And that is all.

Click Me! Support The Keith Richards Home For Aging Sluts

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Warriors of God my ass..... Behold Christiane Amanpour, Agitprop Whore of the Caliphate !


David Wilder reporting from the Shalhevet Neighborhood (the shuk) in Hebron




The following is reproduced here with David Wilder's permission:



Following screening of the CNN production "Warriors of G-d", including a 2 hour segment dealing with Judaism and Israel, I think it appropriate to post the following two letters, between myself and Mr. Jonathan Klein, President of CNN/USA. The two letter are, I think, self-explanatory.

I must note, that following my 'revelation,' I notified a number of people who had, like myself, agreed to participate one way or another, with CNN. Some of them immediately ceased all contact with CNN and refused to take part in the program.
Others decided to continue.
Each person can draw their own conclusions.


From: Hebron [mailto:hebron@hebron.org.il]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:44 PM
To: 'public.information@cnn.com'
Subject: Cnn production of Religion and politics - produced by Andy Segal
Importance: High



Dear Mr. Klein,

A couple of months ago I was approached by one of your Israeli correspondents about participating in a program produced by CNN, dealing with politics and religion in Judaism. He introduced me to Mr. Andy Segal , who is producing the program, and we had several lengthy conversations, first by phone, and later in person, here in Hebron, in Israel. Our conversations were quite open and frank – I saw no reason to hide my suspicions about cooperating with CNN – the network's reputation concerning Israel is less than positive. We discussed this at great length, and at one point Andy requested to center the program around Hebron and the Hebron Jewish community.

Following much thought and conversations with colleagues of mine, I decided to refuse Andy 's request, but did agree to participate in a more minor role in the program, basing our response to each request on its own merits.

A couple of weeks ago Andy again made contact and we spoke of several possibilities. He was interested in speaking to a family which had experienced terror first-hand, and had chosen to remain in Hebron, despite their loss and the dangers involved. I decided to try to assist and introduced him to Mrs. Tzippy Shlissel, whose father, Rabbi Shlomo Ra'anan, was killed by terrorists in Hebron some eight and a half years ago. He met with her three times: first an introductory meeting, followed by an in-depth interview, and followed, earlier today, by a filmed interview and filming of the family, home, etc.

So far so good.



However…

When we first discussed this project I asked Andy who was responsible for writing the script. He told me that he would be working on it, but there would be others involved. To the best of my recollection, my impression was that he was 'in charge' and for the most part, would determine the outlook of the script and would be 'on top' of the entire project.

This afternoon, that illusion shattered when he mentioned to me that in a few months, the chief international CNN correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, would be coming to Israel and would probably also want to speak with Mrs. Shlissel. Almost in shock, I asked him what her role is in this project. He told me that she is the narrator. I asked if she would have anything to do with writing the script and was told that "I will write the first draft." "Will she have anything to do with writing the final draft?" "Yes."



I then told Andy that had I known she was involved with this project I would not have had anything at all to do with it.

I am personally familiar with Christiane Amanpour. A number of years ago (about 10 years ago) she interviewed me. I had the dubious pleasure to have her yell and scream at me on camera. She obviously wanted me to scream back, so as to show her viewers 'an extremist from Hebron' exploding on camera. I refused to play into her hands and answered all her questions with a relaxed, calm smile on my face. However, I never forgot the interview. I haven't been yelled at, on camera, by too many journalists.

How can CNN produce an 'objective program' about Israel and religious settlers, when one of the prime elements of the program is known to be vehemently 'anti-Israel' and certainly 'anti-settlers,' so to speak? Her reputation is so blatantly prejudiced.
For example

So when people ask: "Why did the Palestinian people elect a terrorist group?" The answer is because they see them as a lifeline.

Each time I go to the Palestinian territory of Gaza, I am shocked by the reality on the ground. On a recent visit, I passed through a short tunnel from the First World in Israel and emerged into the Third World that is Gaza. The poverty there is among the worst in the world.

Hamas officials told me they did not expect to win the election as overwhelmingly as they did. They say their main priority now is to meet the demands of the people for a better life.

But that may be impossible, because Israel and the United States refuse to deal with Hamas and have already cut funding to the new Palestinian government.

Posted By Christiane Amanpour, CNN Correspondent: 11:03 AM ET



A woman who justifies and backs Hamas is going to deal 'fairly' with Jews in Hebron, or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria? She is going to present us as 'religious nuts and fanatics' who are endangering world peace. She is certainly not going to present anything that could be considered positive concerning us, our lifestyles or our beliefs. She is certainly not going to present a balanced, objective program dealing with religious Jews and Eretz Yisrael.

I basically told Andy that I was out – and wouldn't have anything more to do with the project. I put a rather large degree of trust in Andy – I believed that he had the possibility to present an object, balanced program. However, I cannot have any trust whatsoever in Christiane Amanpour, whose reputation stands before her.

Andy Segal told me that you are responsible for this project, that you initiated it. Without being presumptuous, I think it fair to demand that Christiane Amanpour be removed from this project. I cannot imagine that such a biased person could have anything to do with a project dealing with religion and politics in Israel. The results are a foregone conclusion, even before the cameras start rolling. The question is whether the program you are producing is to be an interesting objective account of religion and politics in Israel, or another CNN-produced Israel (settler)-bashing?

I await your reply and hope, very much, to learn that Ms. Amanpour will no longer have anything to do with this project.

Sincerely,

David Wilder
Spokesman
The Jewish Community of Hebron






From: Klein, Jon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:41 PM
To: hebron@hebron.org.il
Subject: Response to your email dated January 30, 2007


February 13, 2007



Mr. David Wilder
Spokesman
The Jewish Community of Hebron
February 12, 2007

Dear Mr. Wilder,

Let me begin by thanking you for your comments. I am sorry that the Jewish Community of Hebron has chosen not to be represented in our documentary. Our mission is to produce a program that goes far beyond what is normally seen in daily news broadcasts so that our viewers can better understand the people who risk their lives -- and their children's - to live on land they believe is their birthright: Jerusalem and the West Bank. Our goal is not to find fault or fix blame -- but to simply understand. To that end, I believe that you are missing a prime opportunity to be heard, not only in the United States, but in 180 countries around the world, and I would ask you to reconsider.

Regardless of your decision, I stand by CNN's reputation as a fair and impartial source of information. On conflicts as heated and long-standing as that between Israel and the Palestinians it is not surprising that "both sides" are at times unhappy with our reporting. We often hear that we are biased towards the other side, and that may be the surest indication of our impartiality.

