Hamas: Just The Beginning
The Palestinian Authority and Egypt's new military regime are begging Hamas to agree to the appointment of Salam Fayyad as prime minister of a Palestinian unity government.
The main reason the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority wants to keep Fayyed in power is that they are afraid that the US and EU will suspend financial aid to the Palestinians.
That is why the Fatah Central Committee this week voted in favor of nominating Fayyad as head of a unity government with Hamas.
Fatah now needs Fayyad to ensure the continued flow of American and European taxpayer money.
The Palestinian Authority wants Fayyad as prime minister, while Hamas says it will never sit in a government with him in it.
Many Fatah officials and activists do not even like Fayyad. They are opposed to Fayyad because his efforts to establish good government and combat financial corruption have deprived them of money.
In other words, Fatah does not like Fayyad because its representatives are unable to steal financial aid, as they were under Yasser Arafat.
But Fatah has one little problem: Hamas does not want Fayyad -- not as prime minister, not as finance minister, not even as a junior minister -- in any government.
Ever since the signing of the Egyptian-sponsored "reconciliation" accord between Hamas and Fatah in early May, the two parties have been squabbling over the identity of the prime minister who would head the unity government that they agreed to establish.
Hamas does not want Fayyad: they see him as a "puppet" in the hands of the US and Israel, They also hold him responsible for the security crackdown on supporters of Hamas in the West Bank.
In the past few weeks, the Palestinian Authority has been literally begging Hamas to accept Fayyad. Nabil Sha'ath, a senior Fatah leader, visited the Gaza Strip and met with Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in a bid to convince him to change his mind, to no avail.
Hamas and Fatah representatives who met in Cairo this week also tried to solve the dispute over the identity of the future prime minister, but without success.
In wake of Hamas's insistence on rejecting Fayyad, the two parties are planning a summit between in Cairo next week between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas's Khaled Mashaal. At the meeting, Abbas will try to explain to the Hamas leader why it would be a bad idea to exclude Fayyad from a unity government.
Abbas has sought the help of Egypt's ruling military dictatorship in convincing Hamas to change its position. Hamas officials who met with government officials in Cairo the past week said that the Egyptians were putting heavy pressure on them to accept Fayyad's nomination.
Hamas leaders have every right to be satisfied. They have the power to determine who will head the unity government. This is just the beginning. In the future, Hamas will have the final say on more important issues concerning the Palestinians and the entire region.
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu-Zuhri said: "All Israelis are legitimate targets." What would the Palestinian death toll have been if Mr. Netanyahu's spokesman declared all Palestinians as legitimate targets?
Underdog-nation romanticism tells us Israel should not respond when under rocket attack because it is capable of intercepting the rockets.
That there are fewer Israeli casualties does not mean Hamas does not want to kill; it just means, for the moment, Hamas cannot kill.
by Soeren Kern
Austria figures prominently in a map produced by the IS that outlines the group's five-year plan for expanding its caliphate into Europe, and has emerged as a central hub for jihadists seeking to fight in Syria.
"The spectrum of recruits for the conflict in Syria is ethnically diverse. The motivation, however, appears to be uniformly jihadist." — Austrian intelligence agency BVT.
"Allah also gives you the opportunity to wage jihad in Austria." — Austrian jihadist Firas Houidi.
"We are proud that Allah has chosen us. We feel like lions." — Austrian jihadist Abu Hamza al-Austria.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
What Khaled Mashaal forgot to mention was that Hamas and the Islamic State do have at least one thing in common: they both carry out extrajudicial executions as a means of terrorizing and intimidating those who stand in their way or who dare to challenge their terrorism.
According to Hamas's logic, all members of the Palestinian Authority government are "traitors" who should be dragged to public squares to be shot by firing squads. According to the same logic, Mahmoud Abbas himself should be executed for maintaining security coordination with and talking to Israelis.
As for the two executed women, the sources said that their only fault was that they had been observed asking too many questions about Palestinians who were killed in airstrikes.
by Stephen Blank and Peter Huessy
It now appears that the plan was for these terrorists to shoot down a Russian passenger flight over the Ukraine in order to create a casus belli [cause for war].
Putin repeatedly claims that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons as a "de-escalatory measure" even against non-nuclear states.
The evidence that this war was preplanned is overwhelming. The planning for this Ukrainian operation started in 2006, when Putin offered to "guarantee Crimea's territory."
The forces fighting in Kiev consist not mainly of "separatists" or rebels, but of trained Russian army, intelligence and paramilitary officers, as well as Russian and some Ukrainian "volunteers" recruited by Moscow.
Putin would incite disturbances in Crimea, then graciously offer to take over Crimea to solve the problems.
For the Russians, and particularly for Putin, Ukraine can have no future other than as a Russian colony. This is indeed a phased invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. did not accept Russian aggression before; it should not accept it now.
by Douglas Murray
There has been a debate in the UK press suggesting we should hope that some of these ISIS killers come back to Britain, realize that jihad was all a phase and then head off to university for the start of the new term.
The beheading of James Foley was terrible, she stressed, "because we don't know what [his] views were."
Is there a time when even "combatants" -- or anyone else -- should be treated in this way? And who is to say who is a combatant and who not?