. At least one of the battalions would come from an Arab or Muslim country (Turkey or Egypt, for example). An article in June 2009 also by Alex Fishman mentioned one additional point: “…there is also a small surprise: there is an informal Israeli proposal that one of the battalions on the force be an Israeli battalion. If the proposal is accepted, then for the first time in history, an IDF force will serve under a foreign command.” (How to Build a (Demilitarized) State, Alex Fishman, Yedioth Ahronoth, 22 June 2009.)
[30] Located at the Ma’ale Ephraim base,” the base would include 800 combat soldiers, 60 APCs, 50 anti-tank launchers and 100 shoulder-borne anti-tank launchers. The battalion would not leave the base unless it was ordered to do so by the multi-national force and accompanied by its members. The battalion would remain in the Jordan Valley for 36 months after the signing of the agreement, after which the need for it would be re-examined”.
[31] “At the passenger terminals at the Allenby Bridge crossing, at Adam and Rafah, there will be a physical Israeli presence for 30 months after the agreement is signed, but it will not be perceptible to the passengers. Afterwards, for another two years, the Israeli presence will not be by means of people, but by means of closed circuit televisions. A similar arrangement will also be in force at the cargo terminal, but there camera surveillance will last for another year. The agreement not only applies to the three crossings, but to every place that in the future is defined as an international crossing.” (Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, ibid.)
[32] There is no Palestinian Sadat, no Palestinian Mandela; Interview with Uzi Arad, Ari Shavit, Haaretz English, 16 July 2009.
[33] Op cit.
[34] Ari Shavit, There is no Palestinian Sadat, no Palestinian Mandela; Interview with Uzi Arad, ibid.
[35] How We Won, Ofer Shelah, ibid.
[36] Khaled Meshal, speech on 25 June on President Obama’s position on peace process.
[37] The “New Palestinian”, Ephraim Halevy, Yedioth Ahronoth, 24 May 2009.

Link

November 22, 2009

US-trained Palestinian Security Force under US General Dayton

by Aisling Byrne – Afro-Middle East Centre – 13 November 2009

“Sincerely speaking,” said General Dayton, “as far I am concerned, Hamas is a political issue. I do not interfere in this matter.” He continued: “I would appreciate if you do not ask me political questions because, as a soldier, I do not speak in politics.” Such innocuous protests from General Dayton – who, since 2005, has been the US Security Coordinator for the Palestinians – are untrue: Dayton is a political actor who essentially is overseeing and facilitating a process of political cleansing in the West Bank, the consequences of which are damaging, if not disastrous, for the Palestinian national project, for political reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, and for political engagement and prospects for peace. In essence, Dayton’s work serves to enforce Israel’s occupation, even if this is not its explicit intention.

Dayton’s initiative has gone well beyond helping Palestinians build a future state through institution-building – the aim, it is claimed, of the initiative. And far from bringing peace closer, Dayton’s ‘capacity-building’ initiatives are facilitating the creation of an autocratic and totalitarian ‘state’ led by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad: political debate is almost non-existent, criticism not allowed, and the extent of collusion between the Abu Mazen/Salam Fayyad government and their security forces with Israel is so extensive that both the Palestinian public and members of the security forces themselves are beginning to question and criticise “what they see as the PNA’s attempt to increase repression and curtail freedoms”¹: “We have security forces serving the United States Security Coordinator and Israel. Where is our executive authority? Who decided to bring in the United States Security Coordinator?” a resident of Nablus asked.² “It is known to everybody,” said another, “that we have the occupation at night and the Palestinian forces during the day.” Another commented: “Now we start to live under the same conditions as our brothers in other Arab countries: oppression, unlimited power and fear.”

Members of the Palestinian security forces themselves beginning to question their role. An article in the Wall Street Journal last week quoted one Palestinian major saying: “We didn’t join the Palestinian security forces to fight Hamas or train with the Americans, we came here to serve our homeland and build our state.”³ Furthermore, as the Wall Street Journal warns: “The more the Palestinian Authority Security Forces cooperate with the US and Israel to suppress Hamas, the more they threaten to undermine popular support for [Mahmoud Abbas] – who is key to Washington’s Mideast peace effort.” A senior Hamas leader endorsed the Wall Street Journal’s view that the continuing suppression of Hamas only served to further delegitimize and undermine Abbas.

Dayton has been clear about his aim: to reduce the “IDF footprint” in the West Bank by developing Palestinian capabilities and “proven abilities”, that is, capacity-building and training of the Palestinian security forces (“paramilitaries”, as the Wall Street Journal describes them); turning them, as he explained, into the “new men of Palestine”. “What we have created – and I say this with humility,” Dayton said at his first public talk on his work in Palestine, “are new men… [men who] believe that their mission is to build a Palestinian state… Upon the return of these new men of Palestine, they have shown motivation, discipline and professionalism, and they have made such a difference – and I am not making this up – that senior IDF commanders ask me frequently: ‘how many more of these new Palestinians can you generate, and how quickly, because they are our way to leave the West Bank.’”⁴

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, 2,100 “paramilitaries” have been trained to date as part of Dayton’s initiative, and the plan is to train “over 5,000 men, out of a total West Bank security force of roughly 25,000 men.”⁵ According to various sources, it is planned to take two years for ten “Dayton” battalions to be established, “which the American general says will be made up of combatants of the ‘new Palestinian’ breed that he is creating.”⁶ Funding for the training, arming and employment of these new forces is provided by the US, as well as the British and Canadian governments, and Arab countries from the “moderate axis” – Jordan, Egypt and the UAE. On the ground, Dayton is assisted by a private security firm – Libra – which, according to Palestinian analyst Abdel Sitta Al-Qassem, is essentially a firm of mercenaries.⁷ A recent report in the British newspaper the Mail on Sunday exposed “the horrific torture of hundreds of people by Palestinian security forces in the West Bank [which] is being funded by British taxpayers.”⁸ The report documents how “not only are PA forces carrying out torture… but that the authority [also] ignores judges’ orders to release political detainees,” and how one victim was beaten to death during his interrogation by the security forces.

