Editor’s note: Below is the latest profile of Frontpage’s new series, “Voices of Palestine,” which will illuminate the core beliefs, in their own words, of leading figures in the Palestinian death cult. Click the following to view the profiles of Ahmad Bahr, Mahmoud al-Zahar, Ibrahim Mudayris, Yasser Ghalban, Haj Amin al-Husseini, Wafa al-Bis, Mahmoud Abbas, Ahlam Tamimi, Yassir Arafat (Part I and Part II), Abdallah Jarbu, Sheik Ismail Aal Radhwan, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Yunis Al-Astal, Fathi Hamad, Khaled Mash’al and Ismail Haniya.

Abbas Zaki, former PLO envoy to Lebanon and current member of Fatah’s Central Committee, has spent his entire political career championing the PLO’s efforts to destroy the Jewish state of Israel.

Moreover, Zaki has not confined his animus to Israel alone, but has directed it also at the United States, a country which he considers “to be an enemy because its only strategic alliance is with Israel.”

Zaki (born Sharif Ali Misheal in Hebron in 1943) began his career in 1962 when he joined Fatah, the largest political faction within the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In 1982 Zaki was named by Yasir Arafat as the PLO’s envoy to Yemen, a position he held until he was expelled from that country in 1986.

From there Zaki spent the next three years at the PLO’s Tunisian headquarters, where he was an assistant to Mahmoud Abbas, then head of the PLO’s department of national affairs and now president of the Palestinian Authority (PA). By 1989 Zaki joined the Fatah Central Committee, the highest decision-making body of the PLO.

Following the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005, Zaki was named the PLO representative to Lebanon, a post he held until he was forced to resign by PA President Mahmoud Abbas in 2009. He is now a central committee member of Fatah, the leading member party of the PLO and the PA.

Zaki has used his varied political roles to promote, among other things, the PLO policy of negotiating while engaging in terrorism; support of suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians; and repeated rejections of Palestinian independence based on a two-state solution.

For example, in November 2008 Zaki said the PLO views Israel as “an enemy country, which owes us certain things. The heroic Vietnamese used to negotiate with the French, while they were slaughtering them.”

Editor’s note: Below is the latest profile of Frontpage’s new series, “Voices of Palestine,” which will illuminate the core beliefs, in their own words, of leading figures in the Palestinian death cult. Click the following to view the profiles of Ahmad Bahr, Mahmoud al-Zahar, Ibrahim Mudayris, Yasser Ghalban, Haj Amin al-Husseini, Wafa al-Bis, Mahmoud Abbas, Ahlam Tamimi, Yassir Arafat (Part I and Part II), Abdallah Jarbu, Sheik Ismail Aal Radhwan, Abdel Aziz Rantisi and Yunis Al-Astal.

The terrorist organization Hamas’s disregard for all manner of human life is evinced not merely by its genocidal campaign against the Jewish people, but also by the organization’s use of Palestinian children and women as both suicide bombers and human shields. While most may find the practice repugnant, it has found a staunch champion in Fathi Hamad, interior minister for the Hamas-controlled Gaza government since 2009.

As interior minister, Hamad has described his role as one in which he directs Hamas’s terrorist policy, saying, “We routinely meet and coordinate with the commanders of all the factions of the resistance in Gaza… to protect them and make it easier for them to carry out every aspect of their jihadist missions.”

In addition to being a terror facilitator, Hamad’s professional resume also includes being head of the Hamas Public Affairs Department, Network Director of Hamas-controlled Al Aqsa TV and a former member the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Apart from his professional work, Hamad’s charitable work includes being head of the Gaza charity Waad, which in November 2009 offered a $1.4 million bounty to any Arabs living in Israel who kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Hamad has always placed a high value on the torment of Jews, having once said in a speech given in September 2008, “That by the grace of Allah, killing a single Jew is the same as killing 30 million.”

Given his political and professional background, Hamad has used his role as Hamas jack-of-all-trades to spread the terrorist organization’s message of violence and death in the pursuit claiming “Palestine” in the name of Allah. Hamad has said that Hamas “will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity,” and, in a 2009 speech, predicted that Israel “would disappear by 2022.”

When Al Aqsa TV was launched in 2006, Hamad said the television station’s mission was “to establish Islamic culture and an ideological, scientific and political vision that is in tandem with the spirit of Islam, and to spread information about important issues.” To this end, Hamad began to produce children’s programs that promoted terrorist activity and hatred of Jews and Israelis; shows such as “Tomorrow’s Pioneers” and “Brilliant Children.”

Editor’s note: Below is the latest profile of Frontpage’s new series, “Voices of Palestine,” which will illuminate the core beliefs, in their own words, of leading figures in the Palestinian death cult. Click the following to view the profiles of Ahmad Bahr, Mahmoud al-Zahar, Ibrahim Mudayris, Yasser Ghalban, Haj Amin al-Husseini, Wafa al-Bis, Mahmoud Abbas, Ahlam Tamimi, Yassir Arafat (Part I and Part II) and Abdallah Jarbu.

On September 1, 2010, armed gunmen from the Ezzedeen Al Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Islamist Palestinian terror group Hamas, opened fire on a car carrying Jewish settlers near the Israeli city of Hebron, killing its four occupants, one of whom was a pregnant woman.

The terrorists, calling the attack an “heroic operation,” said the shooting was “a chain in a series of attacks, some have been executed, and others will follow.” True to its word, the armed killers struck the next day, opening up fire on another car filled with Jewish passengers near the city of Ramallah.

While failing to kill the occupants in that car, the militants nevertheless boasted about the near miss on their website, calling it “a new heroic operation against hateful Zionist settlers in the West Bank.”

So, in order to celebrate the courageous act of shooting unarmed, defenseless people, a pep rally in the form of a religious sermon was delivered days later by Sheik Ismail Aal Radhwan, a Hamas preacher, senior legislator and organizational spokesman.

Editor’s note: Below is the first profile of Frontpage’s new series, “Voices of Palestine,” which will illuminate the core beliefs, in their own words, of leading figures in the Palestinian death cult.

Ahmad Bahr is the deputy speaker of Hamas’s Palestinian Legislative Council. He has praised the signing of a reconciliation agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party as a great triumph for the Palestinian cause against the “black agendas and malicious objectives” of Israel and the United States.

It turns out that the Hamas deputy speaker has some “malicious objectives” of his own.

The senior Hamas leader recently said on Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV that, since Allah had transformed Jews into apes and pigs as punishment for their disobedience, “Allah imposed the nation of Muhammad, and the Jihad-waging Palestinian people, upon those siblings of apes and pigs, until we sweep them out of our land and our holy places.”

Back in April 2007, during a Friday sermon at a packed mosque broadcast on an official Palestinian Authority-controlled television station, Bahr described Jews as “the cancerous lump… in the heart of the Arab nation.” He predicted that “America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing.”

“Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies,” Bahr prayed. “Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies…. Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”

Just one week earlier on Sudanese TV, Bahr called Muslims “the masters of the world.” Jews and Americans, he said, are “cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah.”

Bahr praised his Sudanese hosts who have the blood of their own people on their hands: “Our Jihad-fighting Palestinian people salutes its brother, Sudan.”

