The Age of the Terror Selfie - by Matti Friedman

...Just as the Hezbollah fighters knew they wouldn’t take the outpost that day, the suicide stabbers on Israel’s streets right now know they won’t make a dent in Israeli control, create an independent state for Palestinians, or change anyone’s life for the better. Like the shooters in Paris or San Bernadino, they move in a world beyond such mundane goals. They aren’t soldiers but storytellers. Along with many others across this region, they have escaped despair into a fevered movie set where they are the directors and stars and everyone else is a disposable prop. We all need to understand this movie, because we’re all in it.

Matti Friedman..
Tabletmag.com..
05 January '16..

This fall and winter have seen many of us here in Israel consuming a miserable kind of reality TV: blurry clips of young Palestinian Muslims with knives seeking release in murder and martyrdom, lunging, stabbing, falling stricken to the ground, the action captured by cellphones or security cameras; an imam in Gaza waving a knife and calling on the faithful to render us into “body parts”; a fighter from the Islamic State, our new neighbor, warning us of the violence he and his comrades will inflict when they arrive. The effect was so disturbing that it triggered psychological stress akin to that of a real war, though the fatalities barely added up to a skirmish. No land was conquered or lost, no concessions demanded. With our computers and cellphones, as the director of military intelligence put it, “We’re all brainwashing ourselves.” The battlefield had moved almost entirely inside our own minds.

In the past month or two it has been more apparent than ever that the confluence of unfiltered information, dramatic images of bloodshed, and fanatical interpretations of Islam have converged to become one of the key forces shaping our lives. That makes it worth looking for the moment this force began to make itself felt in earnest. My selection, a subjective one based on my personal experience, can be found on the front page of the Israeli daily Maariv of Oct. 31, 1994.

Two possible futures appear on this page in the form of two stories. The day’s main headline tells us that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is in Morocco, where he met with King Hassan. Israel’s peace treaty with Jordan is a few days old. The photo shows a warm handshake between the prime minister and the king, two men of similar age, and the headline quotes the Israeli leader: “Peace is a house, and the economy will furnish it.” This was what was known at the time as the “new Middle East,” the title of an optimistic book published by Shimon Peres a year earlier, which envisioned a peaceful region where new highways moved citizens of Palestine to shop in Israel and Israeli tourists to the souks of Damascus, past old tanks rusting at the side of the road. Next to the photo of the handshake is an analysis piece titled, “A Bank, Not a Tank.”

Below the fold is a smaller headline. It reads, “Shock in the army: Soldiers flee at outpost during Hezbollah attack.” The story appears on page 2 with a blurred frame from a video in which an armed man is seen driving a flag into the ground.

***

The latter story, obscure at the time and forgotten now, bears some explanation.

Two days earlier, a Saturday, at an Israeli army position on a hilltop in southern Lebanon, shelling commenced just after 8:30 a.m. This base, Outpost Pumpkin, was part of a string of grim Israeli army positions with trenches, machine guns, and bed-and-breakfast names; nearby were Outposts Cypress, Citrus, Red Pepper, and Basil. In those days the army controlled a buffer zone inside Lebanon to protect Israel’s northern border, waging a guerrilla war in this zone throughout the 1990s with the Shia fighters of Hezbollah, the Party of God. Hezbollah wasn’t the powerful force we now see dominating Lebanon and fighting in Syria, with 150,000 missiles pointed at Israel. At the time the group wasn’t taken particularly seriously. Yet this little war, about which nearly nothing has been written, is key to understanding the present-day Middle East.

Everything possible should be done to reverse this ‎shameful decision

...ZAKA emergency response service Director Yehuda Meshi Zahav was outraged by the decision: ‎‎"We will instruct our volunteers to first treat injured Jewish victim, without thinking twice," he said. ‎‎"And only after [will they treat] the terrorist murderer who carried out the attack. Despite the ethical ‎code which mandates the most injured victim be treated first, you must know morality has a limit. If we ‎will not keep our distinction, we will lose our direction. Even in Halachah, it is written: All who are merciful to ‎the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful."‎ Not being merciful to the cruel is what our tradition teaches. Foreign-funded, hostile NGOs such as ‎Physicians for Human Rights must not be allowed to dictate life-and-death issues for Israeli citizens ‎through an unelected body such as the IMA.

