I have taken an unplanned sabbatical from posting on VIEW FROM THE MOON as a few days of procrastination grew into weeks. The longer I was away the less I felt like focusing my mind on the horrific results of U.S. policies. I had already begun to feel that if readers of this blog had not been persuaded to see the influence of the Israel Lobby on U.S. foreign policy, then more months of the same message would not open their eyes. If they could not see by now that American “news” omitted information essential to understanding the truth of what was going on, they would never see it. All it takes to penetrate the propaganda smokescreen are a few basic truths – which have been repeated again and again in VIEW FROM THE MOON – and some easy observation and analysis.
I was further discouraged because I realized I was generally preaching to the choir rather than the unenlightened. How many people began reading my blog as hypnotized parroters of propaganda and became independent thinkers willing to search for truth in the world of forbidden ideas? How many people are actually capable and willing to think outside the walls of their societal training? I suspected that the people who feared the truth to begin with were continuing to fear it, while those who accepted it were not learning anything from me which they did not already know.
If a writer like me feels that his words are not bringing about changes in the world, not altering people’s thinking, a sense of futility sets in, followed by, “Well, let them stew in the pot they’ve chosen.”
As I return to this blog I look over the period since I left and see that things are about the same as they were when I found more fulfilling creative activities in “Second Life”. I don’t think the situation would be any different had I continued posting. Cosmetic reshuffling in the Bush administration has had no significant effect. The Democrats have become even more spineless and ineffectual than I would have believed possible. I thought that because the Zionists had accomplished their war purpose of turning Iraq into a chaotic wasteland they would permit the newly empowered Democrats to wind down the U.S. presence there to some extent – instead of giving Bush everything he wanted without so much as a convincing growl. The timorous toadies of Congress remain interested in nothing except retaining their jobs in future elections.
In Palestine the legally elected Hamas government remains sealed into a small area and left to starve except when Israel tanks and troops invade to hasten their demise – while the U.S. applauds and pretends that the Palestinian usurpers who overthrew the Hamas legitimate government are able to “negotiate” for the Palestinians in the never-ending “peace process.”
The only area where there is even an appearance of improvement is Iran – because Iran is still at peace and not blown to pieces by U.S./Zionist bombs and missiles. I’m sure that the Israeli designs on Iran have not changed, but even a lessening of the bombastic threats is welcome.
If there should be any doubt about the ultimate Israeli aim to neuter and dominate Iran, it is shown in what must be the most ludicrous American performance of 2007, after the highest U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously declared that Iran had ceased any effort to develop nuclear weapons several years ago – contrary to the steady stream of lies emanating from the U.S. during those years. Instead of praising Iran, the American government (with the meek collaboration of Democrats, after Bush had personally consulted with the leader of Israel) declared that the cessation of a weapons development program was cause for renewed alarm!
I may continue to post here when something inspires me, but with the conviction that I’m merely amusing myself rather than helping improve the world.
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Addition to Wednesday's Post
'COLIN POWELL: QUARTET SHOULD FIND WAY TO TALK TO HAMAS'
If only Colin Powell had spoken up like this about Iraq before he helped invade it.
AP Washington
'Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the international diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East should find some way to talk to Hamas.
'"I don't think you can just cast them into outer darkness and try to find a solution to the problems of the region without taking to account the standing that Hamas has in the Palestinian community," Powell said in a radio interview.
'He said Hamas, which controls Gaza, is not going away and enjoys considerable support among the Palestinian people.
'"They won an election that we insisted upon having," Powell said.'
AN ADMISSION FROM THE ZIONIST SIDE
From the Jewish Telegraph Agency (Baltimore Jewish Times) July 17:
‘Israel and the Quartet’s strategy has been to isolate Hamas, considered a terrorist group ["Considered" by whom?], and support Abbas. If Palestinian standards of living can be raised under Abbas’ regime while Hamas is unable to deliver in Gaza, then more Palestinians likely will support Fatah and its position of acceptance of a peaceful two-state solution to the conflict, the reasoning goes.’
Does that not sum up my accusations in my previous post? Here’s more of the JTA article:
‘A group of 10 European foreign ministers recently wrote an open letter to Blair calling the Quartet’s "road map" peace plan a failure, urging Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians and recommending the establishment of an international force to deal with the conflict.
‘Clara Marina, a research fellow at London’s Centre for European Reform, said the letter to Blair demonstrates a widely held view among European leaders that the Quartet’s policy of isolating Hamas has been responsible, at least in part, for the current suffering among the Palestinians, and even Hamas’ military takeover of the Gaza Strip. . . . By all accounts, Gaza is teetering on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. Some human rights groups lay the blame on Israel, saying the Jewish state put Gaza in an economic stranglehold by closing its border crossings. [”Some” lay the blame on Israel? Who doesn’t?]
‘In their letter to Blair, the foreign ministers urged the former British leader “to pressure Israel to arrange for the transfer of all taxes due, the release of the thousands of prisoners who do not have blood on their hands," as well as “a freeze in new settlements and the evacuation of unauthorized settlements."’
If only Colin Powell had spoken up like this about Iraq before he helped invade it.
AP Washington
'Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the international diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East should find some way to talk to Hamas.
'"I don't think you can just cast them into outer darkness and try to find a solution to the problems of the region without taking to account the standing that Hamas has in the Palestinian community," Powell said in a radio interview.
'He said Hamas, which controls Gaza, is not going away and enjoys considerable support among the Palestinian people.
'"They won an election that we insisted upon having," Powell said.'
AN ADMISSION FROM THE ZIONIST SIDE
From the Jewish Telegraph Agency (Baltimore Jewish Times) July 17:
‘Israel and the Quartet’s strategy has been to isolate Hamas, considered a terrorist group ["Considered" by whom?], and support Abbas. If Palestinian standards of living can be raised under Abbas’ regime while Hamas is unable to deliver in Gaza, then more Palestinians likely will support Fatah and its position of acceptance of a peaceful two-state solution to the conflict, the reasoning goes.’