Last year, in a speech aired on the Hamas-owned Al-Aqsa TV, Ahmad Bahr flatly condemned the very idea of negotiations, which he said “are aimed at uprooting Islam and the resistance here in Palestine, in Gaza.” He favors instead the path of martyrdom, holding out the promise of 2.5 million virgins awaiting the martyrs in a single palace in the Garden of Eden. That’s a big jump from the usual promise of 72 virgins, but apparently Bahr fervently believes that waging jihad to destroy Israel and kill Jews merits a tremendous bonus in the next life.

Bahr did not limit himself to discussing the heavenly reward of virgins for martyrdom. “When a man is having sex with his wife, he should be praying for a son who would wage Jihad for the sake of Allah,” Bahr said on Al-Aqsa TV while expounding on the lesson of a hadith (the sayings or deeds of Muhammad). “If this is the culture of the nation today, who will be able to stop it?… I say to you: As long as we continue on this path, nobody on Earth will be able to confront the resistance, or to confront the mujahideen, those who worship Allah and seek martyrdom.”

The macabre prepossession of the international community with the “problem” of Israel is now so widespread that it has become like a cultural neurosis or even a fact of nature, that is, something that is habitual, taken for granted and rarely questioned. One drinks it in with the morning coffee, if not with one’s mother’s milk. It is treated as the central issue in the geopolitical world beside which every other consideration fades into comparative insignificance.

The People’s Republic of China has overrun Tibet, resettled it with its own citizens and imposed autocratic rule? Not on the radar. Zimbabwe has forcefully dispossessed its white farmers and mercilessly persecuted its own people? Of no account. Hundreds of thousands of Egyptian Copts are fleeing the country to avoid killings, rapes, church burnings and forced conversions? A mere bagatelle. Islamist and Salafist factions are emerging in Egypt in the wake of the much-touted “Arab Spring,” promising renewed violence whether in Helwan, Imbaba, Tahrir Square or Alexandria? A tepid reproof by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and so on to other things, mainly Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood is making inroads into the Islamic world and promulgating Sharia law in the West? Of little interest. Iran is brutally suppressing its own population and Syria is indiscriminately slaughtering its people? No flotillas. Russia is systematically murdering and imprisoning investigative journalists? It’s an internal Russian matter. Reports indicate that Venezuela and Cuba may construct missile emplacements targeting the U.S.? Forget about it. Libyan rebels are massacring black Africans? Nothing to worry about. Sudan is conducting an ethnic cleansing campaign in Darfur? It doesn’t register. Somalia is imploding owing to the bombings and depredations of the al-Shabaab terrorist network? Not our problem. Pakistan-sponsored terrorists wreak havoc in India? It merits a passing headline and is then dismissed. The Taliban is again turning Afghanistan into a killing field? Unfortunate, but there it is. Turkey refuses to acknowledge and apologize for the Armenian genocide it carried out? Well, that was long ago.

But when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian nexus, the focus is unswerving. The UN debates the issue endlessly and propagates one denunciation of the Jewish state after another. The EU and the U.S. are fixated on a resolution to  what they appear to consider a planetary imbroglio. Something called the “Quartet,” which has been aptly called a “chorus of jackals,” has been concocted to deal with the matter to the exclusion of far more pressing concerns. The media are pitching in with obscene insistence. NGOs, churches and labor unions have exceeded their mandates and competencies in engaging with a Levantine quarrel. And public opinion, especially in Europe, has been galvanized by what is in essence a parochial dispute and really none of its business.

The media and the political class are especially culpable. As James Fallows argues in Breaking the News, the media are busy practicing what is called predictive journalism and engaging in professional spin, disguising editorial opinion as impartial news coverage and thus adding political prejudice to the ostensibly neutral transmission of facts. The political class is given to what Michael Freund has dubbed “selective provocation syndrome,” that is, “when one deems Israel’s actions to be provocative while ignoring similar moves by the Palestinians.” The Palestinians, he points out, are building thirteen times the number of dwellings in Samaria and Judea as are being built by Jews, in order to establish facts on the ground in the disputed territories. “So why,” he asks, “is this too not regarded as a ‘provocation’ that undermines peace efforts?” And replies: “I guess not all ‘provocations’ are considered equal.”

Clearly, the debate is intensively weighted on the side of the Palestinians, which means that the Israelis are regularly condemned for defending themselves, for acting in accordance with historical and legal principles, and for their reluctance to sign away legitimate territory and, in effect, to jeopardize their very survival. There is little recognition of the fact that Israel has constantly signaled its willingness to embark upon realistic negotiations. As Barry Rubin writes, “So if the world isn’t going to listen to Israel’s proposals, won’t credit its eagerness to negotiate and won’t accept plans that also include Israel getting something for its troubles, there is no way Israel is ever going to satisfy it.”

The situation is frankly preposterous and provokes two salient questions: why such an unrelenting convergence of interest on this tiny slice of the world’s geography, so scarce in natural resources and constantly threatened with destruction, called Israel?; and in the context of consensual advocacy, why Palestine?

The world remains focused on Israel because Israel is a Jewish state, the Jewish family on the international block, a distinctive presence which activates the latent—as well as the manifest—content of a malingering and inexcisable anti-Semitism. For this is anti-Semitism pure and simple and it would be disingenuous to try and mitigate the truth by seeking for nuanced and textured evasions intended to downplay mankind’s longest hatred. Jews, the feeling goes, do not deserve their own state. They presumably form a collection of wandering tribes and disruptive social interlopers, justly scattered among the nations and deserving of marginalization, a historical “fossil” according to the celebrated historian Arnold Toynbee and, according to the anti-Zionist delator Tony Judt, an “anachronism.” But such pronouncements and convictions are merely an attempt to launder one’s irrational bigotries or dissemble one’s innate aversions. The current situation makes this blatantly evident. The name of the game is Judeophobia.

For the disproportion between the world’s response to a healthy, robust, legitimate and embattled democratic state the size of New Jersey and the vast cesspools of tyranny, oppression, insurgence, violence and depredation that litter the globe is incommensurable. With only occasional exceptions, the world trains its gaze almost exclusively on Israel. “One wonders,” writes Matthew Hausman, “how they can be so consumed with Israel’s alleged indiscretions and yet ignore the totalitarian and theocratic tendencies of the nations comprising the Arab-Muslim world.” Good question.

The Palestinians’ campaign to get official United Nations approval of their bid for statehood status is proceeding on multiple fronts. Their application for full UN member state status, submitted with great fanfare to the Security Council on September 23rd, is making its way through the Security Council Committee on Admission of New Members, which consists of representatives appointed from each of the fifteen Security Council members. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are also pursuing membership in the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The Palestinians’ UNESCO bid is on the faster track. It cleared a major hurdle by receiving the approval of forty out of the fifty-eight countries on UNESCO’s executive board to move forward with a vote by UNESCO’s entire 193 state membership later this month on whether to accept Palestinian membership in UNESCO. The United States, Germany, Romania and Latvia voted against. Fourteen members of the executive board, including Spain and France, abstained.