Judith Bergman..
Israel Hayom..
22 December '15..

The Israeli Medical Association has reversed a 2008 decision mandating that doctors at the scene of a ‎terrorist attack treat victims before the terrorist, regardless of the severity of the attacker's wounds. ‎

Only a week ago -- in the midst of an unprecedented terror wave of stabbings and car rammings -- a ‎change was suddenly made to the medical ethics regulations, literally out of the blue. The IMA Ethics Board's guideline stipulated that "charity begins at home" -- that is, in a case ‎where personnel or equipment are in short supply in a multi-casualty terrorist attack, the victims should ‎be treated before the terrorists. It was decided to eliminate that instruction and the only rule that ‎remains in place is the one that decrees that the wounded must be treated according to the severity of ‎their condition and ability to survive, and no other criteria. In practice, this means that the terrorist would ‎have to be treated before his victims, if it turns out that his wounds were more severe than theirs, which ‎is entirely feasible, if he has been shot by the IDF or an armed citizen.‎

The IMA not only made its decision without any prior public debate, but it clearly ‎sought to hide it from the public, which is even more troubling and sinister. ‎

Israel Hayom reported that the announcement about the revocation of the previous rule simply ‎appeared on the IMA's website and that "the IMA was apparently concerned about ‎widespread political and ethical criticism of its decision." ‎

The IMA has every reason to be concerned. Such a decision of life and death, taken behind the back of ‎the Israeli public and sneaked into policy by a mere announcement on a website is odious in itself. But it ‎gets worse. ‎

One has to ask oneself why the IMA decided to reverse this crucial guideline? Here is the reason in all its ‎tragic simplicity: In October, members of Physicians for Human Rights contacted IMA Chairman Dr. Leonid ‎Edelman and IMA Ethics Board Chairwoman Dr. Tami Karni. Their demand: Cancel the "charity begins at ‎home" clause in the regulations on treating terrorism victims. Physicians for Human Rights argued in a ‎letter that the organization was convinced that the principle went against the ethical principles that have guided the ‎medical community until now. Following the appeal by members of Physicians for Human Rights, the ‎Ethics Board held a discussion on Dec. 1. At its conclusion, a decision was taken to accede to the ‎organization's request and cancel the "care for your own" clause entirely. According to Ethics Board ‎members, most members agreed with the decision. ‎

It is interesting that one appeal from a nongovernmental organization can reverse the policy on such a crucial question for an ‎entire nation just like that, isn't it? Since Physicians for Human Rights wield such tremendous influence, ‎being able to sway the entire IMA Ethics Board, it is relevant to look in depth at who they are.‎

Terrorism, Terrorists and Double Standards

...As even those like President Obama, who have tried to downplay the danger from ISIS terrorists, hopefully start to sober up about the need to take this war seriously, the one exception to the united front against terror still appears to be Israel. So long as Western leaders treat killers of Jews as being worthy of understanding and condemn Israelis for defending themselves, terror will continue. Those who correctly lament the tragedies in Paris and San Bernardino should also spare a moment in their public expressions of sympathy for Israelis that continue to undergo a daily terror nightmare without the benefit of support from Facebook.

(Photo by Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto) --- Image
by © Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto/Corbis

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
06 December '15..

Americans are still shaken by the San Bernardino shooting this past week and the revelations that — contrary to the initial assurances of the Obama administration and the mainstream liberal media — it was an act of Islamist terrorism. But for Israelis, such outbreaks of violence, largely inspired by Muslim religious fanaticism, are routine events. For more than two months, a so-called “stabbing intifada” has been going on there in which every day Palestinians try to stab, shoot, run over, or stone random Jews they see on the street. Yet unlike their reactions to tragedies that happen elsewhere, Facebook users around the world aren’t changing their profile pictures to express their sympathy with the victims or to express outrage at the terrorists. To the contrary, much of the world seems primarily interested in blaming the Israeli victims and treating acts of self-defense by the victims and Israeli police as the real problem. A classic example of this double standard comes from Sweden where Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom claimed Israel was conducting “extrajudicial executions” of Palestinian terrorists.