Christiane Amanpour is one of our most talented and prominent international correspondents, and she is supported by a team of our strongest producers. In fact Andy Segal, our senior producer, is one of the best. As you probably have discovered, Andy comes to the table prepared. He is fair, honorable and ethical - a journalist who takes his work very seriously. He has produced a number of award-winning documentaries. Andy and his team are researching, producing and writing this documentary, and you can be assured that his reporting will shape the final program. As a spokesman for a prominent organization, I am sure you appreciate the need for others input before you represent the positions and views of Hebron's Jewish community. The same is true at CNN - not only will Ms. Amanpour have input, but so will editors and executives, to insure journalist standards and practices are met. In the end a program like this will be fully vetted and sourced.

I can honestly say that if you decide not to contribute to this program - perhaps the fullest exploration of this issue ever seen on western television - you may regret missing the opportunity to let millions of viewers understand your story. I hope you will reconsider your decision, but if not, you can be assured the program will meet the highest standards of journalism.

Sincerely,

Jon Klein


AUDIO:
WALID SHOEBAT DISMANTLES AMANAPOUR'S GOD'S WARRIORS




Also see at An American Expat in Southeast Asia:

Exposing God's Muslim Warriors


and

Where are God's Christian Warriors?



UPDATE from Jehosheba of Lion roars:


She is Iranian - that makes everything very clear.

Her father´s name is Mohammad


She grew up in Iran.

The Amanpours led a privileged life in IRAN.


Her sister, Lizzy Amanpour, the Channel 4 producer, is believed to be joining the Arabic satellite television news channel al-Jazeera , which is launching an English-language service. The move comes as Al-Jazeera has confirmed that Sir David Frost will also be joining the network and follows Lizzy's brother-in-law (the WHORE´s -Christiane Amanpour- husband) making a move into television.
Last month the WHORE`s husband, James Rubin, a former US state department spokesman under Bill Clinton, was announced as the presenter of a new international show on Sky News.


More on HER LATEST LIE -God´s Warriors-


UPDATE II:

Christiane Amanpour: An Accomplice to Lies
By Michael Devolin

As a rebuttal to those who questioned her professionalism after witnessing her emotional outbursts during her coverage of the siege of Sarajevo, Christiane Amanpour replied, "There are some situations one cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice." Apparently Christiane Amanpour feels less emotional and more neutral about Jews and their religious connection to Israel than she does for the Muslims of Sarajevo.

In her latest documentary, God's Warriors, Amanpour vilifies Jews simply by equating religious Jews with religious Muslims. Of course, not everyone will see it this way. Not everyone these days is willing (or brave enough) to critique Islam and its adherents, both for the violence and anti-Jewish hatred this religion and its attendant culture advocates, and the advocates of this religion and its culture, for how they are all too willing to accommodate such violence and anti-Jewish hatred. Obviously, the journalist Amanpour is not brave enough. An Oriana Fallaci she is not.

Anyone who has studied the history of Islam will know that Jews and Judaism do not deserve to be in any way compared as imitations of Muslims and their Islam. Anyone as knowledgeable as Christiane Amanpour should be, who makes such a comparison in her documentary God's Warriors, can do so only wilfully, with laboured effort and with malefic intent. A religious Jewish friend, a directing member of the right-wing B'nai Elim intoned to me after watching the film, "I fear that she has awakened more sleeping anti-Semites and empowered the rest of the Jew-haters in the world. The attacks on Jews and Jewish establishments will no doubt increase as a result."

I'm sure CNN is so very proud of Amanpour's anti-Israel, anti-Judaism diatribe. Of course, her "moral equivalency" is standard for CNN and their self-aggrandizing, cowardly journalists. Heaven forbid they should point out that Jews do not blow themselves up in German and Austrian restaurants for the sins of the Holocaust and the Crusades. Heaven forbid they should reveal, as did Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her book Infidel, that "Violent jihad is a historical constant in Islam." Heaven forbid they should expose the fact that Muslim zealots in the 21st century behead journalists and aid-workers simply because those journalists and aid-workers are Christians and Jews and therefore do not measure up to the Prophet Mohammed and the glory of the Koran. CNN and their effete journalists like Christiane Amanpour (all her war correspondence notwithstanding) are incapable of making such veridical contradistinctions simply because they have long ago made the obsequious choice to feed the masses with palatable slander, even though the masses, as history has so often exposed, often howl for anti-Jewish slander.

[SNIP]


On CNN, Muslim ‘Warrior’ Gets Sympathetic Treatment, Christians are ‘Totalitarian’

By Matthew Balan | August 24, 2007 - 18:47 ET



CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR SHEDS THE MASK


Fitzgerald: A tribute to Christiane Amanpour

Christiane Amanpour, despite her family background, has no real experience or knowledge of Islam. Hers elf secular, and married (in a mariage blanc) to James Rubin, she is confused about Islam. She knows Iranian Muslims who are nothing like the Iranian Muslims now in power, but she fails to recognize that those she knows were never the real thing. She doesn’t realize that they were unrepresentative, as unrepresentative of Islam as was, say, Maxim Litvinov of the Soviet regime -- even though he served that regime as Foreign Minister and as ambassador.

She is defensive about Islam without knowing about it, and without knowing how the primitive Muslim masses think. Yet that is what should count in Infidel calculations, and not the suave and often deceptive exceptions -- whether they are Chalabi and other westernized Shi'a exiles inveigling the Americans into removing Saddam Hussein, or plummy-voiced Prince Hassan, a real performance artist, capable of impressing the impressionable.

Amanpour has never studied Islam, never quite grasped the significance of its texts. After all, apparently her own parents were capable of ignoring large parts of them. Nor has she studied the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims and destruction of non-Muslim cultures, although as someone of Iranian descent, she might well have bothered to do so. Her name gives her, for audiences, a false authenticity, and allows her to be endowed with an authority her level of knowledge does not actually entitle her to claim, or to have attributed to her.

Meanwhile, there is that CNN glory. There is that money. There is that celebritydom. There is that Washington wedding, attended by le tout Clinton administration, and that marriage of convenience, that mariage blanc.