Elias Sanbar, Palestinian UNESCO observer representative applauded the executive committee’s decision:

“It’s the beginning of a new time. A time when Palestine, having had its name and its rights recognised and returned, will finally be able to exercise fully, responsibly, independently, freely and as a sovereign state, its activities in every field.”

The UNESCO executive committee decided to move ahead on a Palestinian UNESCO membership vote while the issue of full state membership in the entire United Nations organization was still before the United Nations Security Council. That should come as no surprise. The UNESCO executive committee is presently headed by Russia. While the United States and some other true functioning democracies are members of the executive committee, they are surrounded by the likes of Algeria, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, China, Cuba, and Venezuela.

The Palestinians know they have friends at UNESCO.  Its executive board has been complicit in the Palestinians’ drive to deny international recognition of the Jewish peoples’ unique religious and historic connection to holy sites such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem. With a stroke of the pen, UNESCO designated the Jewish holy site of Rachel’s Tomb as primarily a mosque. UNESCO also erased from the official record the remarks by Israeli representative Nimrod Barkan criticizing UNESCO’s decision. His remarks were deemed “too aggressive.” In the United Nations, telling the truth is considered too aggressive.

Allowing the Palestinian entity to become a full member of UNESCO would give them more standing to pressure the UN agency, which is supposedly devoted to culture, science and education, into erasing recognition of Jewish history and culture in extensive areas of the Holy Land. The Palestinians would do so by using UNESCO as their propaganda instrument to interfere with Israel’s legitimate archeological activities and to falsely re-brand Jewish historical sites as Muslim sites.

Thus, the moment that UNESCO votes the Palestinians into UNESCO, the United States must exit and take its 22 percent funding (about $87 million a year) of UNESCO’s total budget with it. As U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen put it, “the Palestinian leadership is shopping around the U.N. system for recognition. This attempt to rig the process needs to be stopped dead in its tracks. Our contributions are our strongest leverage at the U.N., and should be used to stand up for our interests and allies and stop this dangerous Palestinian scheme.”

However, UNESCO is a sideshow.  The Security Council is the center stage for the Palestinians’ campaign to become a full-fledged member state of the United Nations.

The Palestinians need nine members of the Security Council in favor of their application, with none of the five permanent veto holding members opposing it.  India, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, China and Lebanon are the Palestinians’ strongest supporters on the Security Council.

Bosnia, Nigeria and Gabon are non-committal so far. A claim by the Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki that his delegation has secured eight votes in favor of their application has not been confirmed.

The Obama administration has promised to veto any Security Council resolution recommending UN membership for the Palestinians to the General Assembly. But it is trying to avoid having to exercise its veto power by locking down enough Council votes either against or abstaining on the Palestinian membership application to make the veto unnecessary. The U.S., along with its European allies, are also making a fresh attempt to revive direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. But that is a long shot, especially if the Palestinians think they can get what they want through the UN route.

The Palestinians’ application is presently being considered by the Security Council Committee on Admission of New Members, which met for the first time on October 7th to address a number of procedural issues. There is no formal deadline announced for the Committee to report back to the Security Council body.

The six Palestinian promoters on the Security Council are complaining that the European members, including Germany in particular, are deliberately trying to slow the committee review process down. They accuse the Europeans of raising unnecessary legalistic issues, according to sources cited by Inner City Press who are familiar with what went on during the committee’s secret deliberations. All that needs to be done, they argue, is to look at the short list of criteria for UN membership in Article 4.1 of the UN Charter, which the Palestinians claim they will comply with.

There is just one small problem, if the new membership criteria were taken seriously. The Palestinians do not come anywhere close to meeting them.

Article 4.1 states: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”

Palestine first has to be deemed a state under the standards of international law. And it has to accept all the UN Charter obligations. One of those obligations is “to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” (Article 2.4)

During these past few months, we have seen a real change in the Arab world. We have all watched the dramatic protests, first in Tunisia and then in Tahrir Square, protests that have effected a real change in the Arab world and that have brought hope to tens of millions of people who had lived under decades of crushing, autocratic rule.

We join in the celebrations of freedom for the Arab people. We wholeheartedly support freedom and democracy all around the world, and we are cautiously encouraged by what has happened. The United States stands by everyone who wants freedom and liberty. President Roosevelt listed the Four Freedoms and they are just as necessary today as they did in the dark early days of World War II. As he stated them, they are:

• Freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.
• Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.
• Freedom from want — securing to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants —everywhere in the world.
• And freedom from fear — everywhere in the world.

These are not just slogans, and these goals are not unrealistic. These are the primary foreign policy goals of the United States.

The Arab Spring shows that all people want, and deserve, real freedom.

My commitment is to do everything possible to bring that freedom not only to the Arab world but to every country on the planet.

Unfortunately, freedom is not free. One cannot just wave a magic wand and expect nations to embrace real freedoms on their own. Elections alone do not make a democracy. It takes time to build up the institutions of democracy, to give people a real choice in who they want to govern them. People must be exposed to the entire marketplace of ideas before making their own decisions. The process can be bumpy, and rushing it can be as counterproductive as not doing it at all.

Three times in the last century has the world been threatened by vicious, evil, totalitarian movements.  The first two were communism and Nazism. Even though both of them used the terminology of freedom and civil rights, both of these movements were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

They were fundamentally against freedom and they brought with them a swath of destruction and genocide.

There is a third, equally dangerous movement, and it is especially worrisome in the Arab world. That movement is Islamism.

Make no mistake–I am not talking about Islam. In a democratic, free world, everyone has the choice of which religion they want to follow, or not to follow one at all. That freedom is sacrosanct. Islam is a major world religion and it deserves as much respect as any other personal religion.
But Islamism is a political movement whose goals are no less destructive than Nazism and Communism were in the 20th century. Political Islamism seeks nothing less than domination of people, subjugation of women, cessation of freedom of speech, and little choice in how people worship.

Islamism’s principles are antithetical to each of the Four Freedoms of President Roosevelt. It is an inherently evil movement that creates an environment of fear among those who are unfortunate enough to live under its strictures.
Islam, as a personal religion, needs to be protected. Islamism, the political movement, needs to be destroyed.

Only when this occurs can there be truly an Arab Spring. Only when the hundreds of millions of Arabs feel free to express themselves without fear, to change religions without fear, to elect women as their leaders without fear–only then can we say that spring has come to the Arab world.

Any government that is based on Islamic law is, by definition, a government that rejects the basic tenets of human rights, of true equality before the law.

This must change. The sooner that Islamism is defeated, the sooner than Arabs can enjoy real freedom and security.
This is the main reason why the recent unity agreement in the Palestinian Arab territories is so problematic. Hamas is an Islamist, terrorist group. It is not interested a free, democratic Palestinian state–instead, it is dedicated to creating a pan-Islamist nation stretching across three continents. Gaza is a regime of fear, and people there have suffered greatly as a direct result of Hamas’ aggressive, violent, anti-freedom agenda. While unity may be a laudable goal, it can only work as long as all of the parties agree to the basic principles of freedom and democracy. Hamas is not an organization that is even capable of such thoughts.