Up to 70% of these new forces are made up of second and third generation Palestinians born and brought up in Jordan; they therefore are not from communities in the West Bank and without social or community connections; they are seen as “outsiders”. On the street in the West Bank, they are known as the “Palestinian sahwa” after the Iraqi sahwa (awakening councils) – the militia forces set up and armed by the US in Iraq with the aim of taking on Al-Qaida. Needless to say, recruits to the “Dayton battalions” cannot previously have been involved in resistance activities against Israel and the occupation – including the second intifada – and preferably should not have a tawjihi (end of high school) certificate – i.e. people who, for whatever reason, did not complete their high school education. One Palestinian commentator described the new recruits as being “saturated with ideological ideas against the resistance”. This is how, he explains, the PLO army has been moulded to be the security forces that “protect Israeli settlements… and who protect the Israeli army from Palestinians and all forms of resistance”.⁹

The criterion not to recruit anyone who might have previously been involved in any resistance activity against Israel or against the occupation has meant that, to date, under Dayton’s auspices, over 7,000 Fatah members have been removed from their jobs as members of the security forces because many had participated in resistance activities against the occupation during the second intifada. This is very unlike in Northern Ireland where a key component of the peace agreement has been the setting-up of a police force that represents both communities, and in Iraq where the policy is to have all sects and communities represented in the security forces. But there are no “Catholics” in the security forces in the West Bank; what Dayton has created is a polarized political enforcement militia. When it comes to Palestine, the policy is for the security forces to be as sectarian and ‘occupation-friendly’ as possible.

“The Palestinian Authority changed in front of our eyes”
This process of creating “new Palestinians” has complemented the political metamorphosis of the Palestinian Authority. A high-ranking Israeli defence officer explained to leading Israeli journalist, Nahum Barnea, in early October: “The Palestinian Authority changed right in front of our eyes… The Fayyad government was formed [and] it was clear that they wanted to give Hamas a fight. We began to meet with the heads of the [Palestinian] security organizations.” The decision, he explained, “was to talk with them only about work-related matters — not about the right of return and not about the peace process. At the top of our agenda we put law and order in the cities and the war on Hamas. We said we will work with you directly, without mediators. We were surprised by the intensity of their willingness to cooperate.”¹⁰

The Officer continued: “We redefined the enemy. Previously we talked about terror organizations. Now we said: ‘Hamas’. [Palestinians] now had a state within a state. Our approach was to destroy it.” He explained how this has been done, systematically and collaboratively: “We took the 200 wanted men in Judea and Samaria and marked 15 who were the explosives experts. We assassinated most of them and arrested the others. What ensured our success was the cooperation between the IDF and the [Palestinian] GSS… We discovered that [Hamas’ supporters] owned malls, cow farms, bakeries, clinics, residential buildings. By means of investments they produce the money that feeds terror. We created a legal infrastructure to confiscate their assets. We made arrests.”

“[A key] turning point,” the Officer explained, “was the intensification of American involvement. This also happened in wake of the failure in Gaza. The Americans trained four battalions of [Palestinian] soldiers who obey their commander and not the clan. This was a rare combination of interests… We learned the lessons that the Americans learned from the fighting in Iraq. You take one place, Jenin for example, you crush terror there, you put a strong police force there and move on. We started with Jenin because there was a fence there and no settlers. At first, it failed. Fayyad said, ‘Let’s try again.’ We tried again, and it caught. We needed a lot of patience… The greatest achievement was that the moderates defeated the extremists.”

“We have a common enemy”
“Hametz removal” were what the IDF and Civil Administration called the “intensive operations” conducted against Hamas’ political and economic infrastructure during the last few years: “Each month, dozens of operations would take place, such as the closing of charity organisations, searches in mosques, seizures of bank accounts and companies related to Hamas.”

“Today,” explains Israeli journalist Alex Fishman, “such operations are being conducted by Dayton’s forces, and effectively. Perhaps even more effectively than the IDF.” They handle Hamas, he explained, with “appropriate aggressiveness”.¹¹ In a similar fashion, elected political figures belonging to Hamas are removed from office: in addition to the 40-odd Hamas parliamentarians currently in Israeli jails, 14 out of 64 Hamas local authority heads have also been replaced by the Abbas/Fayyad Authority after they were accused of corruption or “faulty performance”.¹²

In the summer of 2008, Nahum Barnea was, to his surprise, allowed to sit in on a joint liaison meeting between what had been hitherto unpublicised meetings between the heads of the Abbas/Fayyad Palestinian security forces and the IDF. The extent of what he heard shocked even him: “Such far-reaching willingness to work with Israel is something that I have never heard from the Palestinian leadership, with the exception of a brief period in the spring of 1996.”¹³ One of the people present at the evening’s meeting that he attended in Beit El settlement just outside Ramallah was Abu al-Fatah, commander of the General Security Service(GSS), the Palestinian military force; Abu al-Fatah is the most senior Palestinian security service commander. His words reassured the IDF officers present: “There is no rivalry between us… We have a common enemy.” Majed Faraj, director of Palestinian military intelligence, who was also present, concurred: “We’ve decided to put all our problems on the table. Everything is above board; there are no more games. Hamas is the enemy. We have decided to go to war against it. I am telling you, there will be no dialogue with them: whoever tries to kill you, kill him first. You made a hudna (ceasefire) with them. We didn’t”.