Petro-dollars explain part of it. Stupidity another part. In the case of Amanpour, one wondered how she would come out. Would she realize, in the manner of so many Iranians in exile, that Islam and not merely the Islamic Republic of Iran, was the problem? Would she move from her older positions, like Oriana Fallaci, and see what Islam was all about? Or would she play her "Islamic" card for all it was worth to her -- in entree here and there (to the Hajj, for example)? She is a careerist hell-bent on furthering her career. And what better way to further her career at this point in history than in being a Muslim? Not a real one -- her faith is as sham as her marriage. Instead, she is almost a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, who does what she does out of a curious blend of monomaniacal careerism and ambition, together with filial piety. There is also in play for her all sorts of misremembered nostalgia for that jeunesse-doree life as a spoiled child in Teheran -- a child of the very class that benefited financially from the ancien regime, that corrupt, stupid, and unaware regime, that when confronted with Khomeini did not know where to put its feet and hands.

She used to be tolerable -- just. No longer.

Why does the press, why does television, who do political leaders simply refuse to even hint at the truth? Do they think this makes things better, makes us more able to conduct ourselves in what is a permanent war? When, to give one example, 60 Minutes some time ago had a segment devoted to Muslim mistreatment of women among the immigrants in France, the bland and blind though endlessly self-assured Amanpour never, not once, mentioned the word "Islam." When one of her interviewees explains the oppression of young girls -- mass rapes, burning to death, that sort of thing -- as being the result of "tradition," she lets that vague word stand unchallenged and unglossed.

What will it take? Must there be bombs in Jain temples, or at a Confucian altar, sufficiently publicized to make clear to all but the hopelessly stupid and those who are wedded to false symmetries and pat phrases (not just Amanpour, but Tom Friedman, with his platitudes and fake plongitudes, comes nautically to mind)? How much evidence had to be assembled before Copernicus could dare suggest that, after all, the earth really did travel around the sun? How much evidence needs to be accumulated about what is happening now, and what has been happening for 1350 years of Islam's aggression against all non-Muslims, for people to become their own little Copernicuses, and arrive at the unstoppable and ineluctable and unavoidable explanation of what is going on? How much evidence needs to be accumulated for even Christiane Amanpour to do so?

Posted by Hugh at January 19, 2007 12:32 PM



UPDATE III:

from Right Truth


CNN'S MASTER PLAN: PART ONE





CHRISTIAN CRUSADERS ALSO WANT A CALIPHATE: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO CHRISTIANE (PART TWO OF CNN'S MASTER PLAN)




Saturday, August 18, 2007

We Are Muslims!


Line of the Day



Turkey’s Transport Minister Osman Gunes said one hijacker is Turkish, while the other is believed to be Palestinian carrying a Syrian passport. Passenger Erhan Erkul told NTV that the hijackers ran toward the cockpit shortly after takeoff, tried to break down the door but failed. “They claimed to have bombs,” Erkul said.

Passengers speaking to NTV and CNN-Turk said the hijackers spoke Arabic to each other and promised not to harm the passengers. “We are Muslims,” the passengers quoted one of the hijackers as saying.





JEWISH TASK FORCE
Fighting to save America and Israel from Islamic terrorism!

Bob Dylan on the end of days, Toronto, 1980



Tuesday, August 14, 2007

"Behold, it is coming... and it will be done" ~ Ezekiel 39:8



China and Russia Begin Teasing Washington


FROM: ARAB NEWS

Linda Heard, sierra12th@yahoo.co.uk —


Moscow and Beijing have teamed up and appear determined to send a message to the White House, singly and together, which translated could mean, “Don’t mess with us” and “Stay clear of our allies.”

The two countries are currently playing war games together with Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, all members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), considered a buffer to US oil and gas ambitions in the Caspian.

The SCO claims its mission is counterterrorist but while Iran, India, Pakistan and Mongolia have been invited to attend an associated Aug. 16 summit, the US has been rebuffed.

This comes hard on the heels of a not subtle Chinese threat to the American economy. Last week, two Chinese officials made statements, which did nothing to settle market jitters.

In essence, they warned the US to quit pressuring China to revalue its yuan or else it could decide to dump its dollar reserves, worth $1,330 billion and cash in its US Treasury bonds, roughly valued at $900 billion.

In the unlikely event of China following through on the implied threat, the ensuing economic carnage could make the 1929 Wall Street Crash look like a picnic because other countries would be panicked into following suit. Incredibly, some 45 percent of America’s foreign debt is held by foreigners, which leaves the US in an extremely vulnerable position.

Not to be outdone in the audacity-stakes, Russia claims to have buzzed a US airbase on the Pacific island of Guam in a show of its military resurgence.

According to the Russian military, two of its bombers were intercepted by US jets.

The pilots smiled at one another, says Russia, before going their separate ways. The Pentagon denies any such interception ever took place.

Russia’s new confidence derives from its friends in powerful places plus the fact it is swimming in oil and gas wealth, partly because Bush’s wars and aggressive Middle East foreign policy has driven up prices.

Its recent foray into the Arctic where divers erected rustproof titanium Russian flag on the seabed of the North Pole was interpreted by some as Russia having laid claim to some of the world’s largest untapped petrochemical reserves.

In the past, the logistics of tapping into those reserves were daunting, not to mention uneconomical, but now that ice caps are melting and prices are rising, Russia sees an opportunity.

It seems so does Canada and Denmark. Last week Canada announced the opening of two military bases in the region, while a group of 40 Danish scientists are traveling to the Arctic on an icebreaker to stake Denmark’s claim.

Now Georgia has stepped into the fray by asserting a Russian military aircraft has violated its airspace, leaving behind a missile that failed to explode in a farmer’s field, near the disputed region of Ossetia.

Russia has denied the incident and accused Georgia of putting on a “theatrical presentation” aimed at canceling scheduled talks over the breakaway area’s future status.

Russia has further made it crystal clear that it does not approve of George Bush’s anti-missile defense shield being erected in Poland and the Czech Republic out of concern it could be directed at it rather than Iran and North Korea, as claimed. President Vladimir Putin initially proposed a joint missile defense venture with the US — an idea that was not well received.

And so he has decided to beef up his own defense system, modernize his army and navy and, in the event Bush’s star wars plan proceeds on his doorstep, he has threatened to direct his missiles toward Europe.

Russia’s relations with Britain have also gone south. Their erosion began when people Russia termed as British spies working under cover of the British Embassy in Moscow were filmed concealing a telecommunications device inside a dummy rock, through which secret messages could be transmitted via a palm-sized computer.

Diplomacy succeeded in papering over that embarrassing incident that was shown to viewers around the world on Russian TV. But nothing could put a lid on the mysterious death of Alexander Litvinenko who was poisoned by Polonium-210 after meeting with two former KGB agents and an Italian friend in London.