While American policy has been to create a Palestinian state, statehood itself is not a right. It must be earned. The Palestinian Arab people must elect, and be led by, leaders who truly understand the necessity of these four freedoms, and the importance of real peace.

Unfortunately, this has not yet happened. The Palestinian Arab Fatah leadership has consistently chosen incitement over true peace and cooperation with Israel, the Jewish state. They have adamantly refused to continue peace negotiations. And now they have chosen to partner with a terror group instead of move toward a real, permanent solution to Arab-Israeli peace.

Let me be clear. Israel exhibits all of the freedoms we are discussing, even while under a constant state of war. It is a strong, reliable ally of the United States. America will never abandon Israel nor will we endanger it.

Israel’s freedoms should be the model that the Arab world follows as it moves toward a true spring. And when the Arab world is ready to make a real, true peace with the Jewish state, the payoff will be tremendous for everyone, as all of the artificial fear and hate that has been stoked over the decades will melt away.

I am not talking about a detente, or a paper truce with Israel. I am talking about real peace, where Jewish doctors can come to Arab countries to treat Muslim children, where poets from Syria can recite their works in a Tel Aviv concert hall, where Arab and Israeli researchers can work together to solve shared problems such as water, energy and the environment.

This is my vision for peace and my vision for the Middle East. We have spent too much time missing the forest for the trees. Real peace will not come from endless meetings haggling over borders, nor from using human rights terminology to push a hateful agenda. A true peace will only exist where Arab and Jew alike can feel free to travel, speak and laugh in the entire region, without fear from their cousins. I want to see a train line running from Jerusalem to Amman, a highway from Haifa to Beirut, commercial airliners flying from Riyadh to Tel Aviv.

This is what an Arab Spring must result in. It is not merely a dream, but it is a vision that everyone needs to work toward. As the president of the United States, I  intend to lead the way toward this vision. I urge you you help me in this task.

Thank you, and God bless you.

In reaction to the Palestinian Authority-Hamas unity deal signed in Cairo last week, Israel decided to turn off the spigot. It halted the transfer to the PA of over $100 million in customs and tax revenues.

Considering that, even under the right-of-center Netanyahu government, Israel has generally whitewashed the PA, Netanyahu even having called its president Mahmoud Abbas his “partner in peace” last September, it was a notably assertive step for Israel. And it appears to have hit the PA hard.

Although the European Union immediately announced that it would put up the money in Israel’s stead, it’s not clear when the sum will materialize. Meanwhile it was reported on Thursday that PA prime minister Salam Fayyad was turning to tight-fisted Arab states for help, claiming the PA was unable to pay the April salaries of 155,000 government workers and intoning at a news briefing: “We say to our Arab brothers: save us. We need your help more than any time before. It is the moment of truth.”

It was further reported on Thursday that Fayyad—sounding pretty desperate—was considering asking the UN Security Council to force Israel to hand over the money.

While the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, the EU have kept a distance from Hamas, the idea that the PA could be accountable for anything it does is indeed unfamiliar. In addition to the EU having claimed it would fill in for Israel on the transfer payment, its foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has called on Israel to relent and make the payment itself, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon directly told Netanyahu to do so in a phone call.

Israel, in having drawn the line at the PA’s deal with Hamas while more or less countenancing its other actions up to that point, is partly responsible for this state of affairs. Netanyahu has seen a diplomatic advantage for Israel in showing a generous tolerance toward the PA and repeatedly imploring it to join him in “peace talks.”

On Wednesday, Khaled Meshal of Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah came together in Cairo and publicly signed a historic reconciliation agreement, in front of a room filed with supporters from the Arab world and the international community.

Didn’t they?

Actually, they didn’t.

Al Quds al-Arabi mentions, almost in passing:

Notably, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas did not sign the agreement, as expected, and neither did Mr. Khaled Meshaal of the Islamic Resistance Movement ‘Hamas.’

The New York Times noticed this as well:

In what appeared a sign of lingering friction, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal did not share the podium with Abbas and the ceremony was delayed briefly over where he would sit. Against expectations, neither signed the unity document.

That wasn’t the only weird thing that happened at the ceremony that was meant to signify a new chapter in harmonious intra-Palestinian Arab relations. There were actual public disagreements on stage, concerning who was to speak, where people were to sit, and how Mahmoud Abbas should be described (as the “president of Palestine” or as the leader of Fatah.) In fact, from all appearances, Hamas is not recognizing Abbas as the real president of the “unified” leadership!

Put all of this together and the real picture begins to emerge: the entire “unity” agreement is a facade meant to placate Westerners (as well as restive Palestinian Arabs who are eying the revolutions and demonstrations happening around them.) In reality, Hamas and Fatah hate each other as much as ever.

There are no indications that Hamas is giving up any of its security or political power in Gaza. Quite the opposite: Hamas yesterday brazenly executed an alleged “spy,” which according to Palestinian Arab law must not happen without presidential approval.

Also in Gaza yesterday, Palestinian Arabs celebrated this wonderful “unity” by showing posters depicting one of their other heroes:

Why is the Western world believing–and supporting!–this sham that is meant to ultimately create a terror state, one that will not compromise in the least on its major goal of destroying Israel?

Hamas throws up no smokescreens about its objectives–a worldwide caliphate and the destruction of Israel as the Jewish state. By all accounts Hamas will be the more powerful force in this arrangement.  Almost immediately after the deal was announced,  Hamas representatives..

…emphasized that the new unity agreement, reached on Wednesday, did not require them to accept the two-state solution or to engage in peace talks with Israel.

They also stressed that the interim unity government that was expected to be established soon would not conduct peace negotiations with Israel.

Even the “moderate” PA President Abbas admitted that peace was no longer a goal. On May 3rd he said to the  the Al-Aharam newspaper:

“There is no need to demand that Hamas recognize Israel. The PA will not request that it do so.”

Why should Abbas demand Hamas recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland when his own Fatah party doesn’t?  By any measure, this deal is a danger to peace, the U.S. interests in the area, and our ally Israel.

Here in the United States, some of the Palestinians’ most useful propaganda tools are already taking advantage of the progressive media already heralding the agreement as the best thing for peace. Take, for example, Robert Malley.  For those who are unfamiliar with Mr. Malley, he is a former adviser to Barack Obama, and a second-generation Israel hater.  I do not believe the sins of the father is visited on the son, but this son has chosen to follow in his dad’s footsteps.

Malley grew up in France, where his Egyptian-born father, Simon Malley, and New York raised mother, Barbara (Silverstein) Malley, were radical publishers of a controversial magazine about Africa and the so-called Third World. Malley’s parents were rabidly anti-Israel and counted Yasir Arafat as a personal friend. Indeed, Arafat was among those “leaders” (for want of a better word) who had intervened with the French government to readmit the Malley family to France after they had been expelled for their radical activities.

Malley’s personal pedigree not only includes a host of anti-Israel articles, but the former aide to Bill Clinton is the only American privy to the Clinton peace efforts to blame Israel for their lack of success. Everyone else, including the former President, said that Yassir Arafat walked away from a “sweetheart” deal.  He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat’s role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.