Faraj continued: “For the sake of fairness, it should be said that in the past we behaved differently. Now every name of a Hamas institution you give us is handled. You recently gave us the name of 64 institutions—until today, we have finished dealing with 50 of them. We closed some. In others, we changed the management. We have also laid a hand on their funds.” Barnea explained that Israel gave the PA details of 150 bank accounts that were suspected of being connected to “terror organizations”. The PA responded by closing 300 accounts. “Once we used to think 1,000 times before entering a mosque,” explained Faraj to the Israelis. “Today we enter every mosque when necessary. Don’t understand from this that you are also permitted to enter. On the contrary: because you don’t enter, we are able to.”¹⁴

The extent of collusion, explains Palestinian analyst Ramzy Baroud, illustrates how the Palestinian Authority functions “more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration”, part of what he describes as the post-Oslo culture of “contractors” – “businessmen… posing as revolutionaries [who have] encroached on every aspect of Palestinian society.”¹⁵

Dayton has said publicly that he is “working closely with the Israeli military commanders in the West Bank.” It is, wrote one Israeli commentator, “an ideal relationship”. It is clear too that Dayton is working with others. Despite denials, “the selection of those entering Dayton’s [training] units is conducted initially by three external intelligence bodies: the CIA examines the candidates, the Israeli [General Security Services] goes through the names, and in the end, when the new recruits arrive at the training facilities in Jordan, the Kingdom’s security mechanism conducts yet another thorough examination. To all these must, of course, be added the internal examinations of the Palestinian security forces themselves.”¹⁶ The training of these new forces takes place in a training facility close to Amman, Jordan, where a life-sized model refugee camp has been built; incidentally, this is also where the US is involved in training Iraqi security forces. The training programme is prepared jointly by the US and Israel (Israel has veto rights over the content of the programme) and training is done by Jordanian and American security and intelligence officials. Each training course is four months long and includes such things as “handling of riots, the correct use of force, human rights, maintaining law and order, and the arrest of opposition forces … When graduates return to the West Bank they undergo additional professional training such as driving, providing medical care, and other logistical matters.”¹⁷

It is not only the recruits and the training programme which are individually vetted by Israel. A second batch of 1,000 Kalashnikovs was transferred to the Palestinian security forces in July 2009, and as with the first batch, all weapons provided to the Palestinian Authority undergo ballistic testing by the Israel Police forensic lab, the aim being “to prepare a precise list so that in the event that these weapons are involved in terrorist activity aimed against Israelis, [each weapon] can be identified”.¹⁸ In addition to Jordanian and Egyptian-provided weapons, Israel has also provided Kalashnikov rifles and ammunition, as well as “crowd control measures such as gas grenades and rubber bullets”. And as one Israeli report explained: “The Palestinians have already made use of these measures.”¹⁹ Examples abound of how the Palestinian security forces undertake “Hametz removal” operations on behalf of the IDF; an editorial in June 2009 in Al-Quds al-Arabi revealed that a Palestinian security forces’ patrol “came to arrest the two men and surrender them to the Israeli forces [who] had been pursuing them for seven years after they carried out operations against Israeli targets.”²⁰ The editorial concluded that the Palestinian forces “acted as though they were an extension of the Israeli security troops and were carrying out their dirty acts on [Israel’s] behalf.”

As well as vetting all new recruits and testing each and every weapon that is given to the security forces, Dayton has confirmed that no item or weapon is given to the Palestinian forces unless Israel agrees to it. When Jordan recently requested that the Palestinian forces be supplied with RPGs to use against Hamas, the request was turned down by Israel. Israel decides where, when and for which hours of the day and night the Palestinian security forces can operate. On occasion they are allowed to operate at night, “and [they] report on every unusual movement sighted [to the Israelis]. The many successes are all listed in the [General Security Service] and IDF operations logs.” It is also agreed that Israel should turn over to the PA any security information that could require an Israeli intervention in Palestinian territories. In some areas, Israel prevents the Palestinian forces from operating between midnight and 5am, “among other reasons so that the armed policemen would not encounter IDF forces entering to operate against terrorists,” and that Israel has “a supervisory system that guarantees that the Palestinian battalions will only take on predefined assignments.”²¹

Speaking for the first time publicly about his work, in May 2009, General Dayton addressed an audience at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the US. He told of how the “new breed of Palestinians” had “caught the attention of the Israeli Defense establishment for their dedication, discipline, motivation and results.” Describing Dayton’s talk in the Israeli press, Alex Fishman explained how: “the Jewish audience responded with a wild surge of applause. Dayton was not satisfied with this, and went for another climax: ‘We, (the Americans) are creating a new Palestinian,’ he declared, ‘with motivation, discipline and professionalism.’ The Jewish audience was thrilled.”²²

“Sheep and wolves living together” — the shape of things to come
But Dayton then cautioned his Washington Institute audience: “Those who were joining the Palestinian security forces were doing this as a result of a sense that they were coming to fight for Palestinian independence. And if these people,” Dayton stressed, “are led to understand that an independent Palestinian state is not in the cards they’ll revolt. And then everything will fall apart. In other words: the weapons will be used against Israel.”²³

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy described the training as enabling “senior [Palestinian Security Force] leaders to feel as though they are entering the community of nations.”²⁴ Yet, despite being dressed up in language of “state” and “institution-building”, what Dayton is really coordinating is an initiative aimed at securing Israel’s position in the region in the wake of the US withdrawal from Iraq in two years time; the project is only indirectly aimed at helping Palestinians. His initiative is but one part of this wider jigsaw.