Does that not sum up my accusations in my previous post? Here’s more of the JTA article:
‘A group of 10 European foreign ministers recently wrote an open letter to Blair calling the Quartet’s "road map" peace plan a failure, urging Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians and recommending the establishment of an international force to deal with the conflict.
‘Clara Marina, a research fellow at London’s Centre for European Reform, said the letter to Blair demonstrates a widely held view among European leaders that the Quartet’s policy of isolating Hamas has been responsible, at least in part, for the current suffering among the Palestinians, and even Hamas’ military takeover of the Gaza Strip. . . . By all accounts, Gaza is teetering on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. Some human rights groups lay the blame on Israel, saying the Jewish state put Gaza in an economic stranglehold by closing its border crossings. [”Some” lay the blame on Israel? Who doesn’t?]
‘In their letter to Blair, the foreign ministers urged the former British leader “to pressure Israel to arrange for the transfer of all taxes due, the release of the thousands of prisoners who do not have blood on their hands," as well as “a freeze in new settlements and the evacuation of unauthorized settlements."’
Thursday, July 5, 2007
An Atrocity Within an Atrocity. Who ARE the “Terrorists”?
Israel is attacking Gaza without provocation again.
What Is a Militant?
Judging from this report, a “militant” is a person you kill when you invade his land, and if people fight back against your aggression, they are “gunmen”:
‘GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli troops and armor crossed into the central Gaza Strip on Thursday, killing seven Palestinian militants, including six from the Islamist Hamas group that controls the coastal territory.’
Why Are Israel’s Gunmen “Forces” while Their Victims Are “Gunmen”?
‘Israeli forces exchanged fire with gunmen in al-Maghazi refugee camp. . .’In addition, 13 people, including children, were wounded. The Israeli army did not disclose whether the children were “militants”, but an unarmed Hamas cameraman apparently was: He ‘was injured by what witnesses said was a tank shell and was seen later being shot in the legs from afar as he lay on the ground.’ Swissinfo reported that television footage showed gunfire aimed in his direction as he was lying on the ground, and that later, hospital officials said both of his legs were amputated.
(Lest we forget, the refugee camps exist because people driven earlier from their homes by the Zionists have to live somewhere.)
Why is that atrocity not treated as news in America even though it was funded there? Especially in light of other things reported by Swissinfo and other sources: ‘Israeli soldiers fired on a rooftop where several journalists, including a Reuters camera crew, were filming.’ In addition, Israeli soldiers violated the rules of war by grabbing Palestinian ambulance workers and using them as human shields in order to escape from the area. As always, the familiar refrain after Israel atrocities: ‘An Israeli military spokesman said: "After conducting a preliminary examination, we know nothing about such an incident".’
Hamas Gains BBC Journalist’s Freedom, but No Thanks Except from the Journalist
This latest unprovoked Israeli aggression on Gaza comes only a day after Hamas, the legitimate Palestinian government which is trying to survive the Israeli onslaught, arranged the release of a BBC correspondent who had been held captive by another group for almost four months. Hamas representatives ‘whisked him and the media off for breakfast at the home of the Hamas leader and former prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh.’
‘The 45-year-old reporter showed his gratitude towards Hamas, saying the heat was on his kidnappers when the group took control of Gaza after fierce factional fighting with the western-backed Fatah faction. "Until the Hamas takeover, I felt that the kidnappers were completely relaxed and secure, but the game completely changed when Hamas took over," Mr Johnston said.’
So Hamas is a Hero, Right? Wrong.
The US/Israeli media have fallen all over themselves to be sure that Hamas should receive no appreciation, much less praise, because of its feat. ABC news trumpeted, ‘Hamas Takes Advantage of Johnston Release’. Apparently one “takes advantage of” arranging the release of a kidnapped person by virtue of having arranged the release.
The Chicago Tribune, instead of headlining credit for Hamas, complained:
‘Hamas seeks political gain from hostage's release
Faction touts freeing of Briton as evidence that it's a credible political and diplomatic partner
By Joel Greenberg
(“Touts”, in case anybody didn’t notice, is not a nice word. It is a negatively loaded word.)
The Tribune quickly lets us know that in spite bringing about the freedom of the journalist, ‘Hamas did not appear to win new credibility among its opponents. A U.S. official said Hamas "still has a number of obligations to meet before it can be a partner that can be counted on and worked with.”’
The Jerusalem Post likewise reports, “The United States said Thursday that Hamas's role in freeing British Broadcasting Corp. correspondent Alan Johnston has not changed the world's opinion of the Islamic group. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters, "I don't think the world views Hamas any differently as a result of this." (The “world’s opinion” is a really big opinion. Are you sure about that, Spokesman McCormack?)
So, Hamas is still “bad” no matter how much good it does, and Israel, always “good”, is once more doing what it does best, murdering people on their own land.
And speaking of kidnapping, why is it that Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit is always described as “kidnapped” even though he was captured in a war situation, while people unlawfully hauled away by Israeli invaders are described as “arrested"?
What Is a Militant?
Judging from this report, a “militant” is a person you kill when you invade his land, and if people fight back against your aggression, they are “gunmen”:
‘GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli troops and armor crossed into the central Gaza Strip on Thursday, killing seven Palestinian militants, including six from the Islamist Hamas group that controls the coastal territory.’
Why Are Israel’s Gunmen “Forces” while Their Victims Are “Gunmen”?