Following investigation, Britain’s director of public prosecutions requested the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi, a Russian citizen and was told in no uncertain terms that Article 61 of Russian Constitution forbids the extradition of Russian citizens to foreign countries and any such trial must take place within Russia. Russia also accuses Britain of refusing to extradite Russian citizens wanted by Moscow.

The contretemps is still ongoing and has thus far resulted in the tit-for-tat expulsions of both Russian and British diplomats. This is all a far cry from those cozy post-Cold War years when President Bush said he looked his Russian counterpart in the eye and sensed his soul. The only looks they’ll be giving one another nowadays would be decidedly shifty.

It seems to be a terrible shame that such a wealth of goodwill has been so cavalierly wasted. If the Bush administration hadn’t been so intent on pushing its global weight around to fulfill a neocon agenda of full spectrum dominance we might have enjoyed a world where major powers worked together for the good of all.

Together they could have striven toward alleviating poverty and disease, reducing conflict and tackling climate change. Instead, untold billions will go toward weapons of death and destruction. This is Cold War Mark II folks — a deadlier sequel to Mark I now that China is on board. Fasten your seatbelts for an uncomfortable ride ahead!






And he will go forth
to deceive and seduce
and lead astray the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth
--Gog and Magog--
to muster them for war;
their number is like the sand of the sea.
~ Revelation 20:8

Gog is a symbolic name, representing the leader of the world powers antagonistic to God (see also Rev. 20:8). Meshech and Tubal are understood to have been the same as the Moschi and Tibareni of the Greeks--tribes that inhabited regions in the Caucasus. Rosh, which some would identify with Russia, must have designated a land and people somewhere in the same area. And therefore the Gog of Ezekiel must be viewed as in some sense the head of the high regions in the northwest of Asia. (Patrick Fairbairn, The Imperial Bible-dictionary).

See Also:

Enter the King of the North,

yesterday's video by the Rabbi

& the links in the lyrics here

Friday, August 10, 2007

The Gates of Babylon




Look away from the sea

I can take you anywhere

Spend a vision with me
A chase with the wind

Move closer to me
I can make you anyone

I think you're ready to see
The Gates to Babylon

The power of what has been before
Rises to trap you within
A magic carpet ride a genie maybe more

A city of heavenly sin


Sleep with the devil and then you must pay

Sleep with the devil, the devil will take you away
Oh Gates of Babylon


You can see but you're blind

Someone turned the sun around

But you can see in your mind
The Gates of Babylon


You're riding the endless caravan
Bonded and sold as a slave

A saber dance removing all the veils
Getting as good as you gave

Sleep with the devil and then you must pay
Sleep with the devil, the devil will take you away

The devil is me
And I'm holding the key

To the gates of sweet hell

Babylon









Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Same Crocker Shit, Different Day




Arch enemies the United States and Iran launched a second round of rare face-to-face talks in Baghdad on Tuesday aimed at stemming the raging violence in Iraq.

The talks began at 10.15 am (0615 GMT) at the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who began the meeting with a brief speech, according to an official at the Iraqi premier's office.

Photographs from the meeting showed the three delegations sitting around a triangular arrangement of tables in conference room in Maliki's offices inside Baghdad's heavily-fortified Green Zone.

The US was represented by its ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, while Tehran's envoy Hassan Kazemi Qomi headed the Iranian delegation in the talks attended by Iraqi officials.

As with a similar meeting held on May 28, officials said the talks would only focus on the security situation in Iraq, leaving aside a roster of other disputes between the United States and the Islamic republic.

May's meeting did not achieve any major breakthrough as both sides stuck to their familiar positions, with Tehran calling for a US withdrawal and Washington accusing Iran of fomenting violence.

The United States broke off relations with Iran in 1980, when Islamic revolutionaries seized the US embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days.

The two countries remain at loggerheads over a range of issues including Iran's nuclear programme, which the United States claims is aimed at producing nuclear weapons, an accusation vehemently denied by Tehran.

US forces also accuse Iran of arming and training Iraqi militias, allegations firmly denied by Tehran.

Relations have also been chilled by the detention in Iraq by US forces of at least five Iranian officials whom Tehran insists are diplomats, but Washington says are covert operatives from of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard.

Tehran in turn has detained four US-Iranians accused of espionage and harming national security by being linked to alleged US efforts to topple Iran's clerical authorities.

On Monday, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack ruled out raising the issue of the US-Iranians at the talks, saying their "primary focus is on Iraq security."

Tehran claimed that scholars Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh, who were arrested in May, had exposed in television statements a US plot to overthrow Iran's Islamic authorities through a peaceful "soft revolution."

California-based businessman Ali Shakeri has also been detained. Parnaz Azima, a journalist for Radio Free Europe's Persian arm, is technically at liberty but has had her passport confiscated and cannot leave the country.

Asked whether Washington would miss a rare opportunity by not raising the fate of the four, McCormack said, "I think it is a missed opportunity for the Iranians not to allow these people to leave over the past two months."

Given the acrimonious backdrop, Iraqi lawmakers were divided in their expectations of Tuesday's meeting.

"Nothing much is expected from the US-Iran meeting," said lawmaker Mahmud Othman, a Kurd. "The US wants Iran to keep off Iraq and Iran wants US to leave Iraq. Each side has its own agenda," he said.

"Iraqis are insisting on such meetings because they themselves have failed to solve the problem. But Iraq's problems can be solved only by the Iraqis. They should work together."

But for Iraq's Shiite leaders, known for their close links with Shiite Iran, the meeting was a positive step.

"There is a strong will by the three parties to solve the problems and support the Iraqi government," said Humam Hammoudi, MP from the Shiite Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, a party known to be close to Iran.

Shiite MP Abbas al-Bayati said May's meeting had broken the "psychological barrier and the upcoming meeting will put in place a practical framework to help the three parties support the (Iraqi) political process."



Well....Grandma used to say You can hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled first:


U.S. hopes Iran meeting will show results this time

By Sue Pleming
Reuters
Monday, July 23, 2007; 10:46 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States hopes a meeting between the U.S. and Iranian envoys to Baghdad will push Tehran to change its ways in Iraq even though their last encounter made no difference, said U.S. officials on Monday.

"One would hope you would see a change in Iranian behavior. I can't tell you whether or not we will see that. It is up to the Iranians," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack of the proposed meeting between ambassadors in Baghdad on Tuesday.

"If they really do want to see a changed Iraq and they want to contribute to that, then they are going to have to match their actions with their words," he told reporters.

Washington accuses Iran of stoking violence in Iraq by backing militants. Iran denies the charges and blames the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 for the bloodshed.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said explosive devices blamed for the deaths of many U.S. troops in Iraq as well as other weaponry were still coming into Iraq from Iran.

