DURBIN APOLOGIZES WEAKLY A WEEK LATER

Fox News, AP, and other outlets report that Senator Dick Durbin has apologized for his comparison between the American military and Nazis, Khmer Rouge, and Stalinist genocidal maniacs:

Under fire from Republicans and some fellow Democrats, Sen. Dick Durbin apologized Tuesday for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures.

"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."

His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.

"They're the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them," he said.

At least this is an apology, instead of a "statement of regret". However tearfully delivered, though, it still contains qualifiers that shift the responsibility to everyone but Durbin. "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line, and to them I extend my heartfelt apologies."

No, no, no.

Your remarks did cross the line, Senator. Why can't you just admit that, without qualification? This is yet another halfway dodge in putting the onus onto those whom you offended instead of taking responsibility for your own actions and comments.

Color me unimpressed. His fellow party members will now ask us all to move along. I'll consider doing that if they now will admit that Durbin's original statement slandered the military and debased the memories of those millions of victims that truly experienced what genocidal maniacs do with their innocent captives. If not, then they are just playing word games until they discover the right combination to climb out of the box in which Durbin has put them.

UPDATE: Why did Durbin feel the need to make this half-baked apology today after holding out for a week? Mayor Richard Daley, the man behind Durbin's power base in Chicago, refused to play along with Democrats in minimizing Durbin's original comments:

Mayor Richard Daley said Tuesday that even though U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin is a good friend, the fellow Democrat should apologize for comments comparing the actions of American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot.

"I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military act like that,'' Daley said. ...

Daley made his remarks in response to questions at a news conference after a graduation ceremony for new police officers. Last year, his son Patrick enlisted in the Army.

The mayor said he is a history buff and that Durbin was wrong to evoke comparisons to the horrors of the Holocaust or the millions of people killed in Russia under Stalin and in Cambodia under Pol Pot. He became angry when a reporter said he thought Durbin's remarks were being mischaracterized.

"If you really believe that those men and women in Guantanamo Bay are Nazis, you better rethink what America is all about,'' Daley said. "... You go and talk to some victims of the Holocaust and they will tell you horror stories. And there are not horror stories like that at Guantanamo Bay.''

That should answer those who think that outrage over this slander remains the exclusive purview of the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio. Plenty of military families are Democrats, and I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't cotton to the suggestion that Durbin's words had been "mischaracterized". Kudos to Mayor Daley for having the integrity to publicly call out his friend and political ally. Too bad Durbin still couldn't follow his advice.

UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin has a nice roundup of reaction to Durbin's latest refinement of his message, along with a new Weber grill. Rusty says that he'll give Durbin the benefit of the doubt -- for now. Matt May says "apology not accepted", and explains why at length. Rick Moran at the Right Wing Nuthouse threatens to break into song, but doesn't think Durbin was being sincere.  Tuesday, June 21, 2005

*

www.daybydaycartoon.com

*

AL JAZEERA - LIVE FROM US SENATE

http://froggyruminations.blogspot.com

*

DEAN: "WE'RE ONLY JUST WARMING UP" 

Drudge reports:

In a defiant speech at a party fund-raiser in Boston, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean vowed Monday to continue his fiery critiques of the Republican Party...

Fresh editions of the BOSTON GLOBE report: "We are going to be much tougher and in-your-face with the Republicans when they say things that aren't true," [said Dean].

The Chrenkoff blog has now exclusively obtained the remainder of the "Globe" article:

Commenting on his recent attack on the Republican Party as a party of white Christians who all look the same, Rep Chuck Rangel's comparison of President Bush's foreign policy with the Holocaust, and Sen Dick Durbin's comparison of US troops to Nazi and communist mass murderers, Mr Dean told the enthusiastic party donors: "You ain't seen nothing yet. I know that it's hard to believe it, but we're only just warming up."  Tuesday, June 21, 2005

www.chrenkoff.blogspot.com

*

RUMSFELD BLASTS THE MEDIA

By Cliff Kincaid

. . . at least a dozen of the 200 people released from the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay "have already been caught back on the battlefield, involved in efforts to kidnap and kill Americans."