‘Israeli forces exchanged fire with gunmen in al-Maghazi refugee camp. . .’In addition, 13 people, including children, were wounded. The Israeli army did not disclose whether the children were “militants”, but an unarmed Hamas cameraman apparently was: He ‘was injured by what witnesses said was a tank shell and was seen later being shot in the legs from afar as he lay on the ground.’ Swissinfo reported that television footage showed gunfire aimed in his direction as he was lying on the ground, and that later, hospital officials said both of his legs were amputated.
(Lest we forget, the refugee camps exist because people driven earlier from their homes by the Zionists have to live somewhere.)
Why is that atrocity not treated as news in America even though it was funded there? Especially in light of other things reported by Swissinfo and other sources: ‘Israeli soldiers fired on a rooftop where several journalists, including a Reuters camera crew, were filming.’ In addition, Israeli soldiers violated the rules of war by grabbing Palestinian ambulance workers and using them as human shields in order to escape from the area. As always, the familiar refrain after Israel atrocities: ‘An Israeli military spokesman said: "After conducting a preliminary examination, we know nothing about such an incident".’
Hamas Gains BBC Journalist’s Freedom, but No Thanks Except from the Journalist
This latest unprovoked Israeli aggression on Gaza comes only a day after Hamas, the legitimate Palestinian government which is trying to survive the Israeli onslaught, arranged the release of a BBC correspondent who had been held captive by another group for almost four months. Hamas representatives ‘whisked him and the media off for breakfast at the home of the Hamas leader and former prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh.’
‘The 45-year-old reporter showed his gratitude towards Hamas, saying the heat was on his kidnappers when the group took control of Gaza after fierce factional fighting with the western-backed Fatah faction. "Until the Hamas takeover, I felt that the kidnappers were completely relaxed and secure, but the game completely changed when Hamas took over," Mr Johnston said.’
So Hamas is a Hero, Right? Wrong.
The US/Israeli media have fallen all over themselves to be sure that Hamas should receive no appreciation, much less praise, because of its feat. ABC news trumpeted, ‘Hamas Takes Advantage of Johnston Release’. Apparently one “takes advantage of” arranging the release of a kidnapped person by virtue of having arranged the release.
The Chicago Tribune, instead of headlining credit for Hamas, complained:
‘Hamas seeks political gain from hostage's release
Faction touts freeing of Briton as evidence that it's a credible political and diplomatic partner
By Joel Greenberg
(“Touts”, in case anybody didn’t notice, is not a nice word. It is a negatively loaded word.)
The Tribune quickly lets us know that in spite bringing about the freedom of the journalist, ‘Hamas did not appear to win new credibility among its opponents. A U.S. official said Hamas "still has a number of obligations to meet before it can be a partner that can be counted on and worked with.”’
The Jerusalem Post likewise reports, “The United States said Thursday that Hamas's role in freeing British Broadcasting Corp. correspondent Alan Johnston has not changed the world's opinion of the Islamic group. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters, "I don't think the world views Hamas any differently as a result of this." (The “world’s opinion” is a really big opinion. Are you sure about that, Spokesman McCormack?)
So, Hamas is still “bad” no matter how much good it does, and Israel, always “good”, is once more doing what it does best, murdering people on their own land.
And speaking of kidnapping, why is it that Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit is always described as “kidnapped” even though he was captured in a war situation, while people unlawfully hauled away by Israeli invaders are described as “arrested"?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Hurry, Tony Blair, and Stop Israel!
It is being widely reported in most parts of the world other than the US that the military forces of Israel have invaded Gaza without provocation and killed at least 11 people, including a 12 year old child. Israel calls its unprovoked attacks “preventive measures.”
Israel supposedly withdrew from the Gaza Strip and returned it to the Palestinians about two years ago, although retaining control of the airspace and maritime access. The legitimate elected Palestinian government remains in control of Gaza in spite of US/Israel efforts, and the Israeli attacks are undoubtedly part of a campaign to destroy the lawful government and replace it with a puppet theatre agreeable to Israel.
Even Palestinian President Abbas, who has tried and failed to overthrow the lawful Hamas government with US and Israeli backing, struck a pose of condemning the deadly Israeli aggressions. He said, "This bloody escalation, which was initiated by the Israeli government, is a distinct violation of the tahadiyeh [truce], and will lead to a chain of retaliations and the prolongation of violence." His office went on to say that "this aggression comes only a single day after the Sharm e-Sheikh summit and calls into question whether Israel really intends to seal an agreement and negotiate to end the occupation."
Israel supposedly withdrew from the Gaza Strip and returned it to the Palestinians about two years ago, although retaining control of the airspace and maritime access. The legitimate elected Palestinian government remains in control of Gaza in spite of US/Israel efforts, and the Israeli attacks are undoubtedly part of a campaign to destroy the lawful government and replace it with a puppet theatre agreeable to Israel.
Even Palestinian President Abbas, who has tried and failed to overthrow the lawful Hamas government with US and Israeli backing, struck a pose of condemning the deadly Israeli aggressions. He said, "This bloody escalation, which was initiated by the Israeli government, is a distinct violation of the tahadiyeh [truce], and will lead to a chain of retaliations and the prolongation of violence." His office went on to say that "this aggression comes only a single day after the Sharm e-Sheikh summit and calls into question whether Israel really intends to seal an agreement and negotiate to end the occupation."
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Confirmation from Carter
This article about a speech by Jimmy Carter on June 19 contains one paragraph which is definitely NOT by Carter, and which is an outrageous editorial effort to contradict the point Carter is making. I’ve marked that paragraph and commented there.
Carter blasts US policy on Palestinians
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
-----------------------------------
‘DUBLIN, Ireland -- Former President Jimmy Carter accused the U.S., Israel and
the European Union on Tuesday of seeking to divide the Palestinian people by
reopening aid to President Mahmoud Abbas' new government in the West Bank while
denying the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
‘Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was addressing a human rights conference
in Ireland, also said the Bush administration's refusal to accept Hamas' 2006
election victory was "criminal." Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with Abbas' corrupt Fatah movement.