“Everything will fall apart” refers not only to the US’ plan for Palestine, but also to the part that the Dayton initiative plays in the wider American plan for “peace” in the Middle East. If Palestinians were to turn against their masters, it would have a domino effect across the Middle East. “It would be a collapse,” explains Alex Fishman, “of the entire political-defensive system Washington has constructed in recent years in preparation for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq two years from now. This system is intended to protect the interests of moderate Arab states alongside those of Israel amidst the threat of Muslim fundamentalists. If Israel does not play along with the United States, this would mean standing in the way of American interests with all that this entails.” To this end, Dayton was recently promoted to be US Envoy George Mitchell’s deputy on security matters and, with this, “his influence is even greater. He is not only dealing with the establishment of a Palestinian army, but rather with the entire region’s security arrangements in preparation for the moment to come some two years from now: the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.”

The leading figure in this wider strategic picture is US General James Jones, Obama’s National Security Adviser. A year ago, Jones prepared a comprehensive report on “Israel’s security needs for the day after the American pullout from Iraq, from the Iranian threat to the Palestinians”. The aim was to ensure Israel’s “security” in case everything falls apart in Iraq after the US withdrawal and to ensure that Iraq is not again antagonistic towards Israel. The plan – which was officially presented to the US State Department only at the end of July – has been “taken apart and examined for several weeks at the Pentagon, the White House and the foreign ministries of France, Egypt, Great Britain and Jordan.”²⁵

In an article in the Israeli press on 24 July, Alex Fishman revealed that during recent months a team of Israelis and Palestinians (all close associates of Mahmoud Abbas who gave his approval at each stage of the discussions), together with a former member of Dayton’s team, has been meeting in a Track Two process to draft a detailed annex – essentially the security annex to the Geneva Agreement. This annex “resolves the relations between the state and the state-to-be.”²⁶ This is how, Fishman says, “sheep and wolves are supposed to live together.” It is the only detailed security document that exists to which the Palestinians have agreed and will, it is reported, form the basis for the final status arrangements that will be proposed by President Obama for his final status agreement to be completed within two years. “This document,” explains Fishman, “is the closest thing to a practical and actual plan that was drafted by agreement by the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

The main components of the security annex are: the principle of non-militarization of the PA²⁷; precise details of what weaponry and equipment Palestinians may and may not possess²⁸; a third security force to be brought in “as a balance”²⁹; the stationing by Israel of an Israeli infantry battalion in the Jordan Valley (for “politics, psychology and public relations than real operational need”)³⁰; the stationing of three multi-national battalions to be deployed along the Jordan Valley, with one battalion to be deployed along the Philadelphi Road in Gaza; and an “Israeli presence” – two early-warning stations – in the non-militarized Palestinian state. The Israel Air Force would be able to carry out training flights over the West Bank and Israeli “involvement” at the border crossings between the Palestinian state, Egypt and Jordan would continue.³¹ In terms of timing, the agreement is supposed to be implemented in full within 30 months.

“An American peace event with Hollywood trappings”
There is, explains Israeli journalist, Nahum Barnea, a “sore point” to the “wonderful story” as recounted in his interview with the IDF Officer quoted above. “Everything that [has been] achieved is fragile and reversible,” the Officer said. “Without a peace process, it won’t last, [and] the IDF realizes this – mainly the IDF realizes it.” Despite his own caution to the Washington Institute audience, the direction Dayton is heading is pushing the creation of a demilitarized state to the point where sovereignty is meaningless and essentially erased; demilitarization pushed to its limit essentially is occupation by another name. What type of sovereignty is it where Israel can turn off the gas, water, money supply, oil, electricity; when it can limit the amount of calories going into the “independent state” and when it effectively controls the boarders of the new “state”?

Sometimes, it is said that those on the right speak clearer and more bluntly than others; and so it was with Dr Uzi Arad, Netanyahu’s national security adviser – “the strongman of current Israeli policy”³² – who was candid and frank in a recent interview. Israeli journalist Avi Shavit asked him: “Will a Palestinian state be established on the watch manned by you and Netanyahu?” “That is a different story,” explained Arad. “I don’t see among the Palestinians a process of truly drawing closer to acceptance of Israel and peace with Israel. I also do not see a Palestinian leadership or a Palestinian regime but a disorderly constellation of forces and factions. But, possibly, someone might come along and say ‘I am an engineer of events; the depth doesn’t interest me – I am going to produce an event.’ And within three years – presto – four Annapolises, two disengagements, global pyrotechnics. And then suddenly, in 2015, there is a Palestinian state. Stamps, parades, carnival. That could happen. A fragile structure, yes; an arrangement resting wholly on wobbly foundations. But it could happen. There could be a Palestinian state.”³³ It would be nothing more, wrote Shavit, than “an American peace event with Hollywood trappings.”³⁴

The “new Palestinians” are not only the security forces; these are complemented by a political class – also “new Palestinians” (“businessmen… posing as revolutionaries”) who have “no destructive element like Arafat to prevent the effect of their actions” wrote one Israeli commentator.³⁵ There is, however, one basic flaw in the jigsaw: it is all based on one overriding objective: Israel’s security. The wider aim is to save Israel and the region in the wake of the US withdrawal from Iraq. Institution-building and Abu Mazen and his ilk are simply parts of the jigsaw; they have been brought in to destroy resistance to the US project. Both components have become the means to this wider end. The outcome, however, is that Dayton’s initiative has only served to undermine the quest for a political solution in Palestine and the prospects for a Palestinian state. Palestinians increasingly see this. And, as one senior US commentator wryly noted, the Europeans are holding the door open for Dayton and his initiative – and, indeed, helping to fund it.