"This is an opportune time, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, to revisit commitments Iran has made, saying that it believes in trying to stabilize Iraq. We have seen signs that we think need addressing," said Snow.

Tuesday's meeting between Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi-Qomi and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker follows a similar one in Baghdad on May 28 in what was the highest-profile contact in almost three decades between the two countries.

U.S. officials said the May meeting did not lead to any changes by Iran and it was decided that further talks were needed.

"It was the decision of Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice, talking with President (George W.) Bush ... that it was appropriate to take this opportunity to see if we could underscore with the Iranians that they need to change their behavior, despite, at this point, any lack of change in their behavior," said McCormack.

McCormack said it was not clear whether more meetings would follow, adding the United States did not want to meet the Iranians just for the sake of it.

SYRIA

In May, Rice met the foreign minister of another U.S. foe, Syria, to discuss how to stabilize Iraq. Washington also accuses Damascus of interfering in Iraq and of not doing enough to stop the flow of arms and fighters across the border.

McCormack said the Bush administration had not seen improvements by Syria either since Rice's meeting, but he still believed such talks were worthwhile.

"Sometimes this takes a gradual ramping up of pressure and keeping the spotlight on the need for these countries to play a positive role (in Iraq)," he said.

Tuesday's meeting would again be limited to discussing Iraq and would not touch on other issues such as Iran's nuclear ambitions or the detention of three Iranian-American academics by Tehran as well as a radio reporter prevented from returning to the United States.

Asked whether it was a missed opportunity not to discuss the detained Iranian-Americans during the envoys' meeting, McCormack replied: "It is a missed opportunity not to allow these people to leave (Iran) for the past two months."

U.S. authorities have been holding five Iranians in Iraq since January and Tehran has, in turn, demanded their release.

The U.S. military says the five are linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards and were backing militants in Iraq while Iran has insisted they are diplomats.






U.S. Responses and Prospects


The Iraq Study Group final report’s first recommendation is that the United States include Iran (and Syria) in multilateral efforts to stabilize Iraq. Even before the Study Group report, U.S. officials, eager to try to stabilize Iraq, had tried to engage Iran on the issue.
In December 2005, then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad stated that he had received President Bush’s approval to undertake negotiations with Iranian counterparts in an effort to enlist Iranian cooperation in Iraq. The United States and Iran agreed to such talks in March 2006, but U.S. officials opposed Iran’s efforts to expand such discussions to bilateral U.S.-Iran issues and no talks were held.

The Bush Administration did not initially endorse the Iraq Study Group recommendation on engaging Iran as part of a solution in Iraq, and instead launched several initiatives to limit Iran’s influence there. In his January 10, 2007, speech announcing a U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad, President Bush stated that the United States would “interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria ... [and would] seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
In that speech, he also announced deployment of an additional aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf and extended deployment of Patriot anti-missile batteries reportedly stationed in Kuwait and Qatar.
President Bush, in a January 31, 2007, press interview, reportedly confirmed prior reports that he had authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to treat Iranian agents in Iraq as combatants if they are observed actively assisting armed elements in Iraq.
However, in an apparent shift that might have been caused by Administration assessments that pressure on Iran was increasing U.S. leverage, the United States supported and attended an Iraq-sponsored regional conference in Baghdad on March 10, 2007.
Also attending were the Gulf monarchy states, Egypt, and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Iran and Syria attended, as did the United States, with most participants terming the discussions “constructive.” Both Secretary of State Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki attended the follow up meeting in Egypt during May 3-4, 2007, but held no substantive bilateral discussions, according to both sides.

However, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker attended the Egypt meeting and had some discussions with Mottaki’s subordinates, and the two countries subsequently agreed to hold talks in Baghdad on May28, 2007, confined to the Iraq issue and attended by Iraqi diplomats.
Despite the burgeoning U.S.-Iran diplomacy on Iraq, the Administration has continued to pressure Iran on Iraq issues. On March 24, 2007, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1747 on the Iran nuclear issue.

However, the Resolution has a provision banning arms exports by Iran, a provision clearly directed at Iran’s arms supplies to Iraq’s Shiite militias as well as to other pro-Iranian movements such as Lebanese Hezbollah. The Resolution could provide legitimacy for enhanced U.S. searches of truck or other traffic from Iran into Iraq under the umbrella of enforcing the Resolution.



IRAN: US CONCERNS AND POLICY RESPONSES






SEE ALSO:

American Ambassador Crocker Agrees Broadly with Genocidal Theocracy


Crocker Shit


Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darling!



Sunday, July 22, 2007

Drunk With the Blood of Saints


I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, with the blood of the people who testify about Yeshua.
~ Revelation 17:6



FIRST READ AT : Weasel Zippers

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH BY : pat




Report: Christians crucified by terrorists in Iraq
Believers in Jesus said to be nailed to crosses, tied with ropes, set ablaze

[SNIP]

Voordewind described how a person, who "survived" a crucifixion, "even showed holes in his hands," apparently from nails. Voordewind said victims of the crucifixions are “in most cases Christian converts who abandoned Islam or people who, religiously speaking, are involved in mixed marriages."

[SNIP]

The Quran commands crucifixion and mutilation

The Quran in Sura 5:33 says:

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)


Whoever does not carry his own execution stake and come after me cannot be my disciple.
~ Luke 14:27

Where is Islamic justice and human rights?

Three main (twisted) purposes of torture are to punish criminals, to extract information, and to exact revenge. But torture by its nature is excess multiplied by excess, so it is wrong and unjust by its nature.

It is at least one of these three purposes that Muhammad, the founder of Islam who asserts that his way is the best for all of humanity, had in mind when he tortured some criminals and a treasurer who would not disclose where Jewish wealth lay hidden, and an enemy—an old woman taken as a prisoner in a Muslim raid.

In an apparent reply to these unpleasant facts about original Islam, one of the oddest interpretive gymnastics performed by Muslim polemicists and missionaries asserts that Jesus also endorsed torture and summary executions. So who are Christians and the West (though the two are not identical) to complain about Islam? But did Jesus really endorse such barbarism? Where would Muslim apologists (defenders) find even a hint of it in the life and teachings of Christ?


Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone desires to be My disciple, let him deny himself [disregard, lose sight of, and forget himself and his own interests] and take up his cross and follow Me [ cleave steadfastly to Me, conform wholly to My example in living and, if need be, in dying, also].
~ Matthew 16:24



Darfur and Southern Sudan



Iran, audio


Here is a Wikipedia article that has been whitewashed. Paragraphs and citations purged.