Formerly a member of Obama’s campaign team, Malley was supposedly fired by the campaign for having secret meetings with Hamas, but he was a willing sacrificial lamb to make Obama look good.  Now Malley serves progressive puppet-master George Soros as he is currently Program Director for Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group, an international think tank funded by the “dude of spooky” himself.

Most of the people who read Malley’s recent piece in the Washington Post pushing Hamas as an important peace partner are probably unfamiliar with his background as an apologist for Palestinian terror. But a close reading of the op-ed reveals his propagandist methodology.

Surprisingly there is one childish myth that many otherwise intelligent adults cling on to. That’s the myth that the Fatah party, run by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, is moderate. People ignore what Abbas’ party says and does so they can believe the unbelievable–that he is a moderate. Sadly, they are just being unreasonable and immature. Let me suggest you are more likely to look up into the winter sky and see a fat guy with a red coat and white beard on a sled being pulled by flying reindeer, than see a truly moderate member of the Fatah party.

Allow me to give you an example. During the most recent Fatah convention (2009), a  senior Fatah member Rafik Natsheh announced that their group will never recognize Israel, and will continue to call for war against Israel.

Fatah does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, nor have we ever asked others to do so.

Fatah has never stopped performing terrorist acts against Israeli citizens; Fatah claimed credit for the recent attack in Itamar where two terrorists slipped into the house of the Fogel family, murdered both parents, two of their sons and slashed their infant daughter’s throat. Only they didn’t call it Fatah.

Like most terrorist groups Fatah has a scam that governments and media buy into.  Its called a “military wing.” Fatah’s military wing is called the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Whenever they carry out a new attack on innocent civilians, it is the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades who carries it out.  The group is part of Fatah, takes its orders from Fatah, but because they have a different name Fatah gets a pass.  It would be like President Obama getting on the television to announce that the United State’s “military wing” was responsible for killing bin Laden.

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades has another role: to make the more radical statements so President Abbas can preserve his role as a faux-peacemaker.  Therefore, Abbas did not say anything about the death of bin Laden–he didn’t have to, his “military wing” handled it for him.

They called the killing of their fellow terrorist a “catastrophe.”  And those who killed Bin Laden were “gangs of heretics.”

“The [military wing of Fatah] Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades announced the death of Sheikh Osama bin Laden (Abu Abdallah), and said that if bin Laden had indeed died as a Shahid (Martyr), this would not deter the resistance fighters from the path of Jihad against injustice, oppression and occupation in the world.

In their announcement, a copy of which reached MAAN [private Palestinian news agency], the [Al-Aqsa Martyrs'] Brigades said:

‘The Islamic nation awoke to a catastrophe the reports of the Shahid – (Martyr-) death of the Sheikh, Jihad-fighter Osama bin Laden, in a treacherous manner, by the gangs of the heretics and those who stray.’

They continued: ‘The path irrigated with the blood of its leaders is the path of victory, Allah willing. If Abu Abdallah [Bin Laden] was killed, then he merited the Shahada (Death for Allah) which he had sought, and inscribed with his blood the landmarks of Jihad, leaving behind an entire generation that follows the path of Sheikh Osama.’

They said: ‘The military wings of the Jihad fighters in Palestine and outside of it, who have in the past lost many of their commanders and their men, will not stop. This has only strengthened their determination, their resolve and their loyalty to theirShahids (Martyrs), who have turned their words into a reality testifying to their honesty, and which in fact bolsters the drive and the strength of their brothers on the path to victory or Shahdada (Death for Allah)’.

The announcement continued: ‘We say to the American and Israeli occupier: the [Islamic] nation which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad and their endurance, is a nation that is capable of supplying an abundance of new blood into the arteries of the resistance and is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah’s oneness, Allah willing.’”

Yikes, now that didn’t sound very moderate to me. In fact it sounded very much like Hamas, which is recognized a terrorist group. As the NY Times reported;

Hamas officials here condemned on Monday the American operation that killed Osama Bin Laden, with Ismail Haniya, the leader of the Hamas government, calling it a “continuation of the United States policy of destruction.”

Ismail al-Ashqar, a Hamas lawmaker, described it as “state terrorism that America carries out against Muslims.”

There in itself is the reason why Fatah is more dangerous than Hamas.  You see, Hamas doesn’t try to hide its intentions, both its political and “military arms” (yes they have one of those also) are honest in their hatred of Israel.  Fatah, on the other hand, tries to show its moderation through its political arm, but its true intentions via Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Sadly most of the world believes there is a difference between Hamas and Fatah, but as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades prove, that belief should be filed in the same place as other childhood fantasies.

How convenient that Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast is saying that the U.S. has no reason to keep troops in the Middle East now that Osama bin Laden is dead, and thus terrorism has been eliminated. Far from it. Iran continues calls for the obliteration of Israel, President Ahmedinijad called on Arabs to “free” themselves from “arrogant powers” (the U.S. and Israel), and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said:

People of the Middle East, the Muslim region and North Africa — people of these regions — hate America from the bottom of their heart.

Islamists are seizing the occasion of Osama bin Laden’s death to undermine the US’ resolve against terrorism, but the War on Terror is far from over. Islamists continue their hate-driven quest to conquer Western infidels, with Iran becoming increasingly powerful, and now, successfully wooing Egypt–an increasingly radicalized country since Hosni Mubarak’s departure.

Most Egyptians want an end to the peace treaty with Israel, according to an opinion poll.  The survey also showed strong support for Islamic law and for the Muslim Brotherhood, which condemned the American killing of bin Laden and issued an inauspicious request:

The Muslim Brotherhood asks the US to stop conducting intelligence operations against those who disagree with them and to stop interfering in the business of Arab and Muslim countries

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and al Qaeda, though at odds in methodology, are conjoined twins in their objectives to conquer the world and subdue it under dhimmitude.  The MB is attempting to undermine the American resistance against stealth and violent Jihad as it continues to serve in its own Axis of Resistance “led by Iran and comprising Syria and non-state but nonetheless popular nationalist actors such as Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.”

Iran and Egypt have also been conducting so-called diplomatic meetings; Iran has now appointed its first ambassador to Egypt in over 30 years and Egypt, after years of cooperating with the Israeli blockade of Gaza, ended it for so-called humanitarian reasons after the flotilla incident.  Now, following secret negotiations, Egypt has mediated a reconciliation deal between rival Hamas and Fatah as it brokers a restructuring and unifying of Hamas security forces to assist the Palestinians.

Voices of appeasement coming from the far Left about provoking Islamists throughout the Muslim world are bound to surface with the killing of Bin Laden. But America and its allies need to continue vigilance and an even tougher resolve against the forces of terrorism and Islamism in the wake of Bin Laden’s death and with the rapidly developing events in the Middle East.

There are times when those on the Left arise to defend Israel and end up proving, ironically, that American liberalism’s break with the Jewish state is real and dramatic.

Jeffrey Goldberg’s recent article defending Israel’s “special relationship” with the U.S. is one such example. He correctly identifies “liberals” as the demographic that is abandoning Israel, but thinks they have legitimate grievances against the Jewish state. In addition, he wrongly blames the growing partisan divide with regards to Israel on a ploy by Netanyahu and the Republicans. The fact that Republican pro-Israel pronouncements are enough to make leftists feel squeamish about sharing the pro-Israel space tells you all you need to know about the depth–or lack thereof–of the Left’s commitment to Israel.