‘Carter said the consensus of the U.S., Israel and the EU to start funneling aid
to Abbas' new government in the West Bank but continue blocking Hamas in the
Gaza Strip represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."
‘****In the latest crisis, the U.S., Israel and much of the West have been trying to
shore up Abbas in hopes that the West Bank can be made into a democratic example
that would bring along Gaza.****’ (MY COMMENT: What the hell is this supposed to mean? The West Bank “a democratic example”? Hamas candidates, not the Fatah rebels who now control the West Bank, were elected to run the government. The Hamas government is the result of democracy and puts democracy into practice. Due to US and Israeli interference Hamas retains its rightful power only in Gaza. The West Bank is presently the world’s most conspicuous example of anti-democracy in action.)
‘Far from encouraging Hamas' move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the
U.S. and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, sought to subvert the outcome
by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military
power.
‘"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.
‘"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and
did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he
said.
‘Carter said the U.S. and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in
Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would "conquer Hamas in Gaza" -
but Hamas routed Fatah in the fighting last week because of its "superior skills
and discipline."’
Carter blasts US policy on Palestinians
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
-----------------------------------
‘DUBLIN, Ireland -- Former President Jimmy Carter accused the U.S., Israel and
the European Union on Tuesday of seeking to divide the Palestinian people by
reopening aid to President Mahmoud Abbas' new government in the West Bank while
denying the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
‘Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was addressing a human rights conference
in Ireland, also said the Bush administration's refusal to accept Hamas' 2006
election victory was "criminal." Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with Abbas' corrupt Fatah movement.
‘Carter said the consensus of the U.S., Israel and the EU to start funneling aid
to Abbas' new government in the West Bank but continue blocking Hamas in the
Gaza Strip represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."
‘****In the latest crisis, the U.S., Israel and much of the West have been trying to
shore up Abbas in hopes that the West Bank can be made into a democratic example
that would bring along Gaza.****’ (MY COMMENT: What the hell is this supposed to mean? The West Bank “a democratic example”? Hamas candidates, not the Fatah rebels who now control the West Bank, were elected to run the government. The Hamas government is the result of democracy and puts democracy into practice. Due to US and Israeli interference Hamas retains its rightful power only in Gaza. The West Bank is presently the world’s most conspicuous example of anti-democracy in action.)
‘Far from encouraging Hamas' move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the
U.S. and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, sought to subvert the outcome
by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military
power.
‘"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.
‘"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and
did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he
said.
‘Carter said the U.S. and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in
Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would "conquer Hamas in Gaza" -
but Hamas routed Fatah in the fighting last week because of its "superior skills
and discipline."’
Monday, June 18, 2007
Lies, Lies, Lies!
I almost took out my rage on the television set last night when I listened to some of the most outrageous lies I’ve ever heard. Here in the US we think of Fox News as the ultimate in dishonesty, but the disgrace last night was on MSNBC. In Keith Olbermann’s absence, his smirking substitute interviewed one of the show’s regular Jewish “experts” about the current struggle between the Hamas and Fatah parties in Palestine.
'ALISON STEWART: And before we let you go, Jonathan, we want to ask you about another conflict the White House has to consider. Islamic fundamentalists led by the Hamas terror organization seized control of the Gaza Strip for [from? This woman rarely seems to understand what she’s reading.] moderates backed by the Bush administration. What does this do to President Bush‘s vision for that region?
JONATHAN ALTER: Well, you know, it‘s just really—it‘s so awful. I mean, here the Israelis unilaterally handed over Gaza. They did what they‘ve been urged to do in the West Bank. Everybody said, Yes, give the Palestinians their territory. So they did that. How were they rewarded? With missiles fired into Israel from Gaza, and now, with a takeover by Hamas, which is committed to the destruction of Israel.'
The truth is that Hamas won the freely held Palestinian elections early this year and assumed leadership of the government fair and square, just as the Democrats did in the US. But Hamas was – to Israeli and American tastes – too popular and too effective in promoting the welfare of the Palestinian people. The US had branded Hamas a “terrorist” organization because it had refused to accept Israeli occupation rather than, like the losing party, Fatah, obediently bowing to foreign bribes. (Incidentally, Fatah is recognized to be extraordinarily corrupt and indifferent to the people’s needs, while Hamas has just the opposite reputation – integrity and great social welfare work on behalf of the people.)
So the US, despite having insisted on the elections which brought Hamas to power, set out to undermine the legitimate government of Palestine and encourage the violent overthrow of Hamas by the losing party. The financial and other methods used were flagrant efforts to destroy a popularly elected legal government. Fatah gunmen (some trained by the US) began to physically attack Hamas people. Israel kidnapped Hamas mayors and other officials. The violent rebellion instigated by “USrael” reached the point of civil war, and the American media cheered not the elected government but the rebels.
But Newsweek acknowledged what was really going on: “As long as Hamas refused to recognize Israel, the United States refused to deal with the Hamas-dominated Palestinian government. The hope was not that ordinary Palestinians would suffer, but that they would realize such a government was not in their best interests. At the same time Washington tried to bolster Abbas and his Fatah movement.” [Isn’t it commendable of the US to starve the people who elected a government so that they will “realize such a government was not in their best interests”] Newsweek: “Hamas, under pressure, built up its own paramilitary forces to counter those controlled by Abbas (and trained by the United States). Then, last week, as tit-for-tat killings in Gaza spiraled out of control, those Hamas fighters in Gaza turned out to be far more fierce than their better-funded opponents. The result: the radicals are now in charge of Gaza.” [Note that “radicals” are not nice. Memo to Newsweek: Why not say, “The elected government is now in charge of Gaza.”]