But a first person account is quite different. Fraud? Hmmmm, That is what the wikipedia says, with but a single citation.


Christian Monitor Daily ~ monitors Christian Persecution around the world


Then I saw thrones, and sitting on them were those to whom authority to act as judges and to pass sentence was entrusted. Also I saw the souls of those who had been slain with axes [beheaded] for their witnessing to Jesus and [for preaching and testifying] for the Word of God, and who had refused to pay homage to the beast or his statue and had not accepted his mark or permitted it to be stamped on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived again and ruled with the Messiah a thousand years.
~ Revelation 20:4


Persecution Blog


Thursday, July 19, 2007

If We Don't Call Them Names, the Terrorists Win




If We Don't Call Them Names, the Terrorists Win


By CARLIN ROMANO

After the terrorist near misses in London and Glasgow, British officials did the expected. They raised their nation's threat-assessment level. They weighed the balance between civil liberties and new, tougher security measures. They pondered the latest fold in the elaborate tapestry before them, the possibility of a privileged jihadist cell tucked into the country's National Health Service.

Finally, they produced the usual morally namby-pamby, logistics-heavy rhetoric about getting to the bottom of each case. They sounded deadly serious about investigating the attempts, deadly uninterested in morally judging what happened.

"We are on the trail," a senior Whitehall official immediately told The Sunday Times of London, and so, as subsequent arrests indicated, they were. London Mayor Ken Livingstone urged city residents to remain vigilant. Lord Carlile of Berriew, a top British terrorism official, upped the ante by admonishing Londoners to be "forever vigilant." New Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared, "We will not yield, we will not be intimidated, and we will not allow anyone to undermine our British way of life."

Brown obviously hadn't tried as mere citizen to connect internationally through Heathrow lately, a feat that requires the very un-British task of squeezing all carry-on items allowed elsewhere into one bag (really, one bag) or losing them to Heathrow security officers, who must be scoring quite a take on duty-free purchases.

A similar rhetorical fiasco took place after the conclusion of the 114-day kidnapping of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston. No government ministers denounced the successful Gaza kidnappers, who reportedly won release of some gunmen in the deal, as bastards, lowlife, cowards, scum. Official rhetoric after terrorist acts has become ethically neutral, merely strategic in tone and content.

You might think shrewd politicians would notice something wrong with this picture. After all, the last major national politician to insult those who violate civilized norms in expressing political anger — former French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who denounced Muslim rioters in France as "scum" for their car burnings and mayhem — won election as president of France despite predictions that he'd committed political suicide.

Yet the vast majority of statesmen believe in purely operational talk after terrorist acts. On July 4, Franco Frattini, the EU's top justice official, announced a wide array of new antiterrorist measures, including an EU-wide passenger-data-recording system, and criminalization of bomb-making instructions on the Internet. "We will find a better way to discourage and detect terrorists," Frattini said.

W hy does such a better way not include a call for sterner moral judgment, forcefully expressed?

Should Ayman al-Zawahri, deputy head of Al Qaeda, be the only "leader" quoted making moral judgments — that Arab regimes are "corrupt" — in a week of terrorist incidents? Why do media parrot this moral irresponsibility, as in The Boston Globe's post-Glasgow editorial that the terrorist threat can "be countered by means of sound intelligence, conventional police work, legal adaptations that do not create a law-free zone, and leadership that distinguishes law-abiding communities from the crazed Islamist ideologues that prey upon them"?

The reasons fall into five categories.

The first rationale amounts to political correctness, however odd that may ring in regard to terrorism, the most political of all matters on the government's plate. It's the reflexive unwillingness of officials to express moral and political beliefs for fear they'll insult and offend others. Remember Fowler's classic definition of euphemism: "mild or vague or periphrastic expression as a substitute for blunt precision or disagreeable truth."

These days officials win praise for such evasion. In London, Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil-rights group Liberty, observed of Gordon Brown that he "has passed the first test of his administration. He has not played politics with the terror threat and has treated this weekend's events as an operational rather than a political matter."

But if the admirable part of political correctness is that one shouldn't utter unsupportable, reactionary ethnic, gender, or other generalizations, that principle is misapplied in the case of terrorists, who are picked out for condemnation by their acts alone. Aren't "bastards," "scum," and so on precisely the right terms for people who seek to maim and kill presumably innocent others to make a political point?

A second reason for muted language is the notion that not using emotional, judgmental words means one is acting more rationally and efficiently. Here, too, current clichés of proper official behavior encourage word-mincing. New Home Secretary Jacqui Smith won applause for the "calmness and dignity" of her remarks to Parliament after the failed car bombings.

That backslap makes little sense in regard to commentary on terrorists. Are all morally judgmental words "emotive"? Few would think that calling terrorists "wrong" or "immoral" counts as emotive, though branding them "evil" might slip into that category nowadays, on the ground that President Bush gave "evil" a bad name. The step to "cowardly" or "barbarian" strikes far more people as worrisome verbal escalation. What, though, is the logical inference between emotionally strong language by responsible people and irrational action? We don't expect President Bush to make weepy, emotionally upset decisions because he emerges teary-eyed from meetings with American families who've lost loved ones in Iraq. We don't expect religious figures or ordinary people who deliver strong, moving remarks at funerals to make irrational decisions immediately afterward. Why infer such things with politicians?

A third reason, construable as a corollary of the second, is that citizens don't want to see their leaders act emotionally. Hitler's histrionics and Khrushchev's shoe-pounding remain quintessential Bigfoot examples of the political equation that emotional language signals demagoguery. On a different scale, famous moments in American political history, such as Sen. Edward Muskie's alleged crying over attacks on his wife, reinforced a perceived equation between emotion and weakness.

Here one would like to see a poll. Politicians might be surprised by the result.

A fourth reason for morally neutral language about terrorism is fear that emotional, insulting language might make terrorists angrier and more dangerous. An old anecdote about former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir figures on the other side. Once, at an Israeli cabinet meeting, someone reportedly warned that the action contemplated would anger the Palestinians. Shamir supposedly replied, "Are they going to hate us more?" — implying that enemies of Israel had already hit their max in that department, freeing Israel from such consequentialist calculations. A similar logic appears more applicable to terrorists than fear of inciting them to greater ferocity. That aside, fear that insulting or strongly judging terrorists will cause greater terrorism appears to contradict the logic behind emotionless security talk itself — that violence is prevented by tough tactical measures rather than rhetoric. So long as rigorous tactics remain in place during rhetorical upgradings, things should not get worse.