Goldberg writes:

“It is true that Israel’s many friends on Capitol Hill, and many leading figures in the Democratic Party, would work tirelessly to protect Israel’s relationship with America in case of a collision between the U.S. president and the Israeli prime minister, but it is also true that Israel may one day soon find itself with fewer friends in America — in particular on the coasts and among the elites — than it previously had. Already, the Netanyahu government seems to have acquiesced to a Republican scheme to turn support for Israel in America into a partisan issue, which has obvious dangers for Israel. Particularly among liberals, Israel’s reputation is waning dramatically, and the Arab Spring will only accelerate this trend.”

When Goldberg refers to those “on the coasts” and “among the elites,” he clearly means liberals. Further down he simply states it outright, that support for Israel is “waning” among “liberals.” Goldberg touches on the elephant in the room that liberal Jews will simply not acknowledge.

According to Commentary magazine:

Remarkably, only 39 percent of Democrats agree that Israel’s enemies are our enemies, while 70 percent of Republicans and 48 percent of independents do. A plurality (42 percent) of Democrats do let on that Obama’s approach in criticizing Israel but not the Palestinians is objectionable, but that figure once again is far lower than it is for Republicans (68 percent) and independents (57 percent). Should Jerusalem remain Israel’s undivided capital? Sixty-three percent of Republicans agree, but only a plurality of Democrats (42 percent) do. Who’s responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Seventy-three percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents say it is the Palestinians fault; only 46 percent of Democrats agree.

Goldberg is accurate that there are many Democratic leaders who firmly support Israel, including Steny Hoyer, Henry Waxman and Howard Berman. However, support for Israel is still much stronger among Republican representatives. In 2009, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the now disgraced Goldstone Report which accused Israel of war crimes; 33 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted against the resolution. But Goldberg, instead of questioning this lack of support for Israel among leftists and Democrats, criticizes Netanyahu and the Republicans for attempting to turn support for Israel into a “partisan issue.” This is a false observation. To the extent that support of Israel is becoming a partisan issue, it is not because of the devious plans of Netanyahu and the Republicans, it is because that is the unfortunate reality of the situation. If Goldberg is seriously concerned about the lack of support for Israel in America, he should advise his readers to vote for Republicans.

Later on, Goldberg makes it seem as though leftists who are growing tired of Israel have legitimate reasons:

The West Bank has been occupied now for 44 years. It is increasingly difficult to argue that the occupation is impermanent. I believe Americans still have a benevolent understanding of Israel — that it is a plucky democratic outpost and a haven for an oppressed people in an inhospitable part of the world. This perception, to my mind, is not wrong. But this interpretation of Israel dissipates with each year of occupation. Israel is popular in America in part because Americans believe, to borrow the most famous cliché in Middle East policymaking, that the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But more and more — and I hear this every week now — Americans, in particular those who pay attention to these things, believe that it is Israel that is missing opportunities to reach a compromise with the Palestinians. If, over time, Israel becomes unrecognizable to Americans, it will lose.

Here Goldberg is making excuses for those leftists who do not support Israel. If Americans sincerely feel the way Goldberg describes, that Israel is “missing opportunities to reach a compromise with the Palestinians,” then they are not clear thinkers. Who exactly does Mr. Goldberg want Israel to compromise with? Hamas and Fatah are on the verge of reuniting. How can Israel negotiate with an entity that includes Hamas, who openly calls for the destruction of Israel?

This is all preposterous. There have never been a people in the history of humanity less deserving of a country than the Palestinians. Palestinian society promotes hate and death. After 9/11, Palestinian civilians could be seen celebrating in the streets, handing out candy. Palestinian streets are named to commemorate terrorists, who murder innocent Israelis.

Nonetheless, the Palestinians have been offered their own state several times, including in 1947 when they rejected the offer, as the neighboring Arab countries launched war on Israel. In 2000, under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, they rejected their own state and initiated the second intifada. Then again in 2008 Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians a state of their own and they refused. What people like Mr. Goldberg fail to understand is that the creation of a Palestinian state is not the goal of the Palestinians or the hard-core Israel haters here in America. Their stated goal is to destroy all of Israel.

Conversely, Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. It has a culture, history and tradition that is completely original, and worthy of defending and conserving. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, where Judaism was born. In addition, the Jews have a unique history of being oppressed. They were outcasts in every society they have lived, dating back two thousand years ago when they were expelled from Israel, and culminating with the Holocaust, where the Nazis nearly exterminated the entire Jewish race (which is the goal of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamists). Contrary to the Palestinians, there have never been a people more deserving of a homeland than the Jews. Yet Israel is the most hated country in the world.

The leftist and human rights advocates who truly want to help people in need, instead of hounding Israel to make suicidal concessions to a people bent on their destruction, should lobby on behalf of the Kurds, the Tibetans or the Sudanese. If they are determined to help the Palestinian cause, instead of lobbying against Israel, they should focus their energy on reforming Palestinian society, and particularly on defeating Hamas in Gaza.

That being said the juxtaposition of the elimination of bin Laden with the so-called reconciliation of Fatah and Hamas is striking.

Al-Qaeda has remained a pariah and no nation has offered to defend it publicly.

But the same cannot be said for Hamas.

The longtime conflict between Fatah and Hamas has been intense for well over a decade and often led to internecine violence. That is now over.

Al-Qaeda after Bin laden is still a very real threat and fight against it will continue. Tragically, though, the willingness of successive U.S. Administrations and European governments to recognize the legitimacy of Fatah complicates the war on terror. Fatah now stands with Hamas and the two organizations seem committed to working together and moving forward in concert.

Admiral James Stavridis, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill in late March reported that there was significant al-Qaeda activity among the rebel groups in Libya. The admiral and others pointed at that there is still much to be concerned about in regard to the growth and strength of al-Qaeda.

There are too few decision-makers in Europe and the U.S. that see Hamas as the illegal Islamic terrorist army that it is and understand that it needs to be totally annihilated. Hamas is al-Qaeda’s partner in the war on Israel. Rohan Gunaratna documented this in his 2002 book “Inside Al Qaeda,” writing that “Al Qaeda has forged ties with Hamas…”

Hamas celebrated in the hours after the 9/11 attacks by distributing candy to Gazan school children.

Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Fatah share much more in common than they disagree about. The Fatah/Hamas alliance illustrates this fact in a profound manner.

The commitment by the U.S. and our allies to stop al-Qaeda must be extended to eliminating the terrorist threat emanating from Hamas and Fatah.

This popular post was originally published on April 28, 2011

It’s the Arab Spring and love is in the air.   After a torrid on-and-off affair, rival terrorist political factions Hamas and Fatah are on again.  According to mutual best-friend Egypt, things are red-hot.

On Wednesday, Hamas and Fatah engaged in forming an interim government while promising to decide on a date for general elections.  According to Egyptian intelligence, “The consultations resulted in full understandings over all points of discussions,” including the color for the bridal party: blood red.