The major media didn't pay any attention, but on June 1 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld delivered a major blast at the media, declaring that "two of the country's largest newspapers" had "devoted more than 80 editorials, combined, since March of 2004 to Abu Ghraib and detainee issues, often repeating the same erroneous assertions and recycling the same stories.  By comparison, precious little has been written-by those editorial boards-about the beheading of innocent civilians by terrorists, the thousands of bodies found in mass graves in Iraq, the allegations of rape of women and girls by U.N. workers in the Congo."

He was probably referring to the Washington Post and New York Times, but other papers could fit the bill.

Good for Secretary Rumsfeld. It's time our leaders confronted and exposed the media for their anti-American slant. But it's not just a slant; it's bad reporting. Rumsfeld was alluding to the tendency of the Post and Times editorial pages to find top civilian and military leaders responsible for the isolated cases of prisoner abuse. Major investigations of that matter have exonerated top officials.  But the Post and Times don't want to accept the results of those investigations.

Rumsfeld, at the briefing, went on to say, "Yes, there have been instances where detainees have been mistreated while in U.S. custody, sometimes grievously. But consider these facts.  To date, there have been approximately 370 criminal investigations into the charges of misconduct involving detainees.  Out of 68,000 detainees that have been in U.S. custody over the period since September 11th.  And of some 525,000 service members, men and women of the various services who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in Guantanamo Bay, less than one-tenth of 1 percent have been found to have committed illegal acts against detainees."

Rumsfeld also had some news to report. He said that at least a dozen of the 200 people released from the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay "have already been caught back on the battlefield, involved in efforts to kidnap and kill Americans." That fact alone would suggest that perhaps U.S. authorities have been too lenient in how they are handling the cases of the suspected terrorists at GITMO.

"Many, if not most [of the suspected terrorists] have been systematically trained to lie and to claim torture," Rumsfeld noted. And that brings up Newsweek. "Much was made recently of a news story falsely accusing service members of flushing a Koran down the toilet," Rumsfeld said. "But little has been said about the great lengths that the military go to at Guantanamo Bay to accommodate the religious practices of detainees in their care," he noted. "There are specific instructions as to how those involved in the custody of detainees should handle themselves with respect to religious matters.  Special meals are provided to meet cultural dietary requirements.  Schedules are respectful of prayer. Indications of the direction to pray are provided.  Detailed guidelines are provided to the service people as to the-which govern the handling of the Koran."

Rumsfeld said that, "Copies of these instructions have been publicly available, but they have received comparatively little media attention.  I have not yet seen a complete printing of those instructions in any journal. This lack of media attention to U.S. policy guidance to treat detainees humanely creates misperceptions."

It certainly does.

Those misperceptions, I submit, have contributed to a recruiting problem for the U.S. military. But Don Wycliffe of the Chicago Tribune rejects that. "It all comes down to the doomsaying, undermining, unpatriotic media," he says, trying to summarize my point of view. No, it doesn't all come down to that. But I stand by my point, quoted in his June 2 column, that potential recruits have to consider that if they sign up, they "not only have to fight the terrorists but the American media, which is doing their best to make our soldiers out to be human-rights abusers, torturers and killers…"

Wycliffe asked me for examples of the media tendency to want to make America look bad. And one example I cited was how the media report charges of human-rights abuses leveled by the likes of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Amnesty International recently generated headlines with the claim that Guantanamo Bay was a "gulag."

Rumsfeld was angered by that, too. He declared that, "…to try to equate the military's record on detainee treatment to some of the worst atrocities of the past century is a disservice to those who have sacrificed so much to bring freedom to others."

Rumsfeld concluded his opening statement at that briefing by saying, "So, to the men and women who wear our country's uniform, and to their families who support them, I want you to know how proud we are of all of your able service.  We are in your debt.  And to those who may be considering serving our nation, know that there is no finer calling, no nobler cause, and no greater act of patriotism."

What a tragedy that our major media did not report those comments. Rumsfeld is trying to counter the media bias that is undermining the global war on terror and threatening the ability of our nation to get the recruits we need to win this war.