Wallstrom was referring to the fact that some of those who attempt to murder Israelis have been shot dead while trying to commit murder by their intended victims or by police that come to their rescue. Later, Wallstrom walked back that remark to some extent and claimed she was merely saying that Israel’s response to terror was “disproportionate” and blamed both sides for the problem. If any of those at the holiday party that the San Bernardino killers targeted had the ability to fire back at their attackers, would that have been considered disproportionate? At best, this is a reprehensible example of a false moral equivalence between terrorists and victims. At worst, it’s yet another blood libel against the Jewish state whose premise is that, unlike other people, Jews don’t have the right to try and stop people from killing them.

But that’s not the only double standard regarding Israel and terrorism.

Trending. #Social media is a terrorist’s best friend

Ana Maria Luca..
NOW Lebanon..
23 August '13..

A few years ago, journalists around the world used to wonder if they were the best friends of terrorists. And I remember a time when al-Qaeda linked brigades in Iraq used to send press releases by e-mail to the world’s news wires and television channels to claim credit for their attacks on various targets. It happened all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I felt the same way a few weeks back, when two days after a road-side bomb targeted a Hezbollah convoy in the Bekaa Valley, we received an e-mail from, al-Qaeda linked, Abdullah Azzam brigades claiming that they were responsible for the bombing. The same e-mail was sent to all newsrooms in Beirut.

Yesterday, however, I realized that e-mail is completely obsolete. After four rockets were fired towards Israel from South Lebanon and the Israeli Defense Forces retaliated, no e-mail was sent to any newsroom. But ten minutes afterwards the claim was tweeted. Journalists are not a terrorist’s best friend anymore. Social media is.

Link: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/newsandpolitics/a-terrorists-best-friend

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Check-it out!

Washington Post asks, 'Is This Woman a Terrorist?'

...Thompson, in an apparent bow to political correctness, takes no sides as to whether Shakur is a terrorist. But what about the legions of times when for-real Palestinian terrorists deliberately set out to kill Israeli civilians in pursuit of their political agenda, and the Post calls them "militants," "radicals," "extremists," but NOT terrorists? In those cases, there's no need for a question mark after the "T" word.

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
10 May '13..

The Washington Post Style section of May 9 features a lengthy piece about Assata Shakur, a Black Panther Party radical who murdered a New Jersey state trooper in 1973, escaped from a state prison and ended up as a fugitive in Cuba where Fidel Castro has given her asylum.

The news peg for Krissah Thompson, the author of the article, is a recent decision by the FBI to add Shakur to its Most Wanted Terrorist list. What interests Thompson most, however, is whether Shakur can be labeled a "terrorist." Thompson finds advocates on both sides of this issue, thus suggesting that "terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. After all, definitions of "terrorism" vary widely. So it becomes a subjective, relative matter, thoroughly politicized.

Not so. Stripped of semantic twists and turns, "terrorism" still has an unchanging core definition -- deliberate violence against civilian targets in pursuit of a political or ideological agenda. To qualify as "terrorism," the "T" word must meet all three criteria.

Suicide Seekers and the Holy Warrior Masquerade

Adam Lankford..
Op-Ed Contributor/JPost..
17 February '13..

‘These are not suicide operations,” explained Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar on Al-Arabiya television in 2006. “This is a despicable term used by the Israelis in order to say that these are suicide operations, knowing that suicide is forbidden in Islam.... These are martyrdom seeking operations, approved by all the authorities of the Islamic nation.”

Al-Zahar’s claims were not surprising. He was neither the first, nor the last, to make that argument. But it is shocking that the rest of the world essentially agreed. Although most people still employ the phrase “suicide attack” as the simplest description of this behavior, leading scholars and security officials have spent years insisting that perpetrators are driven by sacrifice, not suicide.

In the United States, Europe and elsewhere, students are taught that suicide bombers are psychologically equivalent to a soldier who jumps on a grenade to absorb the blast and protect his comrades. Or as American professor and former adviser for two presidential campaigns Robert Pape asserted, suicide terrorists are “much like ordinary soldiers with a strong sense of duty and a willingness to sacrifice all for the common good.”

This view is not only dangerous – because it glorifies suicide attackers and thus encourages future recruits – but also factually wrong. I have spent more than three years studying interview transcripts, suicide notes, “martyrdom” videos, and witness statements, and have uncovered more than 130 examples of suicide terrorists with classic risk factors for conventional suicide. I have yet to come across even one suicide attacker driven purely by ideology and altruism.