So, good news – in Gaza (the smaller of the two bits of Palestine not officially incorporated into “Greater Israel”) Hamas defeated the armed Fatah uprising. Hoorah, right? Wrong.
PLEASE CLICK AND ENLARGE. GAZA ON THE LEFT, WEST BANK ON THE RIGHT.
MSNBC told the exact opposite of the truth. Their story implied that Fatah was the legitimate government, which was defeated by some sort of Hamas rebellion while poor deceived Israel stood by wringing its hands.
Alison Stewart said, “Islamic fundamentalists led by the Hamas terror organization seized control of the Gaza Strip [from] moderates” . Her words not only reversed the fact that it was the Hamas government which prevented Fatah from seizing control, but also instructed Americans how to feel about Hamas by calling it a “terror” organization and distorting its nature with the scare words, “Islamic fundamentalists”.
Jonathan Alter joined in the “ain’t it awful” dialogue by saying that poor Israel, which has done so much for the Palestinians (sarcasm!), even being so generous as to give back a small piece of the territory it stole from them, has been “rewarded” with “a takeover” by Hamas. How can you take over a government you were elected to run?
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (hand picked for that position by US/Israel, who appreciate his handy-dandy cooperative attitude) swore in an emergency Cabinet on Sunday and purportedly outlawed the militia forces of Hamas. Abbas has no legal power to outlaw anything, least of all the elected government.
Newsweek wrote: “The hurried swearing-in ceremony of the new Cabinet left the Palestinians effectively with two governments — the Hamas leadership in Gaza and the new Cabinet in the West Bank led by respected economist Salam Fayyad. [Notice that the usurper is “respected”, which may be translated into Israelspeak as "easily bent".] Abbas issued decrees Sunday annulling a law requiring the new government to be approved by parliament, which is dominated by Hamas, and outlawing the Islamic group's militias. “ Hmmm. I seem to recall that annulling a country’s laws by decree has been labeled “dictatorship” by the US. Well, yes, but that was last month. Now it is probably something that G.W. Bush admires and envies.
Newsweek sums up with an uncharacteristically candid statement admitting that the US has lost all credibility:
‘Citizens of countries where Washington has called for greater democracy—Iran, say, or Syria—now have three less-than-inspiring examples close to home. In Lebanon, Iranian-backed Hizbullah reigns as a power unto itself [having booted out the most recent Israeli invasion]. In Iraq, the sect-based parties that came to power in the 2005 elections have created a bloody nightmare, and stymied any attempts to forge a truly national consensus. And in the Palestinian territories, Washington simply rejected the election results.’
'ALISON STEWART: And before we let you go, Jonathan, we want to ask you about another conflict the White House has to consider. Islamic fundamentalists led by the Hamas terror organization seized control of the Gaza Strip for [from? This woman rarely seems to understand what she’s reading.] moderates backed by the Bush administration. What does this do to President Bush‘s vision for that region?
JONATHAN ALTER: Well, you know, it‘s just really—it‘s so awful. I mean, here the Israelis unilaterally handed over Gaza. They did what they‘ve been urged to do in the West Bank. Everybody said, Yes, give the Palestinians their territory. So they did that. How were they rewarded? With missiles fired into Israel from Gaza, and now, with a takeover by Hamas, which is committed to the destruction of Israel.'
The truth is that Hamas won the freely held Palestinian elections early this year and assumed leadership of the government fair and square, just as the Democrats did in the US. But Hamas was – to Israeli and American tastes – too popular and too effective in promoting the welfare of the Palestinian people. The US had branded Hamas a “terrorist” organization because it had refused to accept Israeli occupation rather than, like the losing party, Fatah, obediently bowing to foreign bribes. (Incidentally, Fatah is recognized to be extraordinarily corrupt and indifferent to the people’s needs, while Hamas has just the opposite reputation – integrity and great social welfare work on behalf of the people.)
So the US, despite having insisted on the elections which brought Hamas to power, set out to undermine the legitimate government of Palestine and encourage the violent overthrow of Hamas by the losing party. The financial and other methods used were flagrant efforts to destroy a popularly elected legal government. Fatah gunmen (some trained by the US) began to physically attack Hamas people. Israel kidnapped Hamas mayors and other officials. The violent rebellion instigated by “USrael” reached the point of civil war, and the American media cheered not the elected government but the rebels.
But Newsweek acknowledged what was really going on: “As long as Hamas refused to recognize Israel, the United States refused to deal with the Hamas-dominated Palestinian government. The hope was not that ordinary Palestinians would suffer, but that they would realize such a government was not in their best interests. At the same time Washington tried to bolster Abbas and his Fatah movement.” [Isn’t it commendable of the US to starve the people who elected a government so that they will “realize such a government was not in their best interests”] Newsweek: “Hamas, under pressure, built up its own paramilitary forces to counter those controlled by Abbas (and trained by the United States). Then, last week, as tit-for-tat killings in Gaza spiraled out of control, those Hamas fighters in Gaza turned out to be far more fierce than their better-funded opponents. The result: the radicals are now in charge of Gaza.” [Note that “radicals” are not nice. Memo to Newsweek: Why not say, “The elected government is now in charge of Gaza.”]
So, good news – in Gaza (the smaller of the two bits of Palestine not officially incorporated into “Greater Israel”) Hamas defeated the armed Fatah uprising. Hoorah, right? Wrong.
PLEASE CLICK AND ENLARGE. GAZA ON THE LEFT, WEST BANK ON THE RIGHT.
MSNBC told the exact opposite of the truth. Their story implied that Fatah was the legitimate government, which was defeated by some sort of Hamas rebellion while poor deceived Israel stood by wringing its hands.