Investor's Business Daily agrees, declaring in an editorial, "If, as the military now fears, there's a looming recruitment problem, the elite media should bear much of the blame."  June 20, 2005

www.aim.org

*

As most of our readers know, we participate in a radio show called the Northern Alliance Radio Network every Saturday afternoon. The show is broadcast on 1280 am the Patriot in the Twin Cities, and is streamed over the internet. Last Saturday, we bumped into State Senator Michele Bachmann, who is running for the House seat being vacated by Mark Kennedy, in the Patriot's basement--our headquarters--where she was about to do another show. She mentioned that she knows a Minnesotan who has recently gotten back from serving at Guantanamo Bay, and offered to call him to see if he would come on our show. She did, and he did, but we only had time for a brief interview. Because the issue is so important, we passed his contact information on to Hugh Hewitt and urged Hugh to put him on his show. Hugh did, and he has posted a transcript of the interview here.

With all the nonsense being written about Gitmo, the interview is worth reading in its entirety. I would only add that the soldier, Pete, was the valedictorian of his high school class, graduated from Princeton, and now serves with the New Jersey National Guard. Here is an excerpt:

Hugh: When did you serve in Gitmo?

Pete: I was there about two months ago, for a year.
***
Hugh: Did you see brutality at Gitmo?

Pete: I didn't see one bit of it.

Hugh: Are interrogations ongoing at Gitmo?

Pete: Absolutely. The facility is there to gather intelligence.
***
Hugh: Any violence, in terms of physical brutality of the prisoners you observed?

Pete: Absolutely not. In fact, my men and I spent nine hours on a runway waiting to try and get a detainee to go back home who had refused to do so because he wanted to stay at Guantanamo because he was being treated so well.

Hugh: Food okay for the prisoners at Guantanamo, Pete?

Pete: I think it is better than what my guys got for a year, to be honest with you.

Hugh: You an officer, Pete?

Pete: Yes I am. Second Lieutenant.

Hugh: Are you proud of the way your men conducted themselves vis-a-vis these prisoners?

Hugh: Absolutely. I mean, you've got guys from New jersey who were just, you know, minutes away from the Towers when they fell, who knew family members who died that day. And the professionalism with which they conducted themselves around men who may have been involved in those attacks was extraordinary.

The contrast between forthright young men like Pete and gasbags like Dick Durbin and Howard Dean is, I think, striking.

Via a number of other bloggers, here are poll data on Guantanamo Bay from USA Today:

30. As you may know, since 2001, the United States has held people from other countries who are suspected of being terrorists at a detention facility in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Based on what you have heard or read, do you think the US should continue to operate this facility or do you think the US should close this facility and transfer the prisoners to other facilities?

Continue to Operate: 58%
Close Facility: 36%
No Opinion: 6%

31. In general, do you approve or disapprove of the way the US is treating the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba?

Approve: 52%
Disapprove: 37%
No opinion: 11%

And these are "adults," not voters.

It seems like there is a common denominator in the Dems' tactics of late: they're going really hard after the most liberal 37% of the population. I'd guess that the people who think Priscilla Owen is a dangerous extremist are pretty much exactly the same ones who lie awake at night worrying that a terrorist's air conditioning might not be properly adjusted.

UPDATE: We got this interesting email from Dave Weigel of the Editorials/Op-eds department at USA Today:

To Mr. Hinderaker:

I thought your post about the Gitmo poll could use some context. Those numbers - 52-58% approve, 36-37% disapprove - represent some slippage since 2002 and 2003.

Here are some previous polls, with admittedly different phrasing in their questions. I grabbed them from Nexis.

GALLUP - Jan 2002
Based on what you have heard or read, would you consider the way the U.S. is treating the Taliban soldiers being held at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to be acceptable or unacceptable treatment, or don't you know enough to say?

Acceptable - 72%
Unacceptable - 4
Don't know enough to say - 24

Suppose a Taliban soldier were captured during war and held outdoors in an 8 foot by 8 foot cell, and when traveling from one location to another was blindfolded and had his hands bound. Would you consider that to be acceptable or unacceptable treatment?