THOSE WHO volunteer are generally overwhelmed by personal crises and looking to escape their lives. Those who are coerced are usually weak and broken souls who’d rather die than risk trying to withdraw or disobey.

Again, the security checkpoint system proves its worth

Frimet/Arnold Roth..
This Ongoing War..
23 October '12..




From Times of Israel this afternoon:

Border Police forces arrested a 20-year-old Palestinian carrying eight explosive devices at the Qalandiya checkpoint near Ramallah, on Tuesday. The man reportedly traveled to the checkpoint by taxi. A routine inspection of his bags revealed the bombs, which were assembled and ready for use. The man was taken into custody. The border crossing was closed and sappers disassembled the devices on the scene.

From other sources, we know the seizing of this terrorist happened around 12:15 this afternoon.

There are people who will read the news item above and see within it further confirmation that Israel maintains a cruel and strict regime of oppression over the Palestinian Arabs. They might include the film critic of the Observer/Guardian who this week cluelessly compared it to the walls of the Warsaw Ghetto and the Soviet Berlin wall. The Arab media frequently refer to it as an apartheid wall, showing a fatal lack of comprehension of what it was that made Apartheid-era South Africa a racist and unjust regime.

We prefer to look at it this way. The young man arrested today knew he was going to have to pass through the security checkpoint. He may have done it before in the past. It was not suddenly thrown into his path - it's been there, in the same place, for years. He may have thought his luck would hold and he would get through. He had alternatives: the security barrier has never been completed and is not continuous; people regularly find ways to cross over without passing through the checkpoints.

Waiting for reaction of Israeli Arab leadership?

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA..
08 August '12..

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: An Israeli security official reported on Israel Radio that at least some of the participants were aware that they were handling explosives rather than drugs.

The question now is how the Arab Israeli leadership reacts to the news. Do they condemn this activity or do they challenge the information?]

Hezbollah smuggles high-grade explosives into Israel

By YAAKOV KATZ
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=280480
LAST UPDATED: 08/08/2012 12:48

Court charges eight Israeli-Arab residents of Nazareth, Ghajar for helping transfer explosives; Shin Bet official says foiled operation would have needed Nasrallah's approval, adds: This is just the tip of the iceberg.

A series of Hezbollah terror attacks inside Israel were foiled recently by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) after a group of Israeli-Arabs helped smuggle 20 kilograms of high-grade explosives into Israel.

On Wednesday, eight residents of Nazareth and the town of Ghajar - half of which is in Israel and the other half in Lebanon - were charged in the Nazareth District Court with assisting in the infiltration of the explosives.

A Remembrance Day reminder of where terrorists should be

Frimet/Arnold Roth
This Ongoing War
09 May '11

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

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

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

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

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

(Read full "Remembering where terrorists belong")

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

How the militants, fighters, insurgents and freedom fighters turn into terrorists

Arnold/Frimet Roth
This Ongoing War
28 December '10

The Guardian, one of the world's towering superpowers of political correctness, carried a little-noticed story this past Sunday about a disturbing turn of events emanating from our neighbourhood:

"Intelligence services throughout the Middle East and Europe are scrambling to track down more than two dozen fighters linked to al-Qaida who have recently left their base in southern Lebanon. The missing men are thought to have gone to Europe by a newly established route through Syria, Turkey and the Balkans, and multiple intelligence sources in Lebanon warn that the group appears to be operational and could be planning attacks in Europe in the holiday season... "We have received warnings of a significant militant plot in Europe during the holidays and we have been warned about these missing fighters from Lebanon"...

If you follow the link and view the article as published, you may notice that the word terror appears exactly once - in the headline: European terror attack feared as al-Qaida fighters disappear from base in Lebanon.

In the body of the article, these Al Qaida individuals are called "fighters", "missing men", "group", "militants" and even "a disparate group of freelance fighters and jihadists" which comes close to the heart of the matter. Not once are they called terrorists.

So what is it about the jihadists that causes this odd metamorphosis? So long as they remain in the Middle East - in Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, and especially in the towns and villages controlled by the Palestinian Authority, by Hamas and by Hizbollah - these men, women and children are routinely described by the kind of circumlocution that is on display in the Guardian.