Dayton’s straw man stands in contrast to Hamas and the resistance bloc’s vision. Theirs is not a vision aimed at building confidence for Israel and perpetuating the status quo, but is about liberating Palestine. As Khaled Meshal explained in a recent interview: “The Palestinian problem is not about autonomy, government, flag, anthem, security services, or money from donor countries.” The problem of Palestine, he explained, “is about homeland, identity, freedom, history, sovereignty, Jerusalem, and the right of return. Land for us is more important than authority, and liberation comes before the land.”³⁶ Some Israelis see the wobbly foundations and predict the impending collapse of the Abbas/Fayyad authority and have called for dialogue with Hamas. Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad and national security adviser, is one such person: “Neither Netanyahu nor Obama can avoid having to decide whether the investment in the creation of a ‘new Palestinian’ is a realistic policy,” he wrote, “or whether channels of dialogue with the homegrown ‘new Palestinian’ [he is referring to Hamas] should be examined. Is this not worth a serious examination at least?”³⁷

Aisling Byrne is Projects Co-ordinator with Conflicts Forum and is based in Beirut.

Endnotes
[1] Palestinian Security Sector Governance: The View of Civil Society in Nablus, Spotlight No. 1, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, May 2009.
[2] Op cit.
[3] Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces, Charles Levinson, Wall Street Journal, 15 October 2009.
[4] Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, Michael Stein Address on US Middle East Policy, Program of the SOREF Symposium, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 7 May 2009; full transcript of Dayton’s address.
[5] Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces, Charles Levinson, ibid. According to the article, the approximately 24,800 US-trained Palestinian Authority security personnel are made up as follows: National Security forces 8,500 people; Police trained by the European Union 7,200 people; General Intelligence (PA Intelligence Unit) 3,500 people; Preventative Security (Secretive CIA-trained internal security service) 3,000 people; Presidential Guard (Elite forces answering to Mahmoud Abbas) 2,000 and Civil defense/Firemen 600.
[6] The “New Palestinian”, Ephraim Halevy, Yedioth Ahronoth, 24 May 2009.
[7] Dayton: The Leader of Palestine, Abdel Sitta Al-Qassem, Al-Jazeera Website, 3 July 2009.
[8] Financed by the British taxpayer, brutal torturers of the West Bank, David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 31 January 2009 [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133032/Financed-British-taxpayer-brutal-torturers-West-Bank.html] According to the Mail on Sunday, Britain’s Department for International Development gave a total of £76million to the Palestinian Authority in 2008 for ‘security sector reform’ and fostering the rule of law – of this £20million goes to the security forces, of which £3million went directly to the PA police and £17million for salaries for the Authority’s array of security organizations, including the Presidential Guard intelligence service and the Preventive Security forces.
[9] The new political and security job for the duo – Fayyad-Dayton, Yousef Shali, Al Aser On-line Magazine, 6 July 2009.
[10] Anatomy of a Victory, Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronoth, 9 October 2009.
[11] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, Yedioth Ahronoth, 22 May 2009.
[12] How We Won, Ofer Shelah, Ma’ariv, 4 September 2009.
[13] Last Chance, Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronoth, 19 September 2008.
[14] Last Chance, Nahum Barnea, ibid.
[15] Abbas and the Goldstone Report: Our Shame is Complete, Ramzy Baroud, The Palestine Chronicle, 15 October 2009.
[16] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, ibid.; see also Qalqiliya attack is a prelude for explosion, lead editorial, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 June 2009 and Former Mossad Chief: Palestinian police elements go through Israeli check…, Walid Awad, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 25 May 2009.
[17] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, ibid.
[18] A Thousand More Guns for the Palestinian Police, Amir Buhbut, Ma’ariv, 6 July 2009.
[19] IDF Pulling Out of Cities in West Bank, Yossi Yehoshua and Roni Shaked, Yedioth Ahronoth, 26 June 2009.
[20] Qalqiliya attack is a prelude for explosion, lead editorial, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 June 2009.
[21] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[22] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[23] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[24] Peace through Security: America’s role in the Development of the Palestinian Authority Security Services, 2009 Soref Symposium, featuring Lt General Keith Dayton, rapporteur’s summary of General Dayton’s address, 7 May 2009.
[25] Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, Yediot Ahronot, 24 July 2009.
[26] Op cit.
[27] As an Israeli general involved in developing the plan explained: “our point of departure was that under no circumstances can Israel’s security situation after the final status arrangement takes effect be worse off than before or irreversible”.
[28] The agreement specifies that tanks, rockets, guided missiles, anti-aircraft or anti-ship weapons, artillery of any kind, mortar shells, mines, machine guns larger than 7.62 caliber, laser weapons or any other kind of radiation weapons, helicopter gunships, fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles, armed sailing vessels (except for light vessels up to 25 tons, armed with light weapons) and weapons of mass destruction. The Palestinian troops would possess 400 light armored vehicles that will carry only permitted kinds of arms: light weapons and non-lethal equipment to disperse demonstrations”. During the negotiations, the Palestinian team did ask for RPG launchers, explosives and grenades “for fighting terrorists. After all, the other side possessed such weapons”. What was agreed was that the grenades, explosives and armor-penetrating weapons which were not anti-tank rockets would be in the possession of the multi-national force [and] every time the Palestinians wished to fight a terror attack, they would simply come to request those weapons from the members of the multi-national force” (Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, ibid.)
[29] While US General Jones had recommended NATO forces being brought in, the solution suggested in the security appendix is… an armed multi-national force made up of four battalions, approximately three thousand armed combat soldiers, from countries to be agreed upon by Israel and the Palestinians. At least one of the battalions would come from an Arab or Muslim country (Turkey or Egypt, for example). An article in June 2009 also by Alex Fishman mentioned one additional point: “…there is also a small surprise: there is an informal Israeli proposal that one of the battalions on the force be an Israeli battalion. If the proposal is accepted, then for the first time in history, an IDF force will serve under a foreign command.” (How to Build a (Demilitarized) State, Alex Fishman, Yedioth Ahronoth, 22 June 2009.)
[30] Located at the Ma’ale Ephraim base,” the base would include 800 combat soldiers, 60 APCs, 50 anti-tank launchers and 100 shoulder-borne anti-tank launchers. The battalion would not leave the base unless it was ordered to do so by the multi-national force and accompanied by its members. The battalion would remain in the Jordan Valley for 36 months after the signing of the agreement, after which the need for it would be re-examined”.
[31] “At the passenger terminals at the Allenby Bridge crossing, at Adam and Rafah, there will be a physical Israeli presence for 30 months after the agreement is signed, but it will not be perceptible to the passengers. Afterwards, for another two years, the Israeli presence will not be by means of people, but by means of closed circuit televisions. A similar arrangement will also be in force at the cargo terminal, but there camera surveillance will last for another year. The agreement not only applies to the three crossings, but to every place that in the future is defined as an international crossing.” (Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, ibid.)
[32] There is no Palestinian Sadat, no Palestinian Mandela; Interview with Uzi Arad, Ari Shavit, Haaretz English, 16 July 2009.
[33] Op cit.
[34] Ari Shavit, There is no Palestinian Sadat, no Palestinian Mandela; Interview with Uzi Arad, ibid.
[35] How We Won, Ofer Shelah, ibid.
[36] Khaled Meshal, speech on 25 June on President Obama’s position on peace process.
[37] The “New Palestinian”, Ephraim Halevy, Yedioth Ahronoth, 24 May 2009.