Acceptable - 76%
Unacceptable - 20
No opinion - 4

ABC - Sept 2003
Please tell me if you support or oppose the federal government ... holding suspected terrorists without trial at the U.S. (United States) military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Support - 65%
Oppose - 28
No opinion - 7

While your point about the Democrats' use of the issue seems sound, I thought this context would be useful.

- Dave Weigel

I replied to Mr. Weigel as follows:

David, thanks, that is very interesting context. Of course, the difference is that the Democrats have now chosen to make the treatment of detainees a political issue, and have rallied their supporters around that theme. So it's natural that the "disapprovers," essentially all of whom I take to be loyal Democrats, would become more numerous.

If the Dems can't get more than 37% on their side with the all-out push they have made on this issue, they're in trouble.  Tuesday, June 21, 2005 

www.powerlineblog.com

*

STAR-TRIBUNE: GITMO = HELLHOLE

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has nothing but praise for Senator Dick “US Soldiers are Nazis” Durbin: Durbin’s message/U.S. must end prisoner abuse. The left has gone completely off the rails on this issue, and this sentence from the editorial shows how deranged they’ve become:

It’s not too late, as Durbin said of Bush in his speech: The senator should stop apologizing and keep up the criticism of the hellhole America’s military has created at Guantanamo.

A “hellhole” where the dinner menu includes Baked Tandouri Chicken Breast, Mustard-Dill Baked Fish, Lyonnaise Rice, and Fish Amandine.

FRENCH IMAM ADVOCATES WIFE-BEATING, WINS TRIAL

In Lyon, France, radical Salafist Imam Abdelkader Bouziane has been released by the correctional court where he was being tried for advocating wife-beating and polygamy; here’s a rough translation from French of the article, which can’t be found in US media: Remarks favorable to the punishment of the women. (Hat tip: Dan.)

TERROR GANGS SEETHING OVER SHARON-ABBAS MEETING

I don’t know; this just doesn’t seem like the sort of rhetoric we should be hearing from people who are ready to build their own peaceful sovereign state: Palestinian hardliners slam Abbas for meeting Sharon in Jerusalem.

The radical Islamist movement Hamas said Abbas’s decision would only help legitimise Israel’s sovereignty claims. It also questioned the point of the meeting.

It expressed “astonishment” that Abbas had accepted an invitation to meet Sharon, who has frequently described the city as the eternal and undivided capital of the Jewish people, in west Jerusalem.

“This is a dangerous precedent which could lead to a recognition of the Zionist allegations proclaiming Jerusalem as their capital,” a statement said.

“The meeting ... will do nothing to change the realities on the ground, for the agenda of the Zionist entity is limited to implementing its retreat from Gaza and mobilising the efforts of all parties to this end, including the Palestinians,” the statement added.

“All other questions are of no interest to the Zionist entity.”

*

KNOCK THE VOTE

From The Wall Street Journal: Iran's 'Democracy' -- A rigged election, no reformist victory.

The most astonishing aspect of Friday's presidential vote in Iran is not that the elections will go into a second round but that Tehran managed to convince so many in the West that this is a real demonstration of democracy.

All power is held by Supreme Leader Ali Khameni, his Council of Guardians and the small clique of military officers and businessmen around him. The Council disqualified more than 1,000 candidates before the election, vetting only contestants who support the regime's ideological lines. The example of outgoing "reformist" President Mohammad Khatami, who presided over eight years of economic decline and worsening repression, has proven that the President cannot change anything against the Council's will.

The one number worth parsing in Friday's election is that of voter participation. Many Iranians had called for a boycott as the only way of showing resistance. Knowing this, the mullahs seem to have taken their usual election manipulations to another level. Intimidation by the Revolutionary Guards and the fact that proof of voting is needed for certain jobs and welfare payments have always pushed up turnout. Still, voter participation has steadily declined in the past few years to barely 50%.

From The National Review: Manny, Moe & Rafsanjani by Michael Ladeen. (Via TIA Daily)

They couldn’t even stage a phony election without appearing inept and thuggish, which is certainly not the image they wanted to send to the world. And the spectacle of intense internal conflict among leading figures in the Islamic republic makes me wonder if the revolution is beginning to devour its own fathers and sons.