Alison Stewart said, “Islamic fundamentalists led by the Hamas terror organization seized control of the Gaza Strip [from] moderates” . Her words not only reversed the fact that it was the Hamas government which prevented Fatah from seizing control, but also instructed Americans how to feel about Hamas by calling it a “terror” organization and distorting its nature with the scare words, “Islamic fundamentalists”.
Jonathan Alter joined in the “ain’t it awful” dialogue by saying that poor Israel, which has done so much for the Palestinians (sarcasm!), even being so generous as to give back a small piece of the territory it stole from them, has been “rewarded” with “a takeover” by Hamas. How can you take over a government you were elected to run?
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (hand picked for that position by US/Israel, who appreciate his handy-dandy cooperative attitude) swore in an emergency Cabinet on Sunday and purportedly outlawed the militia forces of Hamas. Abbas has no legal power to outlaw anything, least of all the elected government.
Newsweek wrote: “The hurried swearing-in ceremony of the new Cabinet left the Palestinians effectively with two governments — the Hamas leadership in Gaza and the new Cabinet in the West Bank led by respected economist Salam Fayyad. [Notice that the usurper is “respected”, which may be translated into Israelspeak as "easily bent".] Abbas issued decrees Sunday annulling a law requiring the new government to be approved by parliament, which is dominated by Hamas, and outlawing the Islamic group's militias. “ Hmmm. I seem to recall that annulling a country’s laws by decree has been labeled “dictatorship” by the US. Well, yes, but that was last month. Now it is probably something that G.W. Bush admires and envies.
Newsweek sums up with an uncharacteristically candid statement admitting that the US has lost all credibility:
‘Citizens of countries where Washington has called for greater democracy—Iran, say, or Syria—now have three less-than-inspiring examples close to home. In Lebanon, Iranian-backed Hizbullah reigns as a power unto itself [having booted out the most recent Israeli invasion]. In Iraq, the sect-based parties that came to power in the 2005 elections have created a bloody nightmare, and stymied any attempts to forge a truly national consensus. And in the Palestinian territories, Washington simply rejected the election results.’
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Tony Blair's "Democracy" (Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge)
My remarks about the U.S. and Britain ostensibly pressing for democracy in selected Middle East countries (not including “moderates” like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan) while thwarting the results of elections if they don’t like them, find new focus today in yelpings of Robopup Tony Blair.
(“Moderate: One who, while nominally disagreeing with U.S. and Zionist policies, nevertheless does nothing to oppose them.” BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED.)
“DUBAI (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Middle Eastern states on Wednesday to help rein in the "forces of extremism" in Iran and to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
(“Extremist” as defined in my BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED: “3. Any person who resists or speaks out against U.S. or Zionist invasion and occupation of any country, or who openly opposes U.S. or Zionist interference in the internal affairs of any country.”)
“Blair, who will leave office next year and whose popularity has been eroded by the Iraq war, rejected suggestions American or British action in the Middle East was fuelling terrorism. . . . He called on moderate leaders across the Middle East to join a ‘monumental struggle’ between democracy and extremism. . . .
“Blair plans to hold talks with world leaders in early 2007 on delivering a package of aid for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has called for early elections after failing to form a unity administration with Hamas, which won elections in January but is being boycotted by the West because of its refusal to recognize the state of Israel.”
So, Blair, who backed a democratic election in Palestine, now ignores the results of that election and works to deliver “aid” to the losing party instead of the lawfully elected party. It will be interesting to find out which “world leaders” go along with him in ignoring the democratic process he and Bush instigated. Isn’t it amazing that the thrust of Blair’s statements is that IRAN is improperly interfering in the Middle East? As a friend of mine said, “Democracy” is just the flag under which the pirates are sailing.)
(What if a second election is held and Hamas wins again in spite of the payoffs to the opposing party? Or is that being “taken care of”?)
As usual, there is no logical consistency in the Blair/Bush duet (they sing in unison, a cappella). As usual, what is good for Israel and bad for the oppressed Palestinians defines “good”.
Awhile back I asked if Robopup Blair might be straining at his leash to set himself free, but the answer is “no”. I think he was just excited by a fire hydrant.
And this just in:
“(Reuters) - Israel is considering handing over millions of dollars in withheld Palestinian tax funds to President Mahmoud Abbas in a move that could bolster him ahead of elections over his Hamas rivals, sources said on Wednesday. Western diplomats and Palestinian sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the proposal under consideration calls for releasing the tax money to Abbas in stages on condition it will bypass the Hamas-led government. Transferring the funds would mark a shift in Israeli policy, and could allow the moderate Abbas to make payments to Palestinian civil servants, who have not received their full salaries since Hamas came to power in March. “
(“Moderate: One who, while nominally disagreeing with U.S. and Zionist policies, nevertheless does nothing to oppose them.” BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED.)
“DUBAI (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Middle Eastern states on Wednesday to help rein in the "forces of extremism" in Iran and to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
(“Extremist” as defined in my BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED: “3. Any person who resists or speaks out against U.S. or Zionist invasion and occupation of any country, or who openly opposes U.S. or Zionist interference in the internal affairs of any country.”)
“Blair, who will leave office next year and whose popularity has been eroded by the Iraq war, rejected suggestions American or British action in the Middle East was fuelling terrorism. . . . He called on moderate leaders across the Middle East to join a ‘monumental struggle’ between democracy and extremism. . . .
“Blair plans to hold talks with world leaders in early 2007 on delivering a package of aid for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has called for early elections after failing to form a unity administration with Hamas, which won elections in January but is being boycotted by the West because of its refusal to recognize the state of Israel.”
So, Blair, who backed a democratic election in Palestine, now ignores the results of that election and works to deliver “aid” to the losing party instead of the lawfully elected party. It will be interesting to find out which “world leaders” go along with him in ignoring the democratic process he and Bush instigated. Isn’t it amazing that the thrust of Blair’s statements is that IRAN is improperly interfering in the Middle East? As a friend of mine said, “Democracy” is just the flag under which the pirates are sailing.)
