Hamas Leaders Safe in Gaza; Fatah's True Colors

The Palestinian group Hamas has committed dozens of suicide bombings, not to mention other terrorist attacks, which have killed hundreds of Israelis. Wouldn't you think Hamas leaders would make for legitimate targets? Why should they be allowed to roam free in Gaza, which they now govern?

The Associated Press has published a photo of all of Hamas's senior leadership at a rally in Gaza on January 2. I'd like to hear Israel's justification for not eliminating them right then and there.

Meantime, in the Balata refugee camp on the West Bank, at a rally marking Fatah's 45th anniversary, young Palestinian girls carried rifles. Wouldn't you expect Fatah -- which the West trumpets as the "moderate" alternative to Hamas and whose leader, Mahmoud Abbas, the U.S. bankrolls and helps legitimize -- to encourage future generations to pursue conflict resolution through non-violence? Why is it so outragous to demand that Fatah not equip Palestinian children with weapons -- real or plastic -- at public rallies? Where are U.S. complaints? If the U.S. takes issue with Israeli housing construction in Israel's capital city, then certainly it ought to take issue as well with Fatah's encouraging violence among Palestinian kids.

The photos were published in this news story which appeared at WashingtonPost.com on January 2.

More Weapons Sales to Arabs

The Bush Administration this weekend announced plans to sell billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons to at least five Arab "allies" and Israel. The sales to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait are being justified as necessary to counter a threat from Iran ("This is all about Iran," one US official reportedly said) and, undoubtedly, to win Arab support for US plans with regard to Iraq. In a July 29 cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the sales were to "moderate" Arab countries, who had committed that the "weapons will not be used against Israel."

While these Arab states may not be as radical as Iran, whose leaders pursue nuclear weapons and Israel's destruction, they are neither "moderate" nor "allies" of the US. To refer to them as such is inaccurate and deceptive. With the exception of Egypt, all of these Arab states continue to reject Israel's existence and are led by regimes that limit press freedom and civil society development. They have demonstrated no "moderate" tendencies whatsoever. Referring to these Arabs states as "moderate" alleviates pressure on them to reform their systems of government or provide increased freedoms for their people.

"This will reduce pressure on Egypt and the Arab states to reform their politics. It's another case of trying to purchase stability at the expense of liberty," said Human Rights Watch Washington director Tom Malinowski. (Washington Post, July 28, 2007)

Furthermore, they share no common values with Americans. Nor have they made any effort to pursue bonds of friendship with the US. Thus, they are undeserving of the distinction of "allies," as well. Britain, Canada, the Aussies -- these countries are "allies."

Olmert gambles with Israel's security when he would have others take at their word that these Arab countries will never allow their new weapons to be used against Israel.