First, the numbers. The regime had made it clear that the size of the turnout would indicate its legitimacy with the public, so they had to come up with big numbers. After hours of hilarious confusion, during which the "official" numbers oscillated wildly and different vote totals were announced by the interior ministry and the Council of Guardians, the regime finally decided to claim that something like 65 percent of eligible Iranians had voted. But most clear-eyed observers with the freedom to move around the country and actually go to polling places, found very few voters. ...

The lowest participation -- maybe as low as 3-5 percent -- was in Khuzestan Province, where there had been bombings and protests in recent weeks. But anecdotal evidence from all over the country indicated a very low turnout, as of late afternoon. Despite this, the mullahs trotted out rosy reports of big voter turnouts, and even broadcast "live" TV coverage of voters queued up, waiting patiently to make their voices heard.

The only problem was that the pictures were from past elections. One woman called up a Tehran radio station to say that she was sitting at home watching the tube, and saw herself voting. Very droll indeed.

Publius Pundit says the important story is not the rigging of the Iranian election but the voter boycott. Power and Control has an Iran roundup. (Both via InstaPundit)

And from Iran Press News: Tahkeem Vahdat: Boycott the bogus elections, this regime is not reformable.

The University Student offices of Tahkeem'eh Vahdat has sent out a bulletin reiterating it's stance: "based on an all points boycott of this bogus election and the immovability and unreformability of the regime ruling over Iran; we consider this fake election to be disastrous, highly restrictive and utterly ineffective and the office of the president should be castigated for this pathetic show of force."

In several parts of this bulletin, the members of Tahkeem'eh Vahdat have referred to this as a filthy stain on Khatami's departing report card and went on to say that Khatami showed once again that he never had the will to defend and protect the most evident rights of the people of Iran to the ruling powermongers in the country.

The latter story is via Free Thoughts who, as always, is closely following this and other Iran-related stories.  Tuesday, June 21, 2005

www.coxandforkum.com

*

CHIRAC SIGNALS SURRENDER ON FRENCH FARM SUBSIDIES

After taking a beating in the world press and in French public opinion that blames him for the collapse of the EU budget process, Jacques Chirac suddenly changed course today and signaled his surrender on French agricultural subsidies. Tony Blair, emerging victorious over his French rival, agreed that the annual euro rebate Britain receives should also be reconsidered as part of an economic normalization:

The French President said he would after all accept the latest compromise to solve the deadlock, even though it would cost his country £6.6 billion.

Last week's Brussels Euro summit collapsed when Britain refused to give up its rebate worth more than £3 billion a year unless France cut back farming subsidies worth almost £7bn a year.

Mr Chirac refused to do so despite strong pressure from Luxembourg's prime minister, Jean Claude Juncker, who holds the presidency until Mr Blair takes over on July 1. But today Mr Chirac said he was ready to compromise.

It followed Mr Blair acknowledging after a breakfast meeting with his Swedish counterpart, Goran Persson that the rebate was "an anomaly that has to go".

It remains to be seen if Chirac's reversal will win him any political support at home. However, Chirac clearly saw that his petulant outburst at last week's budget summit, where he openly insulted Blair and the British delegation, garnered him no laurels but instead widespread scorn. Le Monde declared the British victorious and scolded Chirac for his childish behavior, while the rest of Europe made it clear that Chirac had abdicated his leadership for the continent with his obstinacy. French farmers will not cheer the elimination of their price supports, of course, but that may not matter much in the long run for a politician whose popular support has dropped to the low 20s.

This gives the EU another opportunity to prop up its sagging currency and to create something closer to a true free-trade zone. Now that the big boys have finished their directed-urination contest, perhaps they can also prop up the EU's sagging credibility as well.  Tuesday, June 21, 2005

www.captainsquartersblog.com

*

BALANCE OF POWER

By Bill Rice

The fallout from the French and Dutch votes against the EU Constitution is growing.  Small fractures in the union have grown and are visible for the world to see.  The recent failed EU summit, chaired by strong EU supporter Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg describes the union as being in "deep crisis".