(What if a second election is held and Hamas wins again in spite of the payoffs to the opposing party? Or is that being “taken care of”?)
As usual, there is no logical consistency in the Blair/Bush duet (they sing in unison, a cappella). As usual, what is good for Israel and bad for the oppressed Palestinians defines “good”.
Awhile back I asked if Robopup Blair might be straining at his leash to set himself free, but the answer is “no”. I think he was just excited by a fire hydrant.
And this just in:
“(Reuters) - Israel is considering handing over millions of dollars in withheld Palestinian tax funds to President Mahmoud Abbas in a move that could bolster him ahead of elections over his Hamas rivals, sources said on Wednesday. Western diplomats and Palestinian sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the proposal under consideration calls for releasing the tax money to Abbas in stages on condition it will bypass the Hamas-led government. Transferring the funds would mark a shift in Israeli policy, and could allow the moderate Abbas to make payments to Palestinian civil servants, who have not received their full salaries since Hamas came to power in March. “
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Hamas, Fatah, and "Terrorist Organizations"
My alien correspondent on the Moon has several more senses than we humans do. He (his name is a kind of musical chord which I can’t notate here) is able, among other things, to “smell” hypocrisy.
What he has reported is a thick fog of hypocrisy emanating from Washington, D.C. and the general area of Palestine. Unaccustomed to our ways, he has asked me to explain what is going on:
“What do I not understand? President Bush wants to bring democracy to the Arab world. He insisted on democratic elections in the parts of Palestine not occupied by Israel. He was very pleased that the Palestinian elections were held earlier this year. But then he was angry when the most popular party won. I had observed that Hamas did much more for the people than the opposition, and was much less corrupt, and so it is no surprise that Hamas won. Democracy worked as it is supposed to! But because Bush and Israel did not like the people’s choice, Bush and his “allies” cut off funds from the Palestinian government, causing great economic hardship. Salaries of public servants such as teachers could not be paid. Even when a leader of Hamas went abroad and came back carrying money for Palestine, Israel blocked him from returning to his country. Mr. Bush made no objection. If he supports democracy, should he not support the results of democracy? Mr. Abbas of the Fatah party, which lost the election, began attacking Hamas, and now announces that new elections will be held. Abbas has no legal right to call for new elections. There were legitimate elections just a few months ago. Abbas must be “in cahoots” (as your cowboy movies say) with Bush and Israel, and is trying to hijack the governmental process. His announcement has precipitated civil war between Hamas and Fatah. Is this what democracy means to Americans? Give people the right to vote in free elections but then starve them and provoke violence if they don’t vote as you would like? Please explain quickly. I have a sick headache, and my head is extremely large.”
My friend on the Moon, before trying to answer your question in another blog entry, I am sending you information about the U.S. official list of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations”, which as of 1997 designated Hamas a “terrorist organization”.
Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) was formed in 1987. It receives funding from Palestinian expatriates, Iran, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab states. The reason it was listed by Washington as a “terrorist organization” is that it did a good job of resisting Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian territory, and performed valuable services for Palestinian society – whereas the opposing Fatah party, in favor with the U.S., was corrupt and much less helpful and took a "moderate" view of Israel. (See "moderate" in my BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED, which I will republish tomorrow.) If you aren’t interested in reading about the terrorist organization law in detail now, skip down to my comments at the end.
“The Secretary of State designates Foreign Terrorist Organizations in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury.
1. It must be a foreign organization.
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)), or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)), or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States. [Comment: Hamas has never acted in the U.S.]
“The Immigration and Nationality Act defines terrorist activity to mean: any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:
(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).
(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained. [Comment: Israel has often kidnapped Palestinian government officials in order to force compliance with Israeli demands.]
(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.
(IV) An assassination. [Comment: Israel has an official policy of assassination of Palestinian leaders which it has frequently put into practice.]
(V) The use of any--
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property. [Comment: Both Israel and the United States qualify here as “terrorist organizations”.]
(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing."
Other pertinent portions of section 212(a)(3)(B) are set forth below:
“(iv) Engage in Terrorist Activity Defined
As used in this chapter [chapter 8 of the INA], the term ‘engage in terrorist activity’ means in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization–
1. to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
2. to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
3. to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
4. to solicit funds or other things of value for–
(aa) a terrorist activity;
(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity;
II. to solicit any individual–
(aa) to engage in conduce otherwise described in this clause;
(bb) for membership in terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or
(vi)(II); or
(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity; or
III. to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training–
(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;
(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization’s terrorist activity.
i. Terrorist Organization Defined
As used in clause (i)(VI) and clause (iv), the term ‘terrorist organization’ means an organization--
I. designated under section 219 [8 U.S.C. § 1189];
II. otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv), or that the organization provides material support to further terrorist activity; or
III. that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv).”
----
I will conclude today’s blog entry by emphasizing that the highly selective (i.e. unfair) listing of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” is worse than just a political propaganda device. It is being used to strangle the elected government in Palestine, and the consequences of “terrorist organization” designation can have devastating personal consequences, as shown by this legal document filed in the recent prosecution of an American citizen in Rome, Georgia:
“On Oct. 8, 1997, the United States formally designated Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization. After that date, and continuing until Dec. 4, 2001, Shorbagi [the accused] provided financial support to Hamas and conspired with unnamed others to provide such material support. He did so knowing that Hamas had been designated as a foreign terrorist organization and that Hamas engaged in terrorist activity. Shorbagi provided the support through donations to the ‘Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF),’ knowing that some or all of the money was, in fact, destined for Hamas. Shorbagi knew that money provided to HLF was actually funneled to Hamas in part because he was a Georgia representative for HLF and he had attended HLF meetings at which high-level Hamas officials made presentations condemning Israel. Shorbagi also had hosted high-level Hamas officials at the Rome, Ga. mosque at which he served as Imam.