(Read full "How the militants, fighters, insurgents and freedom fighters turn into terrorists")

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

Economist: Poverty Does Not Create Terrorists

Daled Amos
24 December '10

According to the Economist, terrorists are not typically from low income families with poor education. In fact, the results of a number of studies indicate that the cause comes from a different direction altogether:

Social scientists have collected a large amount of data on the socioeconomic background of terrorists. According to a 2008 survey of such studies by Alan Krueger of Princeton University, they have found little evidence that the typical terrorist is unusually poor or badly schooled.

Claude Berrebi of the RAND Corporation compared the characteristics of suicide-bombers recruited by Hamas and Islamic Jihad from the West Bank and Gaza with those of the general adult male Palestinian population. Nearly 60% of suicide-bombers had more than a high-school education, compared with less than 15% of the general population. They were less than half as likely to come from an impoverished family as an average adult man from the general population. Mr Krueger carried out a similar exercise in Lebanon by collecting biographical information for Hizbullah militants. They too proved to be better educated and less likely to be from poor families than the general population of the Shia-dominated southern areas of Lebanon from which most came.

There is also no evidence that sympathy for terrorism is greater among deprived people...

...[T]he poorest countries, those with low literacy, or those whose economies were relatively stagnant did not produce more terrorists. When the analysis was restricted to suicide-attacks, there was a statistically significant pattern—but in the opposite direction. Citizens of the poorest countries were the least likely to commit a suicide-attack. The nationalities of all foreign insurgents captured in Iraq between April and October 2005 also produced no evidence that poorer countries produced more insurgents. If anything, there was weak evidence the other way.

So what does terrorism correlate with?

(Read full "Economist: Poverty Does Not Create Terrorists")

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

Non-Violent Terrorists? No, Non-Violent Terrorist Sympathizers

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
05 July'10

Here we go again with the quarterly (perhaps monthly) article about how Israel's enemies are turning to non-violence. This one, by Charles Levinson in the Wall Street Journal, is far better than most. Indeed, to his credit, it reminds us of one of the attributes of good reporting: it is balanced and honest enough to give the reader sufficient information to question the thesis the author presents.

The article begins:

"Hamas and Hezbollah, groups that have long battled Israel with violent tactics, have begun to embrace civil disobedience, protest marches, lawsuits and boycotts—tactics they once dismissed."

But really this kind of thing has been talked about, but never long practiced, for decades. There were protest marches in the 1960s and the Arab boycott of Israel has gone on even longer. The example that leads to these new musings is, of course, the Gaza flotilla. But as Levinson rightly points out, this gambit succeeded precisely because the militants planned to use violence.

He writes: "But a small cadre of Palestinian activists has long argued that nonviolence, in the tradition of the American civil rights movement, would be far more effective." Yet there are cultural and political reasons why this approach never wins out, in the Middle East at least.

Let's assume that when Israeli soldiers landed on the flagship of the Gaza flotilla, that it surrendered peacefully as the other ships had done. All of the headlines and reactions were based on Jihadists attacking the soldiers, taking them hostage, and Israeli forces killing nine of the violent attackers to rescue their people. No suicide attackers, no international impact. This doesn't indicate a turn toward non-violence but to carefully camouflaged violence.

One Hamas parliamentarian is quoted as saying, "When we use violence, we help Israel win international support. The Gaza flotilla has done more for Gaza than 10,000 rockets."

Yet this analysis leaves out a huge elephant. The biggest international gains came about as a result of other examples of camouflaged terrorism: two wars set off by the terrorists--2006 in Lebanon; 2008-2009 in the Gaza Strip. Violently attacking Israel, forcing it to respond, and then trying to get as many of your own civilians killed is the strategy that has worked.

That is exactly what also happened with the Gaza flotilla.

(Read full article)

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

Free Gaza - The True Version!

nisanzeevi

29 May '10

You've got 1:49 to describe Gaza and what to do about it. Here is one man's attempt.

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

The Real Security Lapse in Dubai

Letting terrorists conduct business.


Daniel Halper
The Weekly Standard
01 March '10

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

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

(Read full post)
.

Can We Defeat Terrorists without Defeating Terrorism?

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
23 February '10

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

(Read full story)

Releasing Terrorists: New Victims Pay the Price

Nadav Shragai
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Published August 2008

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

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

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

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

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

Another “Goodwill Gesture”

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

(Read Full Issue Brief)
.

A nation held hostage

R. Stewart Weiss
Guest Columnist/JPost
17 December 09

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

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

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

(Continue article)

Related: Israel's deadly mistake
.