Finally, there is the reason, intuited even by nonexperts on rhetoric, that repeating such language weakens its power. Listening to President Bush denounce terrorists every day as cowards would grow old fast, this thinking goes, as did hearing the mantra that "terrorists hate our freedom." Here, one might nonetheless ask, for what would we be trying to hold language's power in reserve? For another 9/11? A dirty bomb exploded in an American city? Is anything short of slaughtering thousands at a time insufficient for moral outrage? Nonuse of morally strong language arguably saps it of power more than repeated use, making it seem quaint and archaic.

All key reasons for avoiding stern moral judgments and insults toward terrorists, then, prove less than compelling. What might we argue in favor of calling terrorists names?

Let's mention just one key goal: the education of the world's Muslim youth. Instead of hearing moral praise and encouragement for terrorism from jihadists, which then gets mixed in their minds with the nonjudgmental, tactical talk of Western officials and media, they'd have to absorb a steady stream of insults of terrorists' intelligence, morality, decency, and reasoning. Young Muslims would have to get used to hearing jihadist heroes described as savages, scum, and uncivilized losers, along with the reasons why. It would intellectually force them, far more than they are forced today, to choose between two visions of the world.

We should not minimize the thirst for respect among terrorists and their potential sympathizers. When we treat terrorists only as tactical foes, as though we're too jaded for moral talk, we raise the self-respect of terrorists and their appeal to young people. Christopher Hitchens's surprise best seller, God Is Not Great, employs wry understatement in its title, then sarcastically drills home why "not being great" is the least of God's problems and sins. Perhaps officials around the free world, under a portfolio titled "Terrorism Is Not Great," could start stockpiling verbal weapons that penetrate the enemy more sharply than, "They're dangerous and we must fight them."

Carlin Romano, critic at large for The Chronicle and literary critic for The Philadelphia Inquirer, teaches philosophy and media theory at the University of Pennsylvania.


Spleen sez:

It is morally repugnant and against the WORD of GOD to accept evil on any level.

Carlin does not realize this, but it is the Wests' GODLESSNESS that has allowed this
mealy mouthed dhimmi pathetoric to be our politicians "diplomatic normal"

REBELLION TO TYRANTS IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD

~ The original proposal for the seal of the United States ....
Around a picture of Moses parting the sea.





PSALM 74

Israel Matzav: Why we should make moral judgments about terrorism





Sunday, July 15, 2007

Putin Cites Extraordinary Circumstances


(Hat Tip: FQ Kafir)



Russia withdraws from arms treaty

  • Russia withdraws from Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty
  • 1990 pact is considered a key element in maintaining stability in Europe
  • President Putin blames "extraordinary circumstances" affecting Russian security
  • Withdrawal allows Russia to build up forces closer to its borders



MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Russia on Saturday suspended its participation in a key European arms control treaty that governs deployment of troops on the continent, the Kremlin said, a move that threatened to further aggravate Moscow's already tense relations with the West.

President Vladimir Putin signed a decree suspending Russia's participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty due to "extraordinary circumstances ... which affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures," the Kremlin said in a statement.

Putin has in the past threatened to freeze his country's compliance with the treaty, accusing the United States and its NATO partners of undermining regional stability with U.S. plans for a missile defense system in former Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe.

Under the moratorium, Russia would halt inspections and verifications of its military sites by NATO countries and would no longer limit the number of its conventional weapons, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

In Brussels, NATO spokesman James Appathurai condemned the decision. "NATO regrets this decision by the Russian Federation. It is a step in the wrong direction," Appathurai said.

The treaty, between Russian and NATO members, was signed in 1990 and amended in 1999 to reflect changes since the breakup of the Soviet Union, adding the requirement that Moscow withdraw troops from the former Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia.

Russia has ratified the amended version, but the United States and other NATO members have refused to do so until Russia completely withdraws.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia could no longer tolerate a situation where it was complying with the treaty but its partners were not, and he expressed hope that Russia's move would induce Western nations to commit to the updated treaty. VideoWatch a report on Moscow's decision »

"Such a situation contradicts Russia's interests," Peskov told The Associated Press. "Russia continues to expect that other nations that have signed the CFE will fulfill their obligations."

The treaty is seen as a key element in maintaining stability in Europe. It establishes limitations on countries' deployment of tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, attack helicopters and combat aircraft.

Withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty would allow Moscow to build up forces near its borders.

But Russian military analysts have said the possibility of suspending participation in the treaty was a symbolic rising of ante in the missile shield showdown more than a sign of impending military escalation.

Pavel Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based defense analyst, said the moratorium probably won't result in any major buildup of heavy weaponry in European Russia. Russia has no actual interest in the highly costly build up of forces because it faces no real military threat and has no plans to launch an attack of its won, he said.

But, he said, it could mean an end to onsite inspections and verifications by NATO countries, which many European nations rely on to keep track of Russian deployments.

For the United States, the moratorium will mostly be a symbolic gesture, he said, since the U.S. has an extensive intelligence network that keeps close track of Russian forces. But it will still be seen as another unfriendly move in Washington, Felgenhauer predicted.

"This will be a major irritant," he said. "It will seriously spoil relations. The kind of soothing effect from the last summit with Putin and (President) Bush will evaporate swiftly," he said referring a summit between the leaders earlier this month at the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Felgenhauer also said that there is no provision under the treaty for a moratorium, suggesting Russia was acting illegally. "This is basically non-compliance, and this is an illegal move," he said.



See Also: Enter the King of the North




Vladimir Putin dancing a sword dance in Saudi Arabia




Iran and Hamastan: A Comprehensive Overview


Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC)




July 15 , 2007

Iran and Hamastan:


From Iran’s perspective, the establishment of a Hamas-dominated entity in the Gaza Strip presents both opportunities and risks, in general tipping the scales in Iran’s favor. Iran publicly recognized the legitimacy of Ismail Haniya’s government and is expected to continue providing Hamas with economic and military aid.



Iranian foreign minister Mamuchehr Mottaki met with Imad al-Alami, a member of Hamas's political bureau (Al-Alam TV, July 7). Iran is the only country so far to have received a senior Hamas delegation since the organization took over the Gaza Strip.