Shorbagi was charged in a Criminal Information on Aug. 28, 2006, with one count of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. That charge carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Shorbagi has entered a plea agreement in which he agrees that, under the federal sentencing guidelines, he would be sentenced to the statutory maximum of 15 years in prison.”
Meanwhile, the United States gives special tax breaks instead of prison sentences to citizens who transfer funds to Israel even though Israel is the unlawful occupying power and Hamas is the defender.
What he has reported is a thick fog of hypocrisy emanating from Washington, D.C. and the general area of Palestine. Unaccustomed to our ways, he has asked me to explain what is going on:
“What do I not understand? President Bush wants to bring democracy to the Arab world. He insisted on democratic elections in the parts of Palestine not occupied by Israel. He was very pleased that the Palestinian elections were held earlier this year. But then he was angry when the most popular party won. I had observed that Hamas did much more for the people than the opposition, and was much less corrupt, and so it is no surprise that Hamas won. Democracy worked as it is supposed to! But because Bush and Israel did not like the people’s choice, Bush and his “allies” cut off funds from the Palestinian government, causing great economic hardship. Salaries of public servants such as teachers could not be paid. Even when a leader of Hamas went abroad and came back carrying money for Palestine, Israel blocked him from returning to his country. Mr. Bush made no objection. If he supports democracy, should he not support the results of democracy? Mr. Abbas of the Fatah party, which lost the election, began attacking Hamas, and now announces that new elections will be held. Abbas has no legal right to call for new elections. There were legitimate elections just a few months ago. Abbas must be “in cahoots” (as your cowboy movies say) with Bush and Israel, and is trying to hijack the governmental process. His announcement has precipitated civil war between Hamas and Fatah. Is this what democracy means to Americans? Give people the right to vote in free elections but then starve them and provoke violence if they don’t vote as you would like? Please explain quickly. I have a sick headache, and my head is extremely large.”
My friend on the Moon, before trying to answer your question in another blog entry, I am sending you information about the U.S. official list of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations”, which as of 1997 designated Hamas a “terrorist organization”.
Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) was formed in 1987. It receives funding from Palestinian expatriates, Iran, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab states. The reason it was listed by Washington as a “terrorist organization” is that it did a good job of resisting Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian territory, and performed valuable services for Palestinian society – whereas the opposing Fatah party, in favor with the U.S., was corrupt and much less helpful and took a "moderate" view of Israel. (See "moderate" in my BUSH DICTIONARY ANNOTATED, which I will republish tomorrow.) If you aren’t interested in reading about the terrorist organization law in detail now, skip down to my comments at the end.
“The Secretary of State designates Foreign Terrorist Organizations in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury.
1. It must be a foreign organization.
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)), or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)), or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States. [Comment: Hamas has never acted in the U.S.]
“The Immigration and Nationality Act defines terrorist activity to mean: any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:
(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).
(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained. [Comment: Israel has often kidnapped Palestinian government officials in order to force compliance with Israeli demands.]
(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.
(IV) An assassination. [Comment: Israel has an official policy of assassination of Palestinian leaders which it has frequently put into practice.]
(V) The use of any--
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property. [Comment: Both Israel and the United States qualify here as “terrorist organizations”.]
(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing."
Other pertinent portions of section 212(a)(3)(B) are set forth below:
“(iv) Engage in Terrorist Activity Defined
As used in this chapter [chapter 8 of the INA], the term ‘engage in terrorist activity’ means in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization–
1. to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
2. to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
3. to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
4. to solicit funds or other things of value for–
(aa) a terrorist activity;
(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity;
II. to solicit any individual–
(aa) to engage in conduce otherwise described in this clause;
(bb) for membership in terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or
(vi)(II); or
(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity; or
III. to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training–
(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;
(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization’s terrorist activity.
i. Terrorist Organization Defined
As used in clause (i)(VI) and clause (iv), the term ‘terrorist organization’ means an organization--
I. designated under section 219 [8 U.S.C. § 1189];
II. otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv), or that the organization provides material support to further terrorist activity; or
III. that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv).”
----
I will conclude today’s blog entry by emphasizing that the highly selective (i.e. unfair) listing of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” is worse than just a political propaganda device. It is being used to strangle the elected government in Palestine, and the consequences of “terrorist organization” designation can have devastating personal consequences, as shown by this legal document filed in the recent prosecution of an American citizen in Rome, Georgia:
“On Oct. 8, 1997, the United States formally designated Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization. After that date, and continuing until Dec. 4, 2001, Shorbagi [the accused] provided financial support to Hamas and conspired with unnamed others to provide such material support. He did so knowing that Hamas had been designated as a foreign terrorist organization and that Hamas engaged in terrorist activity. Shorbagi provided the support through donations to the ‘Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF),’ knowing that some or all of the money was, in fact, destined for Hamas. Shorbagi knew that money provided to HLF was actually funneled to Hamas in part because he was a Georgia representative for HLF and he had attended HLF meetings at which high-level Hamas officials made presentations condemning Israel. Shorbagi also had hosted high-level Hamas officials at the Rome, Ga. mosque at which he served as Imam.
Shorbagi was charged in a Criminal Information on Aug. 28, 2006, with one count of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. That charge carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Shorbagi has entered a plea agreement in which he agrees that, under the federal sentencing guidelines, he would be sentenced to the statutory maximum of 15 years in prison.”
Meanwhile, the United States gives special tax breaks instead of prison sentences to citizens who transfer funds to Israel even though Israel is the unlawful occupying power and Hamas is the defender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)