Save Children Now: Nations Continue to Deny Children’s Universal Human Rights Based on Islamic Supremacism

By R.E.A.L. Organization •

Twenty Years Ago – November 20, 1989 – the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But nations that reject religious freedom and defend Islamic supremacism, by viewing that human rights exist only as granted by Sharia, also continue to defy universal human rights for children, including many nations that are signatories to 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.

While giving the appearance of being “signatories” to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in fact, many of these “Islamic nations” reject such universal human rights for children, including religious freedom – while UNICEF is promoting “events” by such nations allegedly demonstrating their support for “children’s rights” in the Middle East and North Africa and in South Asia — support that in fact does not exist.

UNICEF and other United Nations organizations are meeting with such Islamic supremacist OIC member nations on November 23 and 24, 2009 in Cairo, Egypt to address “CRC and Islamic Jurisprudence” to address “reservations to the effect that the CRC would only be implemented if it is not in conflict with the Islamic Shari’a.”  We are concerned that this Cairo meeting, like so many other efforts to sacrifice human rights to Sharia, may result in further international justification to weaken children’s rights.

The OIC remains an organization that has been repeatedly condemned for seeking to undermine universal human rights.   Leading members of its organization (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt)  are repeatedly shown as in the bottom of the world’s “gender gap” nations, and are among the worst nations in the world in human trafficking (slavery) of women, men, and children.

In many of these nations and growing around the world through immigration, we see an endless pattern of “honor killings” and abuse of young girls and women by those who rationalize such violence by an ideology of Islamic supremacism.

Image from U.S. State Dept 2009 Report

Islamic Caveats on Children’s Rights Convention:

This is how “Islamic nations” have “supported” the November 20, 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Afghanistan:
– “The Government of the Republic of Afghanistan reserves the right to express, upon ratifying the Convention, reservations on all provisions of the Convention that are incompatible with the laws of Islamic Shari’a and the local legislation in effect.”

Algeria:
– interprets children’s rights based on “Islam is the State religion” and “Islamic morality”

Bangladesh:
– “subject to the existing laws and practices in Bangladesh”

Djibouti:
– “[The Government of Djibouti] shall not consider itself bound by any provisions or articles that are incompatible with its religion and its traditional values.”

Pakistan:
– “Provisions of the Convention shall be interpreted in the light of the principles of Islamic laws and values.”

Indonesia:
– “The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees the fundamental rights of the child irrespective of their sex, ethnicity or race.  The Constitution prescribes those rights to be implemented by national laws and regulations. The ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by the Republic of Indonesia does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the Constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligation to introduce any right beyond those prescribed under the Constitution.”  (Freedom of religion conspicously absent.)

