â¢ Al Jazeera
Al-Jazeera is a propaganda tool. It is not used to give news, but to promote an extremist political agenda. The news stories aired by the network are full of incitement with no regard for the truth.
Al Jazeera belongs to the Emir of Qatar, who is an ally of Teheran and Damascus. The Emir of Qatar considers himself affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood, but he is also fascinated by pan-Arabism. It should be noted that Hamas allowed Al-Jazeera into Gaza, but not the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya, which has a strong anti-Iran editorial line.
Other Arab countries already took measures against the Qatari channel. In 2007, the Algerian press defined Al-Jazeera a terrorist tool in the hands of Al-Qaeda. In 2008, Moroccan authorities banned Al Jazeera television from broadcasting a news program on North Africa from its studios in Morocco. A few months before, Ethiopia's government announced that it was breaking off relations with Qatar, due to Al-Jazeera’s misleading coverage. Al-Jazeera is also one of the main causes of anti-Americanism in the Middle East and has now become the spokesperson of Hamas. Israel should immediately follow their example and close down the network office in Jerusalem.
Iran needs Hamas. In the summer 2006, Iran needed Hezbollah to attack Israel, in order to create a regional crisis that could divert the attention from its nuclear program. Now, Iran needs Hamas to create another crisis for two reasons: to continue its nuclear program and to increase the oil price.
When Khaled Masha’al declared on TV from Damascus that the ceasefire with Israel officially ended - even though Hamas has never respected it - the Hamas leadership in Gaza was unaware of the decision, and after acknowledging the news, Ismail Haniya, who is in Gaza, did not seem to be very happy. Haniya knows that he can be a target of the Israeli Army, on the contrary of Masha’al who lives in Syria. However, money talks and Hamas obeyed to the orders of Iran, which is financing the group.
Some Western media said that Israel’s reaction to the break of the ceasefire was disproportionate. This is an odd statement. Israel, as a democratic State, has to respond military to Hamas’ attacks. To respond “proportionately” would mean that Israel should use the same means that Hamas is using: launching rockets into Gaza and send suicide bombers. The Israeli military operation was instead prepared to target Hamas militias and leadership, without having many Palestinian civilian losses.
â¢ The Arab “Street”
For the first time, the Arab States are not united against Israel. Actually, Arab regimes want the end of Hamas. In particular, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are afraid of a possible Iranian hegemony in the region. Furthermore, Nasrallah, “Iran’s man”, called on Egypt's residents and the Egyptian military to rebel against the Egyptian regime, and the Iranian Justice-Seeking Students organization announced that a one million dollar reward has been offered to whoever assassinates the "criminal" Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
However, as much as much as the Arab regimes are against Hamas, the Arab “street” is daily inflamed against Israel by the Qatari TV channel Al-Jazeera.
The ruling AK Party of Turkey has strengthened its relations with Iran and Syria, but most importantly the AKP has “Ottoman” ambitions in the region. Few days ago, PM Tayyip Erdogan, said that he was speaking as the descendant of the Islamic Ottoman state, condemned the Israeli strike as "savagery," and asked, "What reason can justify such savagery?". The Turkish newspaper “Vatan” condemned the Arab States for having a mild position towards Israel and stressed that the only leaders to have a firm standing in the last days are Erdogan, Ahmadinejad and Qaddafi, Turkey also tried to use Gaza as a pretext to become a regional player in bringing a ceasefire, while using an inflammatory language against Israel.
Many in the West and not only in the East - with CNN in the frontline - seem waiting for Israel to fail. But a victory for Hamas, would not just mean that Israel lost, but that the entire world did. If Hamas wins, Iran wins, and we don’t want to know what will await us next.
Comment on this item
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."
by Alan M. Dershowitz