clear

Subscribe

Recent Posts

clear

Categories

clear
Wednesday, 31 January 2007
Not One Thin Dime for Abbas
Share
clear

As State presses Congress for more aid, Fatah’s terror wing murders more Israelis.

When will the madness end? When will the Bush administration and Condoleezza Rice’s State Department finally stop their deranged midwifery of the Palestinian terror state conceived by the Clinton administration amid the mood music of two Intifadas?

On Monday, a 21-year-old suicide bomber, Muhammad Faisal al-Siksik, self-detonated at a bakery in the coastal town of Eilat on the Red Sea. Three innocents were killed: the bakery’s two Israeli owners and their Peruvian employee (whose family hails from Miami). Soon after came the claim of responsibility. The operation was carried out by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, working in conjunction with Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

FATAH’S “MODERATE” CON JOB
The Aqsa Brigades are not just any group of terrorists. They are the most ruthless, accomplished terror wing of Fatah, the organization bequeathed to us by the late Yasser Arafat. The Bush administration delusionally regards Fatah and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas (also known as “Abu Mazen”), as the “moderate” Palestinian faction. There is nothing moderate about them. Yet, the administration appears determined to play this foolish game to its inevitable end because, like its starry-eyed predecessor, it is entranced by the holy grail of Israeli/Palestinian peace.

Peace, of course, would require two sides desirous of coexistence. We’re one short. Palestinians do not seek to coexist with Israel. They seek to destroy Israel. But that may have to await their annihilation of each other, with Fatah and its fellow thug, Hamas, now locked in a struggle for control.

Hamas is proudly unyielding in its announced intention to vaporize the “Zionist entity.” By contrast, Fatah is cagier but no less determined. In the Arafat style, it feints every now and again toward negotiation with Israel. There is, after all, a trough of Western billions for any Palestinian leadership willing to affect aspiration toward the Clinton/Bush nirvana: two states, Israel and “Palestine,” living side-by-side in peace. Fatah needs those billions to keep its operatives loyal. Historically, it is a pervasively corrupt, creakily socialist outfit — a former Soviet client averse to elementary economic development.

But the act is just that, an act. The Fatah constitution still calls for the “eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence[,]” through an “armed revolution” which is to be the “decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence” — a revolution that “will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.”

Consistent with this overarching plan, the U.S.-led “peace process” has been a 14-year sham — hence, the intervening Intifada and related terror gambits. Fatah may occasionally say it will live with Israel, but it has demonstrated, repeatedly, that it will never agree to the commonsense requirements of coexistence: It not only demands land and Jerusalem as its national capital; it refuses to disarm terrorist militias and insists on a refugee “right of return” — an influx of well over a million Palestinians that would effectively destroy the tiny Jewish state from within.

By our State Department’s lights, this qualifies as “moderation” — perhaps because Hamas’s direct approach is bereft of diplomatic nicety, while the savvier Fatah seems willing to attrit Israel to death. (Such new gloss on the withering Bush Doctrine is also on display in Baghdad, where the administration now regularly consults with Abdul Azziz al-Hakim, or, as the White House describes him, “His Eminence,” leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq — a creation of Iran).

The rest is here.

clear
Posted on 01/31/2007 7:53 AM by Andy McCarthy
Comments
30 Jan 2013
Send an emailDia
I must associate mylesf with Mr Barbieri's impatience with populist disdain towards the social sciences. This often, and irritatingly, takes the form of excessive veneration for the precision, accuracy, theoretical subtlety, yaddayaddayadda of the hard' physical sciences coupled with contempt for the sloppy ways of the soft' disciplines, but by its very nature, ant discipline that involves what Von Mises called human action' cannot approximate the rigor possible when describing particles, forces, molecules, and even simple organisms.Then too, human beings bite. As Stanislav Andreski pointed out, if chemical reagents don't like what you write about them they will not jump off the shelf and burn you, or get you fired or tossed into the slammer.Andreski's brilliant Social Sciences as Sorcery was unsparing in denouncing the intellectual sins of a0the social disciplines (he was a military sociologist and I read him out of sheer curiosity, having grown up in a career Army family).But he also led me to a real appreciation of what sound work had been done in the past, and of the limitations which must be accepted to proceed with useful social investigation. His brief section on conducting interviews itself makes the book worth reading. a0Besides he is screamingly funny. The book is 40 years old and I reread it every couple of years.I also smile remembering the historian Page Smith' s description of anthropology:a0 It is arguably the funniest academic discipline The field anthropologist must at all times remember what his mother taught him that it's not polite to point.'