Iran:
–  “The Islamic Republic of Iran is making reservation to the articles and provisions which may be contrary to the Islamic Shariah, and preserves the right to make such particular declaration, upon its ratification”.
–  “The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right not to apply any provisions or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with Islamic Laws and the international legislation in effect.”

Iraq:
–  “The Government of Iraq has seen fit to accept [the Convention] … subject to a reservation in respect to article 14, paragraph 1, concerning the child’s freedom of religion, as allowing a child to change his or her religion runs counter to the provisions of the  Islamic Shariah .”

Jordan:
– ” The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan expresses its reservation and does not consider itself bound by articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention, which grant the child the right to freedom of choice of religion and concern the question of adoption, since they are at variance with the precepts of the tolerant Islamic Shariah.”

Kuwait:
–   “[Kuwait expresses] reservations on all provisions of the Convention that are incompatible with the laws of Islamic Shari’a and the local statutes in effect.”

Malaysia:
– “The Government of Malaysia accepts the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child but expresses reservations with respect to articles 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 15, [...], 28, [paragraph 1 (a)] 37, [...] of the Convention and declares that the said provisions shall be applicable only if they are in conformity with the Constitution, national laws and national policies of the Government of Malaysia.”

Maldives:
–  “1) Since the Islamic Shariah is one of the fundamental sources of Maldivian Law and since Islamic Shariah does not include the system of adoption among the ways and means for the protection and care of children contained in Shariah, the Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation with respect to all the clauses and provisions relating to adoption in the said Convention on the Rights of the Child.
–  “2) The Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 14 of the said Convention on the Rights of the Child, since the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Maldives stipulate that all Maldivians should be Muslims.”

Mauritania:
– “In signing this important Convention, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania is making reservations to articles or provisions which may be contrary to the beliefs and values of Islam, the religion of the Mauritania People and State.”

Morocco:
– “Article 6 of the Constitution, which provides that Islam, the State religion, shall guarantee freedom of worship for all.”

Oman:
– “A reservation is entered to all the provisions of the Convention that do not accord with Islamic law or the legislation in force in the Sultanate and, in particular, to the provisions relating to adoption set forth in its article 21.”
– “The Sultanate does not consider itself to be bound by those provisions of article 14 of the Convention that accord a child the right to choose his or her religion or those of its article 30 that allow a child belonging to a religious minority to profess his or her own religion.”

Qatar:
– “Whereas the Government of the State of Qatar ratified the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child on 3 April 1995, and entered a general reservation concerning any of its provisions that are inconsistent with the Islamic sharia;”

Saudi Arabia:
– “  [The Government of Saudi Arabia enters] reservations with respect to all such articles as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law.”

Syria:
– “The Syrian Arab Republic has reservations on the Convention’s provisions which are not in conformity with the Syrian Arab legislations and with the Islamic Shariah’s principles, in particular the content of article (14) related to the Right of the Child to the freedom of religion, and articles 20 and 21 concerning the adoption.”
– “reservations of the Syrian Arab Republic to article 14 of the Convention are restricted only to its provisions relating to religion”

United Arab Emirates:
– “The United Arab Emirates shall be bound by the tenor of this article to the extent that it does not conflict with the principles and provisions of Islamic law.”

Djibouti, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic
[Same text, mutatis mutandis, as the objection made with regard to Iran (Islamic Republic of) under "Objections".]

Sharia Police Harassing Young Girls in Indonesia

Excerpts from the Convention on the Rights of the Child:
“Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

“Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”

“Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”

“Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance”

“1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.”

“2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.”

Resources:

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
– alternate web page

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNICEF Web Site on the Convention on the Rights of the Child

UNICEF Photo Essay on Children’s Rights

AP: “20 years after UN pact, many children still suffer”
– AP reports: “The United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child 20 years ago Friday, yet hundreds of millions of children still suffer from violence, hunger and disease. Associated Press correspondents around the globe interviewed children who illustrate the remaining challenges, along with some victories.”

Additional Reports:

Nations Continue to Deny Children’s Universal Human Rights Based on Islamic Supremacism

Egypt Hosts OIC Conference on “Children’s Rights”

Egypt: 15 Year Old Egyptian Convert to Christianity Sends Plea to Obama — Dina el-Gowhary

Egypt: “The Disappearance, Forced Conversions, and Forced Marriages of Coptic Christian Women in Egypt”

Why Islamic Supremacist Honor Killings Represent Ideological Violence Against Women

Kansas City: Arranged “Marriage Contract” of 14-year old Girl Reportedly Based on “Islamic” Views

Bangladesh — CDN Report: “Court Impedes Effort to Rescue Kidnapped Girl in Bangladesh”

World Gender Gap Worst in Islamic Nations — Survey Shows Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Turkey at Bottom of List

Indonesia: 1500 Sharia Police Harrass Men, Women in Aceh

Indonesia: Muslim cleric cleared of sex abuse over 12 year old child bride

Netherlands: Married at thirteen

Florida: Court Decides to Return Rifqa Bary to Ohio — 17 Year Old Christian Convert Girl Claims Muslim Parents Threatened to Kill Her

Italy: 15 Year Old Muslim Girl Threatened in Italy for Loving Italian Boy

UK: 15 Year Old Girl Tulay Goren Murdered in “Honor Killing,” Mother Testifies in Court

Turkey: 19 Year Old Girl Murdered in “Honor Killing” – Prosecution Seeks Life Sentence for Father, Uncle