Killing Terrorists Saves Lives

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
12 November 09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Great Moments in "Psychologically Disturbed" Gunmen Committing Mass Murder

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
08 November 09

[Note: This is satire designed to show the ludicrous nature of the media coverage on the Ft. Hood issue. It is not designed to trivialize a terrible event but to make people understand better what happened and how the event is being dangerously distorted.]

When John Wilkes Booth opened fire on President Abraham Lincoln in Ford’s Theatre in April 1865, the media was puzzled. “True, the actor was outspoken in his Confederate sympathies and viewed himself as a Southerner,” said someone who knew him, “but that was no reason he might want Lincoln to be dead.” The day before he went on his shooting spree, Booth hoisted a big Confederate flag outside his hotel room. After he leaped onto the stage he shouted, "Thus ever to tyrants!" the motto of the rebel state of Virginia.

The New York Times reported that Booth was psychologically unstable and was frightened of the Civil War coming to an end and having to face a peacetime actors’ surplus. “His political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it said, quoting experts.

After Fritz Reichmark opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Dix in January 1942 the media was puzzled. “True, he used to go to German-American Bund meetings,” said one fellow soldier, “but he only wore the swastika armband in his off-hours.” Reichmark would regale other soldiers with diatribes against the Jews, Winston Churchill, and Communists. The day before he went on his shooting spree, Reichmark gave out copies of Mein Kampf to neighbors. Soldiers who survived reported he was shouting "Heil Hitler!" while firing at them.

The New York Times reported that Reichmark was psychologically unstable and was frightened of being shipped out to North Africa because he was a coward, though this doesn’t explain his making a suicide attack when his job wouldn’t have required him to go into combat. “His German ancestry and political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it said, quoting experts. The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of this event was to fight more firmly against Germanophobia.

When Padraic O’Brian bombed a restaurant in London with massive loss of life, the media was puzzled. “True, he used to go to IRA rallies,” said a cousin, “and he would rant for hours about how the British invaders should be wiped out” but the media reported that this had nothing to do with this attack which was caused by his psychological problems. As he fired at pursuing police, O'Brian yelled: "Up the republic!"

The Guardian reported: “His Irish identity and political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act.” The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of this event was the need to fight more firmly to ensure that Northern Ireland was handed over to the Irish Republic and that Israel be wiped off the map.

When a group of 19 terrorists flew two planes into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and the fourth crashed on the way to the White House, the media was puzzled. “True, they wrote letters to Usama bin Ladin and expressed radical views but their act of violence must have been connected to their extreme poverty back in Saudi Arabia,” one expert was quoted as saying. When informed the young men all came from well-off families, he responded, “Oh.”

The New York Times reported that they were all psychologically unstable and had difficult times in forming stable relationships with women. “The fact that they were Arabs and Muslims or their political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it explained. The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of the attack was the need to fight against Islamophobia and Arabophobia as well as for the United States to make more concessions in the Middle East and to impeach President George W. Bush.

The point of the above exercise is to make the following points:

--Individuals who commit terrorist acts often have psychological problems but the thing that justified, organized, and ensured that violence would be committed were political ideas.

--Whenever an individual who belongs to any group commits a crime, it is possible that some will stigmatize the entire group. Most Americans or Westerners today, however, will not do so. The most important issue is to identify why the terrorist act happened and what to look for (including which type of individuals) to prevent future attacks.

--When there is clear evidence that danger signs were ignored because people were afraid of being stigmatized for doing their job of protecting their fellows, that is a dangerous mistake that must be corrected.

--Someone who is "afraid" of being sent into a war zone is not likely to handle that cowardice by standing up with a gun in a suicide attack and shooting people until he falls to the ground with about four bullet wounds.

--The media can often be stupid but when it censors reporting for political or social engineering reasons, freedom is jeopardized. The correct phrase is: The public's right to know. It is not: The public has to be guided into drawing the proper conclusions by slanting and limiting information even if the conclusions being pressed on them are lies and nonsense.
.

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

Bulletin
Palestinian Media Watch
04 October 09
TY to IMRA

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

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashraf Al-Ajrami, PA Minister of Prisoners:

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

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

Click here to view

Said Siam, PA Minister of Interior (Hamas):

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

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

[Abu Dabi TV, June 26, 2006]

Click here to view

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

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

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