What should have been a summit to think about and discuss the demise of the constitution was instead focused on the 2007-2013 EU budget, which has until next year to be worked out.  Mr. Chirac, handed a huge personal defeat during the constitution voting, looked not to heal the European divide his government partially caused but to shift blame elsewhere.  There are two conflicting economic systems competing for primacy in the EU: the United Kingdom with an economic model closer to American capitalist standards of competition and the current Franco-German socialist model.  The philosophies are so different that it is extremely difficult to build an EU budget and formulate policy among 25 nations that have widely different views of the world and economics.  Winning the heart of this debate is vital to Europe's future prosperity and security.  Mr. Chirac, coldly attacked the British rebate in the EU, a deal that Margaret Thatcher cut with a smaller EU in 1984.  The British rebate compensates the UK for its disproportionate payments into the EU budget and grows annually.  The rebate is expected to be about 4.5 billion Euros ($5.5 billion) this year. 

Mr. Chirac's attack was clever on several fronts.  There is no love lost between Mr. Chirac and Mr. Blair, who have clashed on issues regarding the leadership of Europe and more noticeably the Iraq war, where France effectively blocked UN support for the war against a strong British desire.  PM Blair was not willing to give up or renegotiate the rebate unless the French were willing to revise their own generous subsidy in the form of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).  Mr. Chirac, not willing to give an inch ruled it out.  A proposal from Luxembourg would have ended the British rebate and left open the French CAP benefits to discussion midway through the next budget.  This proposal could not be taken seriously by the English. 

What was so clever in Mr. Chirac's attack is where it put the English with their allies in Eastern Europe.  Towards the end of the failed summit, Poland and the other Eastern European nations proposed paying more into the EU budget so the British rebate could be preserved.  Mr. Chirac effectively drove a public wedge between the UK and "New Europe". 

Why didn't PM Blair cut a deal?  Mr. Chirac likes to think big in the long term but conducts policy in the short term, which explains his 24% approval rating.  He is not willing to make long term political choices that are painful and instead is working to detract attention from his failed policies and wound his across the channel neighbor. 

Mr. Blair, who is set to take over the EU presidency for 6 months thinks long term as well, but is willing to make painful short term moves to accomplish long term change.  Mr. Blair, sensing a weak Mr. Chirac and an even weaker German leader likely to be replaced by a more friendly Angela Markel, is willing to wait to reform Europe.  In order to do that, Mr. Blair must work out a framework for Europe not in an 11th hour room in Brussels, but by building an alliance with New Europe along with German to push the EU in a more competitive and US-cooperative direction. 

That type of vision takes time and dedication.  Mr. Chirac will continue to play the obstructionist, but if the Europeans want a "closer union" they would be wise to follow the Blair model.

Suggested Reading for more insight:

1. The Economist "Europe's identity crisis deepens"

2. The Guardian "Blair defends rebate stance to MPs"

3. The New Zealand Herald "French press but boot into Chirac"

4. Financial Times "Balir takes diplomatic line over EU budget"

5. Der Spiegel "EU Summit Collapse is 'Historic Failure'"  Tuesday, June 21, 2005

http://billroggio.com

*

http://michellemalkin.com

*

THE JIHAD AGAINST ISRAEL

If Israel broke the ‘truce’ with the Palestinians by one unprovoked act of aggression, the media would be heaving with righteous denunciations. Yet Israel is currently enduring a spate of murderous attacks following the easing of restrictions and the removal of checkpoints by the Israeli army after international pressure --with virtual silence from the media. WorldNet Daily reports:

‘A series of Palestinian attacks and attempted attacks over the past 48 hours have left two dead and several injured, as the violence here continues to reach the highest levels yet since the signing in February of a cease-fire agreement between Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Islamic Jihad terrorists opened fire today on an Israeli vehicle in the West Bank, killing Yevgeny Raider, 27-year, and wounding, Andre Zeidan, 16… Hours earlier, the Israeli Defense Forces thwarted a suicide bombing when soldiers caught a young woman Wafa Samir Ibrahim, aged 20, wearing explosives strapped to her underwear at a northern Gaza Strip crossing. Ibrahim had a permit that allowed her into Israeli territory for "humanitarian assistance." Yesterday, an Israeli soldier was killed and two others wounded when two Palestinian gunmen opened fire at an IDF post on the Egypt-Gaza border. Following that incident, a 15-year-old Palestinian boy was arrested at a Gaza checkpoint with five pipe bombs.