Pakistan — ICC report on rape of Christian minority girl

Saudi Child Bride Turned Back Over to 80-Year-Old Husband

Pakistan: Suspected “Honor Killing” of Pregnant Wife, Two Teenage Daughters

Pakistan: Jirga orders marrying off three minor girls

Saudi religious police blamed in ‘honour’ killing of sisters

Pakistan “Honor killings”: Couple, including teenage bride, mother, sister murdered

Germany: Turk stabs teen daughter in “honour killing” — because daughter “did not want to follow the Muslim way”

Pakistan: 16 year old girl sold to 62 year old man

Afghanistan: “Honor-Killing” in Afghanistan: Father Kills His Daughter and Her Lover

Saudi Arabia: Camera phones seized from female teachers, schoolgirls

Pakistan – Muslim Forces 12-year-old Girl to Convert, Marry Him

Pakistan: “Brother kills girl for honour”

Afghanistan: New ‘poisoning’ hits 98 Afghan schoolgirls

Pakistan: Islamic Supremacists Cleared of Rape of Christian Girl

Pakistan: Eloping Niece Murdered by Supremacist Uncle Over “Honor”

Pakistan: Daughters Murdered by Supremacist Father

Pakistan: Taliban whip 17 year old girl

Pakistan: Taliban destroy over 100 girls’ schools in Swat

India: Villagers burn 16-year old Muslim girl alive in “honour killing”

Somalia — Gang rapists laugh about Sharia “justice”

Somalia: 13 Year Old Girl Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow Stoned to Death for Being Rape Victim — Sharia Court Finds Her Guilty

Save Women Now

We must ensure that the Obama Administration takes human rights violations seriously in all cases. Congress has no problem denouncing unfriendly nations (Iran) when they commit such crimes. When the UN documents such crimes committed by friendly nations (Israel), meanwhile, Congress actively tries to undermine the messenger and dismiss any such concerns out of hand.

In the latter camp, we have the Goldstone Report. On April 3 this year, the United Nations established a fact-finding mission to investigate any human rights violations (by Hamas or by Israeli military forces) during the 2008-2009 war in Gaza, during which about 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died. Goldstone’s committee presented this report to the UN Human Rights Council. Naturally, on November 4, the U.S. House of Representatives voted (344-36) to call on President Obama to denounce the Goldstone Report as “irredeemably biased,” despite the fact that the report details potential human rights violations committed by both Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces. The report calls on both Israel and Hamas to launch internal investigations into these allegations, to which only Hamas has committed.

On the former side, we have the UN resolution (document A/C.3/63/L.40) passed yesterday voicing concern about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran. There were 70 in favor, 51 opposed and 60 abstaining. As one would hope, the United States voted in favor. On the other hand, India, China, Russia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan all voted both for the motion to take no action and against the measure itself. The fact that the United States’ key partners in opposing Iran’s alleged attempts to build a nuclear bomb would all actively oppose this measure rather than abstaining should tell us something about our legitimacy on the worlds stage when talking about human rights abroad.

As Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) notes, “The stance of this Congress [on the Goldstone Report] will erode U.S. credibility in the post-Obama world, and it will tarnish our commitment to the principle that all nations must be held to the same standards.” If the United States wants to support the expansion of human rights, then it must act consistently towards that pursuit. Exercising blatant double-standards in this arena only work to undermine the push for justice.

dari : http://eramuslim.com/berita/palestina/aleg-hamas-rencana-israel-hancurkan-al-aqsha-dalam-tahap-akhir.htm

Anggota parlemen Palestina Sameera Al-Halaika dari blok parlemen Hamas di parlemen Palestina telah memperingatkan pada hari Jumat kemarin (20/11) bahwa skema Israel untuk menghancurkan Masjid al-Aqsha berada dalam tahap akhir, sambil menambahkan bahwa diamnya negara-negara Arab dan umat Muslim telah mengirimkan pesan yang salah kepada IOA.

Dia menyesalkan “kematian hati negara” yang menyelimuti dunia Arab dan dunia Muslim yang secara jelas menunjukkan ketidakpedulian mereka terhadap tempat suci kaum Muslimin tersebut, ia juga menjelaskan bahwa Israel telah menyiapkan program pembersihan secara terorganisir terhadap etnis Arab dan Muslim yang ada di kota Yerusalem yang diduduki dan telah mencapai tahap akhir.

Dalam hal ini, anggota parlemen dari Hamas ini menyerukan negara-negara Arab dan dunia Islam dan para pemimpinnya untuk mengakhiri sikap diam mereka dan mendesak mereka untuk sungguh-sungguh berdiri di samping saudara-saudara Muslim mereka dan warga Arab di Yerusalem yang diduduki.

Menurut Halaika, warga Palestina menghadapi sebuah kanker ganas yang bekerja siang dan malam untuk mengurangi kehadiran warga Palestina di kota Yerusalem baik melalui penghancuran rumah-rumah mereka atau melalui penyitaan dan membatalkan KTP mereka serta berbagai praktek ilegal lain dengan tujuan untuk mengubah demografi kota agar seluruh kota hanya berisi warga yahudi.

Pernyataan Halaika tersebut menyusul setelah Aqsha Foundation untuk peninggalan-peninggalan bersejarah menyebut adanya penggalian komplek Al-aqsha terbaru yang dilakukan zionis Israel, termasuk dua terowongan dan dua lift di dekat bagian barat Masjid untuk menghubungkan gerbang Al-Magharba dengan alun-alun Al-Buraq, sehingga membuat penghancuran terhadap masjid Al-Aqsha menjadi semakin mudah.(fq/pic)