A traditional reception will follow the political nuptials, the highlight of which will be the “beginning anew of the Palestinian struggle,” hosted by Deputy Hamas politburo chief Abu Marzouk.

While details of the guest list have yet to be announced, Fatah Central Committee Member Azzam Ahmad declared that “non-partisan elements that will represent the Palestinian people” will be encouraged to attend.  However, analysts speculate that one name will be notably absent from the list: Gilad Shalit, the Israeli Army soldier currently being held captive by Hamas for 1,767 days and counting.

Not surprisingly, the recently liberated Egyptian government played a strategic role in reuniting the former lovers.   Bored with their decades-old union with the Jewish state, the newer, fresher Egypt is seeking to re-brand its image; according to 54% of Egyptians, this means de-friending Israel.

Scoring mutual “Likes” in the process, the interim Egyptian military government and Hamas dictatorship used the opportunity to do a little bonding of their own; relationship-building that was initiated with the release of “scores” of Palestinian prisoners from Egyptian jails over the past few weeks.  It is expected that Egypt will play best man to Hamas in the upcoming union.  Planned pre-wedding activities include the re-opening of the Rafah border crossing between Sinai and the Gaza Strip.  A rumored bachelor party promise: The establishment of Hamas’s “unofficial embassy” in Cairo.

But, the military government can’t take all the credit.  Love, in more ways than one, drew the rivals together.  The popular uprisings in the Arab world rekindled feelings of mutual hatred; Egypt only needed to ignite the flickering sparks during ceremonies honoring the beloved late Terrorist-in-Chief Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat.

Speaking on behalf of Israel (the scorned woman in the scenario) Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a desperate plea for mediation, lest her already shaky union with Fatah truly comes to an end.  “It’s either us, or Hamas; you can’t have us both!” the prime minister declared.

Citing the violent behavior of their “peace partner’s” ex-lover, Netanyahu warned that missiles and rockets being fired into Israel at both ends would put the nation in the middle of an intolerable situation.

Prospects for reconciliation between the disgruntled partners look dim.  For example, Fatah has already declared a desire to dump the couple’s mediator:  “An aide to Mr. Abbas stated recently he would sacrifice US financial assistance if this was the price of unity.”

It would seem that Fatah is following the lead of their reconciled lover.  Declaring a strong desire for independence Hamas, it would seem, wants the other woman out of the picture completely: “The agreement is the beginning and we shall take quick steps to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state.”

Israel, it would seem, is fooling herself if she thinks her mediator will step in to save the day.

According to Ha’aretz’s Zvi Bar’el, “Even the United States will not be able to object to a united Palestinian government, in which Hamas is a partner. After all, it had agreed to accept and even support, economically and militarily, a Lebanese government in which Hezbollah was partner. Nor will the United States and Europe be able to object to general elections in the territories, or deny their results, when the West is demanding Arab leaders implement democratic reforms.”  In short, “Israel could find itself isolated yet again if it objects to the reconciliation or the election.”

Could a Hamas-Fatah union reveal the true nature of her abusive lover for the world to see?  If so, would that make a difference to the 100 nations now on his side?  Or will the international community continue to turn a blind eye to what has become the obvious truth in the melodrama: The violent partner wants his victim dead, for good.

For advocates of the abused woman, only one adage can offer any reassurance:  “Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.”

The entire impetus for the Fatah-Hamas “unity” agreement is the September attempt to get “Palestine” to be internationally recognized at the UN.

And today Fatah freely admits it:

Senior Fatah official Tawfiq Tirawi said Thursday that the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation will promote Palestinian interests ahead of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ planned statehood bid in September, making it “more important than peace with Israel.”

“We want this reconciliation to arrive at the UN General Assembly united. Appealing to the United Nations will be done with the support of all Palestinian factions and all the nations that have recognized a Palestinian state until now.”

Fatah and Hamas hate each other and have no desire to cede their respective power. They will keep things together just long enough for September and their hoped-for international recognition. This is exactly what they have done in the past.

And here is how the PA is planning to incorporate Hamas while pretending that “Palestine” accepts Israel’s right to exist:

Tirawi dismissed concerns voiced over the possibility that a future Palestinian government with Hamas in it will refuse to negotiate with Israel, saying that the Palestinian government will have “no say” in such peace talks, since “the only body allowed to negotiate with Israel on behalf of the Palestinian people is the PLO.”

So this is the game:

The PLO is the party that negotiates with Israel, and the party that officially recognizes Israel.

The PA is only responsible for governing the Arabs in the territories, not with any foreign relations.

The PA, despite claims of being democratic, reports to the PLO.

The fake Hamas/Fatah reconciliation is meant to only address the PA, not the PLO. They won’t hold any elections until after September, if ever.

So the PLO will claim to still recognize Israel and be peaceful, as it will claim that from its perspective nothing has changed.

The instant that Palestine is declared a state that is recognized by the world, in part because of these assurances that it is a peaceful state that recognizes Israel, Hamas and Fatah (and all the other terrorist parties that decide to join the government) will immediately take over the PLO’s foreign affairs, as that is what nations do. The PLO’s foreign affairs role will be superseded by “Palestine.”

Which means that the very minute that Palestine is recognized as a state, it will be by definition a terror state that no longer recognizes Israel! And indeed it will not need to. The entire peace process since Oslo has been a sham in order to gain territory, with peace being a tactic, not a strategy.

Hamas will insist that “Palestine”‘s foreign policy adhere to minimal Hamas demands, which is pretty much to insist that all of Israel is occupied territory–a position that the PA and PLO wholly agree with even if they will not say it in English. Their maps and logos show it to be true.

So instead of helping peace, this “unity” agreement is a recipe for prolonging and accelerating a six-decade war between the Arab world and Israel. A new “Palestine” would not help solve any of the real issues–like Jerusalem, “refugees,” water, Gilad Shalit, incitement to terror, actual terrorism. Hamas’ inclusion ensures that it will not be a peaceful state.

Will the West wake up in time to stop this recipe for disaster?

It’s the Arab Spring and love is in the air.   After a torrid on-and-off affair, rival terrorist political factions Hamas and Fatah are on again.  According to mutual best-friend Egypt, things are red-hot.

On Wednesday, Hamas and Fatah engaged in forming an interim government while promising to decide on a date for general elections.  According to Egyptian intelligence, “The consultations resulted in full understandings over all points of discussions,” including the color for the bridal party: blood red.

A traditional reception will follow the political nuptials, the highlight of which will be the “beginning anew of the Palestinian struggle,” hosted by Deputy Hamas politburo chief Abu Marzouk.

While details of the guest list have yet to be announced, Fatah Central Committee Member Azzam Ahmad declared that “non-partisan elements that will represent the Palestinian people” will be encouraged to attend.  However, analysts speculate that one name will be notably absent from the list: Gilad Shalit, the Israeli Army soldier currently being held captive by Hamas for 1,767 days and counting.

Not surprisingly, the recently liberated Egyptian government played a strategic role in reuniting the former lovers.   Bored with their decades-old union with the Jewish state, the newer, fresher Egypt is seeking to re-brand its image; according to 54% of Egyptians, this means de-friending Israel.