Overview

1. The dramatic developments which led to the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the creation of “Hamastan” surprised Iran, in our assessment, and created a new situation in the internal Palestinian arena, which holds both opportunities and risks for Iran. The main ones are the following:

A. On the one hand , the establishment of a Hamas-controlled entity reinforces Iran 's deterrent image and creates new opportunities for Iran to maneuver against Israel , the moderate Arab camp and the Western countries. That is because the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip can be perceived as the victory of the ideology the radical Islamic movement which is supported by the Iranian-Syrian axis. That ideology includes resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict through terrorism and violence. The takeover weakened the nationalist-secular and pro-Western trend in Palestinian society and also harmed American and Israeli interests.

B. On the other hand , Iran had no control over the events leading to the establishment of Hamastan. The worsening tension between Hamastan and Israel , the opposition to Hamastan of most of the Arab world and its isolation in the international arena have all created the potential for weakening Hamas rule. It may also show that such a radical Islamic entity, like the one created in the Gaza Strip, is not viable in the long run (and whose regional implications go beyond the Israeli-Palestinian context). In addition, recent events have also deepened the ideological and political schism in the Palestinian society and may draw attention away from the violent campaign against Israel .

2. So far, Iran seems to be studying the situation and formulating its policy regarding the recent developments in the Palestinian arena. In our assessment, at this point Iran is trying to maneuver between various considerations and constraints : One consideration is its desire to settle the differences of opinion between Hamas and Fatah in order to focus their activity on the campaign against Israel; another is its desire to exploit the event to strengthen Hamas and radical Islam, and encourage the use of violence and terrorism against Israel, a common interest for both Hamas and the Iranian regime.

3. With that in mind, senior Iranian figures and the Iranian media expressed their support for Hamas and Ismail Haniya's government, criticizing Fatah and Abu Mazen were criticized. At the same time they called for Hamas-Fatah unity , and expressed their worry as to what might result from the split in Palestinian society. On the diplomatic front , Iran is so far the only country to have hosted a Hamas delegation since the organization took over the Gaza Strip.

A summary of Iranian responses to the establishment of Hamastan in the Gaza Strip

Senior figures

4. Senior figures within the Iranian regime recognized the legitimacy of Ismail Haniya's government but at the same time called upon Hamas and Fatah to reconcile their differences. Some of the responses were the following:

A. On June 17, Mohammed Ali Hosseini, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman , stated that Iran would invite representatives of all the factions to Iran to settle their internal differences and avoid clashes. He added that all the factions had to close the gaps between them and begin a common campaign against “the Zionist enemy” in order to restore their rights. However, he also noted that the Palestinians had to respect the results of the elections (to the Palestinian Legislative Council) to restore democracy (i.e., to recognize the legitimacy of the Hamas government).

B. Mehdi Mustafawi , deputy Iranian foreign minister, stated that the establishment of the Palestinian emergency government in the West Bank parallel to the Haniya government in the Gaza Strip was undemocratic. He warned that it would “serve to fuel other conflicts in occupied Palestine ,” and called upon the factions to settle their differences through dialogue, in that only Israel benefitted from the current situation.

C. On June 23, Hamid Reza Haji Baba', a member of the Iranian committee for foreign policy and national security , accused Israel and the United States of “plotting” to cause a rift among the Palestinians. He called upon Fatah and Hamas to join forces and turn their resources against Israel .

D. On June 26, Gholam Ali Haddad- Adel, chairman of the Iranian Majlis , called upon Hamas and Fatah to settle the conflict between them. He extolled Palestinian solidarity and at the same time expressed support for the legitimacy of the elected Hamas government.

The Iranian press

5. The conservative Iranian press expressed support for Hamas which, it claimed, “had been elected in democratic elections” (Keyhan International). At the same time, as part of its desire to bring an end to the confrontations, it claimed that “the Zionist regime profited most from the clashes” (Tehran Times).

6. The daily Jumhuri , one of Leader Khamenei's mouthpieces, sided unequivocally with Hamas, severely criticizing Fatah and Abu Mazen. Some of the main points of Jumhuri articles were:

A. On June 20 an editorial expressed the hope that recent developments would prove that Hamas had drawn the right conclusions, and that it intended to refrain from integrating into the Palestinian Authority, which reflected the “disgusting legacy of Arafat's tendency to compromise,” and would join the efforts of the Islamic jihad in Palestine to carry out “the orders to destroy the Zionist regime.” Jumhuri repeatedly stated that the solution had to be formulated in “ the spirit of remarks made by Khomeini regarding wiping Israel from the pages of history .”

B. On June 26 an editorial accused Fatah of having betrayed the Palestinian people because for years it had collaborated with Israel and the United States . Therefore, no government should be allowed to be established in accordance with Abu Mazen's proposals because that would lead to a situation in which “the Zionist regime would again control Palestinian fate under the guise of nationalism.” The editorial also attacked Egypt and Jordan 's “cursed” regime for their mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

C. On July 3 an additional editorial belittled Salam Fayyad's government and described it as “a puppet government of the Zionist regime.”

The first visit of a Hamas delegation to Tehran .

7. On July 7 a Hamas delegation, representing the “external” leadership in Damascus , visited Tehran . Two members of the delegation were Imad al-Alami , a senior terrorist operative and member of the Hamas political bureau, and Muhammad Nasser , a member of the political bureau. The delegation deliberated with senior Iranian figures. Among others, al-Alami met with Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (currently Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran) and with Mamuchehr Mottaki, Iranian foreign minister.

8. On the same day, after the meeting Mottaki made a cautious statement expressing his support for the Palestinian national unity government and expressing hope that al-Alami's consultations in Tehran would play a significant role in resolving the Palestinians' internal differences of opinion.


Imad Al-Alami, member of the Hamas political bureau (Al-Alam TV, June 7)

Iranian support for Hamas

9. Since the Hamas victory in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections, Iran has increased its financial, military and political support for the organization. In 1our assessment, the support will continue and increase following the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, to fortify Hamastan's ability to survive and to improve its terrorist operative capabilities against Israel . 2

10. Musheir al-Masri , Hamas representative in the Palestinian Legislative Council, was asked whether Hamas would agree to accept aid from Iran . He answered that despite Hamas's ideological differences with Iran , Iranian support, if offered, would be accepted. He added that Iranian support was “a thousand times preferable to putting our trust in the Americans and Zionists…” (Al-Zaman, July 7, 2007)


1 For further information see our March 11, 2007 Bulletin entitled “Anti-Israeli Terrorism, 2006: Data, Analysis and Trends”

2 Tawfiq al-Tirawi, commander of Palestinian general intelligence, said in an interview that more than 70 Hamas terrorist operatives on their way back to the Gaza Strip after training in Iran , were among the thousands of Palestinians held up at the Rafah Crossing (Al-Quds, July 14).


SOURCE LINK



HAMAS 101