‘The continued violence comes in spite of a cease-fire agreement announced in Egypt Feb. 8 by Sharon and Abbas. A list of Palestinian attacks and attempts just the past two weeks, obtained by WND, includes: 56 rockets and mortar shells fired at Jewish communities in Gaza, 48 shooting attacks at Israeli civilians and soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza, 26 Molotov cocktails thrown at Israelis, the arrests of five terrorists who planned suicide attacks in Jerusalem, and two attempted infiltrations and attacks against Gaza Jewish settlements. Security sources also report the continued smuggling of heavy weaponry from Egypt into Gaza's Rafah region. Since February, there have been approximately 30 incidents of Palestinian smuggling from Egypt's Sinai region, with weapons transported including approximately 1,000 rifles, dozens of RPG launchers, about 150 handguns, five anti-aircraft shoulder missiles and tens of thousands of bullets. A senior Israeli security source told WND: "The cease-fire is over. Officials are afraid to announce it, but look around, it's obvious."'

Now let’s look more closely at that attempted human bomb atrocity by Wafa Samir Ibrahim Al-Bas. She was entering Israel via one of the Gaza strip crossings because she was to receive medical treatment at the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba. She showed her appreciation of this humanitarian gesture by donning a 10 kilograms (22 pounds) explosive suicide belt with the intention of blowing up the hospital that was to treat her.

Now let us recall some of the crimes of Israel in the eyes of the British and European media. Israel oppresses the Palestinians by making it difficult for them at the checkpoints and crossings; Israel shows no compassion to the Palestinians; Israel is only attacked by the Palestinians because of the way it treats them. The human wrongs promoter Amnesty International, in its travesty of a report accused Israel of war crimes including ‘obstruction of medical assistance’.

Yet this woman was not only to be treated at an Israeli hospital but had been treated there before– as are countless numbers of other Palestinians, every day. This murderous act, in the very place that was to treat her, was her response. So much for murder being a response to ill-treatment. That and that alone is why Palestinians are held up and subjected to various apparent indignities at the checkpoints and the crossings – because sometimes they pretend to require humanitarian assistance in order to kill as many Jews as possible. In the circumstances, it is astounding that Israel routinely treats Palestinians from the territories in its hospitals. Any other country would regard them as enemy combatants. Israel sees them as human beings – and is then vilified by the British and European media and human wrongs industry as war criminals for its pains.

Furthermore Ha’aretz reports:

‘The Shin Bet received a tip that Fatah was planning to send Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss, of the Jabalya refugee camp, on a suicide mission via one of the Gaza Strip crossings. Israel gave the Palestinian Authority and Chairman Mahmoud Abbas detailed information of the plan, Shin Bet sources said, but the PA did nothing.’

This is further evidence of Abbas’s complicity in the ongoing jihad. Yet this has not been reported in Britain. Indeed, hardly any of any of this escalating jihad has been reported – and when it has, it has been distorted. As the Middle East commentator Tom Gross observes:

‘Today Reuters reports the whole incident as "Israel says" - even though the would-be suicide bomber (Wafa al-Bas, 21) told the media herself in a jailhouse interview yesterday afternoon that the target was Beersheba hospital. The interview was broadcast on Israeli television news, but not on most international networks that were not interested in using the footage…

‘In the Financial Times, Harvey Morris, an experienced reporter in the region, leads his story with the shooting of an Israeli by Islamic Jihad, but mentions the attempted bombing so obliquely at the end that it almost disappears (and does not mention that the target was a hospital). Media outlets continue to describe the obligation for the Palestinian Authority to disarm terror groups as nothing more than an "Israeli demand". For example, the American UPI (United Press International) report on yesterday's Palestinian violence, says: "Ariel Sharon never seems to tire demanding a complete cessation of terrorism, violence and incitement, dismantling terrorist organizations and collecting their weapons."'