Scoring mutual “Likes” in the process, the interim Egyptian military government and Hamas dictatorship used the opportunity to do a little bonding of their own; relationship-building that was initiated with the release of “scores” of Palestinian prisoners from Egyptian jails over the past few weeks.  It is expected that Egypt will play best man to Hamas in the upcoming union.  Planned pre-wedding activities include the re-opening of the Rafah border crossing between Sinai and the Gaza Strip.  A rumored bachelor party promise: The establishment of Hamas’s “unofficial embassy” in Cairo.

But, the military government can’t take all the credit.  Love, in more ways than one, drew the rivals together.  The popular uprisings in the Arab world rekindled feelings of mutual hatred; Egypt only needed to ignite the flickering sparks during ceremonies honoring the beloved late Terrorist-in-Chief Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat.

Speaking on behalf of Israel (the scorned woman in the scenario) Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a desperate plea for mediation, lest her already shaky union with Fatah truly comes to an end.  “It’s either us, or Hamas; you can’t have us both!” the prime minister declared.

Citing the violent behavior of their “peace partner’s” ex-lover, Netanyahu warned that missiles and rockets being fired into Israel at both ends would put the nation in the middle of an intolerable situation.

Prospects for reconciliation between the disgruntled partners look dim.  For example, Fatah has already declared a desire to dump the couple’s mediator:  “An aide to Mr. Abbas stated recently he would sacrifice US financial assistance if this was the price of unity.”

It would seem that Fatah is following the lead of their reconciled lover.  Declaring a strong desire for independence Hamas, it would seem, wants the other woman out of the picture completely: “The agreement is the beginning and we shall take quick steps to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state.”

Israel, it would seem, is fooling herself if she thinks her mediator will step in to save the day.

According to Ha’aretz’s Zvi Bar’el, “Even the United States will not be able to object to a united Palestinian government, in which Hamas is a partner. After all, it had agreed to accept and even support, economically and militarily, a Lebanese government in which Hezbollah was partner. Nor will the United States and Europe be able to object to general elections in the territories, or deny their results, when the West is demanding Arab leaders implement democratic reforms.”  In short, “Israel could find itself isolated yet again if it objects to the reconciliation or the election.”

Could a Hamas-Fatah union reveal the true nature of her abusive lover for the world to see?  If so, would that make a difference to the 100 nations now on his side?  Or will the international community continue to turn a blind eye to what has become the obvious truth in the melodrama: The violent partner wants his victim dead, for good.

For advocates of the abused woman, only one adage can offer any reassurance:  “Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.”

When Karl Marx’s collaborator Friedrich Engels referred to the Roman statesman/philosopher Cicero as “the most contemptible scoundrel in history” he could have just as easily been describing the politicians and municipal employees of Cicero, Illinois.

Over the last decade or so the reports of corruption and crime emanating from Cicero rival the other tales of dirty politics that Illinois has become so infamous for. Rod Blagojevich and his crew have nothing on the pols in Cicero.

The most recent story involves the town president, Larry Dominick and his wife Elizabeth Dominick. The current paid town spokesman who responded to the allegations is Ray Hanania–who Raoul Felder exposed as an Israel basher in 2002.

Here’s how The Chicago Tribune reported the latest Dominick story:

Elizabeth resigned on April 12 as “as director of Cicero’s health department, saying her salary was too low and her boss wouldn’t give her a raise. Her boss is Larry Dominick, who is her husband and Cicero’s town president. “My husband said it would look bad if he gave me a raise,” said Elizabeth after a board of trustees meeting at which she announced her resignation. Elizabeth was hired in 2007, three months after she and Larry were married, becoming one of several relatives of Larry Dominick’s who have been on the Cicero payroll. At the time, her annual salary was $60,319. She said Tuesday her current salary was $71,000.”

In 2009 The Huffington Post ran a headline that said “Cicero President Larry Dominick Denies Sexual Harassment Claims.” Those allegations from a female municipal employee led to a “federal sexual harassment lawsuit that Dominick groped her and made vulgar comments.”

In 2002 former Cicero president Betty Loren-Maltese was convicted in on racketeering charges in a case involving the theft of millions of dollars in municipal money. She was released in 2010.

With all this bad press, Cicero’s elected officials thought they needed to bring in a top notch public relations expert. They found Ray Hanania. Hanania has worked as an op-ed columnist and a stand-up comedian and is perhaps best known for his anti-Israel activism. There is nothing funny about his Israel bashing. Or the corruption in Cicero.

Here were Hanania’s comments about the latest Cicero scandal to The Chicago Tribune:

Hanania said he was shocked by her resignation. “We always got compliments about the way she ran the health department,” said Hanania. As for Elizabeth’s claim that some employees don’t show up for work, Hanania said that anyone aware of such a worker should contact a supervisor.

One blogger in December 2010 reported that Hanania makes $86,000 from his Cicero municipal job. The post is well worth reading.

Ray Hanania’s March 29, 2011 column in the Jerusalem Post is a prime example of just how radical the man is. The title of the piece was “Palestinian declaration of statehood is ‘least bad’ option.”

Here are some excerpts so you can see for yourself:

“(C)onflict is the only thing that seems to motivate Israel and the Palestinians to act.”

“(I)t might help Palestinians undermine the steady growth of Hamas and the fanatics, fueled largely by the continued occupation.”

“The West Bank and east Jerusalem were occupied in 1967, territories Israel calls “disputed,” even though it has spent years building Jewish-only settlements there. Is that not occupation?”

“Israel has always argued that Palestine was not a country…”

“(O)ver the past 63 years is that the only time change happens is when the level of conflict rises.”

“Palestinians seem to want another intifada – as evidenced by the popularity of Facebook’s Third Intifada page…”

“Maybe the declaration of statehood might be the one way Palestinians can heighten the conflict without violence, making it clear to Israelis that they want their state in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.”

Hanania’s argument that Arab violence against Israel will somehow lead to peace is a fool’s gambit. It would just lead to more violence. Hamas cannot be undermined in Gaza – and Fatah is no match for them there. Hamas is part of the general revolutionary Islamist phenomena and its popularity with Gazans has much more to do with that than an “occupation” that ceased to exist in 2005. The most groundbreaking development in the history of the conflict was Sadat’s visit to the Knesset, which did not occur in the middle of any particular conflict. Israel does not call any part of Jerusalem disputed. Israeli government law regards all of Jerusalem as a full part of the State of Israel and the nation’s capital. There has never been a sovereign nation in history with the name Palestine.

Hanania views are repugnant and he gets his facts wrong.

Hanania has a history of calling for an Arab war against Israel as a solution to the situation. Raoul Felder wrote in 2002 that Hanania called for violence at that time:

“If the Arabs and Palestinians really want to get Israel’s attention and force them to take the peace process seriously, then the Arabs and the Palestinians must begin serious preparations for a new war against Israel.”

Hanania has no place in the Jerusalem Post. He never should have been granted a byline there in the first place. More alarming is that this radical receives a salary from American taxpayers. The people of Cicero should be demanding that Hanania be let go.