Nor is this violence the only matter of pressing concern in the Middle East over which media silence is having a lethally distorting effect on public opinion. As Tom Gross also observes, opposition to the disengagement is being presented as emanating solely from religious zealot settlers, ignoring the fact that opposition is coming from a far wider range of opinion including many on the left of Israeli politics. Gross provides some examples of this cross section:

‘Former Labor Party Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, currently not a Knesset Member but leader of the left-wing Yahad/Meretz Party:

"The disengagement plan sabotages itself, creating a situation of instability. The plan does not create the necessary minimum of balance that would enable long-term coexistence... Immediately after the disengagement, Israel will find itself on a crash path with the United States."

The media’s failure to report this wide spectrum against disengagement has the effect of minimising the extraordinary risks being taken by this enterprise, the true nature and extent therefore of the controversy and the full significance of this event.

Nor is it reporting the implosion of Abbas’s regime itself under attack from the gunmen he has so obdurately refused to disarm. David Bedein paints a picture of growing anarchy and chaos as Abbas steadily loses control:

‘These days, militants from Abbas’s own party threaten the chairman, his aides and virtually anybody who fails to cooperate. In muted but clear tones, the PA newspapers report daily the attacks by Fatah, often bolstered by security officers, against PA officials, their families and security installations. PA officials have been fleeing or plan to leave the West Bank for Jordan and other Arab states. The most popular Palestinian daily, Al Quds [1], has been jammed with ads by travel agencies, a remarkable development considering the poverty of most Palestinians, their lack of passports and other restrictions. The ads are for the Palestinian elite, who are looking to escape the dangers of living in Palestinian cities. Indeed, the assessment by many is that the PA could collapse by late 2005 as the split within the ruling Fatah movement widens. PA security services have been unable to stem the increasing violence in the streets of Palestinian cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fatah factions have been engaged in gun battles in Ramallah, the center of Palestinian government, while police have largely stood by or even joined in…

‘The PA has acknowledged that many police and security officers spend their time playing criminals rather than cops. The official PA media have reported the involvement of security officers in gun battles in Ramallah on June 12. The media also reported the killing of three people in the Gaza Strip on the same day. On June 11, about 40 gunmen attacked PA security headquarters in Gaza City and waged a three-hour gun battle with officers in the facility. Later, Fatah operatives opened fire near the home of a senior Palestinian commander, Brig. Gen. Rashid Abu Shback. Moreover, several explosions in bomb-making laboratories were reported in the Gaza Strip town of Khan Yunis. In the Jabalya refugee camp, a PA police officer was abducted. The media did not report the arrest or prosecution of suspects.’

Needless to say, the Palestinians are blaming Israel for their own mayhem. It cannot be long before their parrots in the British media do so too.  Tuesday, June 21, 2005

www.melaniephillips.com/diary

*

AL-QAEDA'S AFRICAN ARM STIRS

I apologize for the whole slew of posts recently, though I hope they aren't terribly unwelcome. This issue, however, does not touch on Iraq but rather on Algeria, that much-forgotten front on the War on Terrorism. As I tried to explain last year in Al-Qaeda's African Arm, the GSPC is the main organ through which al-Qaeda operates in Algeria and they've recently stepped up their activities to include not only Algeria, but also Iraq. My summary of the International Crisis Group report in the Sahel region may also be of use, particularly the sections on Mali and Mauritania.

The first indication that things were shifting in the Sahel was the announcement of an "al-Qaeda in Algeria" group forming up under the leadership of Abu Suheib, apparently in anticipation of the upcoming Algerian amnesty offer to the GSPC. That way, if the GSPC rank and file membership does accept the Algerian amnesty offer, al-Qaeda still has a group active in Algeria to continue the fight. Until recently, the GSPC had continued to perpetrate its daily massacres of Algerian civilians, police, and soldiers with relatively little notice, but then Mauritania started raising the alarms about the group's activities.

www.windsofchange.net