Simple Shimon: "Nobody in this world understands what are Hamas' goals and why it continues to fire missiles"

"Nobody in this world understands what are Hamas' goals and why it continues to fire missiles..."

What?!

I think it's time for Peres to retire because he's clearly got dementia and is not living in reality.

"Nobody in this world understands what are Hamas' goals and why it continues to fire missiles," the president said. "This shooting has no point, no logic, and no chance."

Well, in the end it may have no chance, but it has
a point and plenty of logic, as pointed out in RS commentary...

An article from last May:

Fitzgerald: When The Fool of Chelm Is At The Helm, Or, What Peres Did, He Undid

"Although in '98 everything seemed dark because of Rabin's murder, I believed we could still move the peace process ahead more quickly. I did not think we'd have so many problems. I believed the separation between the West Bank and Gaza would make things easier, not harder. I did not imagine that we would leave Gaza and they would fire Qassams from there; I did not imagine that Hamas would show so strongly in the elections." -- from this inteview with Shimon Peres in Ha'aretz by Lily Galili

Since Ehud Olmert was a bit indisposed, the honors fell to Shimon Peres. It was he who as President of Israel met with foreign journalists to remind them -- and they did need reminding -- of what Israel has achieved in the sixty years of its existence. Seven hot wars and two intifadas, along with unceasing economic and diplomatic warfare, did not prevent Israel from becoming the refuge and hope for Jews. And despite having no natural resources -- no oil, for example, to match the trillions that its mortal enemies pile up thanks not to any industriousness or entrepreneurial flair or inventive genius, but purely to an accident of geology -- Israel has become an example to the rest of the world of how to build a nation-state. And this building has been achieved not because of, but despite, having a political class unworthy of its citizens -- a problem not confined to Israel.

One member of that permanent class is Shimon Peres. For the past three decades Shimon Peres has not only played the fool, but has been the fool. Perhaps now, at long last, after the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza, reality has begun to sink in. At least he has publicly admitted his surprise -- he, Peres, is always being surprised -- at what happened in Gaza once the Israelis left, abandoning Jewish towns (not “settlements” but towns), which was, of course, what anyone of sense could, and did, predict. And it is exactly the lesson of Gaza that applies to the “West Bank,” though perhaps Shimon Peres is incapable of drawing that conclusion. He certainly cannot, at this point, begin to ponder the Islamic basis for Arab and Muslim opposition -- murderous opposition -- to the permanent existence of Israel. It would be too painful. He can’t do it.

Shall we let bygones be bygones? Shall those who care about the survival of Israel pay attention, on the occasion of its 60th anniversary, in a spirit of untruth and reconciliation, to what Peres did that was right, long ago, when he helped create Israel’s essential, never-to-be-surrendered nuclear deterrent, and ignore the way he has been, the damage he has done, for the past thirty years, ever since Sadat came to Israel to be hailed as Saint Sadat, Prince of Peace?

No, we shouldn’t. Peres is like Ariel Sharon, who founded Unit 101 and successfully suppressed terror from Jordan, and in the 1948 war and 1967 war and 1973 war was a spectacular commander, but who in his last years expelled Jewish villagers, and tore down their villages and towns, and provided the precedent of the Gaza surrender, and Ehud Olmert, and thus did damage that may have outweighed the good he once did. And Shimon Peres, who in the 1950s helped foster the nuclear-weapons project, by his later words and deeds undid whatever good he may once have done.

In his famous speech (“The barge she sat in, like a burnished throne/Burned on the water…”) in "Antony and Cleopatra," Enobarbus ends with an image of those pretty dimpled boys, fanning Cleopatra and her retinue, cooling them down but at the same time heating them up, so that “what they undid, did.”

It’s the same with Shimon Peres and Ariel Sharon, but in scansion-smashing reverse: “What they did, they undid.”

Those who still don’t know what folly Peres encouraged need to take a look at “Shimon Says,” a compilation by Rael Jean Isaac and Roger Gerber of his most self-damning remarks:

Peres views himself as a visionary (he has stated, "I got a license to become a dreamer")2 and is someone who speaks him mind openly. In view of his central position in Israeli political life, and in the Oslo process especially, we offer a sampling of some characteristically idiosyncratic utterances in recent years.
PEACE PROCESS

This is not a negotiation of give and take because Israel has something to give but has nothing to take.3

I don't think we should judge the process by the performance of Yasir Arafat. We're not negotiating with Yasir Arafat. We're negotiating with ourselves.4

Papers are papers and realities are realities. We cannot judge the PLO and its leader just by what he is saying. Would we do so, we would be completely wrong and we would be in troubles.5

[Responding to an interviewer who asked "Are you saying that what Arafat told you in Oslo is sufficient, that he does not have to sign any new commitments?"] I am not a notary who writes affidavits.6

[Asked about Arab statements that there would be no peace without an Arab Jerusalem]: These are only words. Let them talk.7

[Reacting to an Arab song, "Zionist, your death is in my hands"]: There are those who sing and those who shoot. I'm checking out those who shoot.8

THE NEW MIDDLE EAST

We are going to copy a European example which is called Benelux. I hope the relations between the Jordanians, the Palestinians, and us will be very much of the same nature that exists in Benelux.9

A Middle East where holiness will overcome oiliness . . .10

[In Gaza] a dynamic reconstruction has started. . . . Women are throwing away their veils and are going swimming in the sea.11

STRATEGY

I have always tended to be overly optimistic.12

An army that can occupy knowledge has yet to be built. And that is why armies of occupation are passé.13

It is no wonder that war, as a matter of conducting human affairs, is in its death throes and that the time has come to bury it.14

Anyone who wants peace and security will get neither.15

It was a mistake to bomb the nuclear reactor in Iraq.16

Between ten bunkers and ten hotels, ten hotels are also defense.17

ECONOMICS

We claim that the United States and Europe became so productive that the only thing you can really produce is unemployment. The more productive you are becoming, the more unemployed people you are having. The time has come to export your unemployment.18

In technology, we have an advantage over the former Soviet Union, because our technology is more advanced. We have an advantage over the United States, because our prices are less capitalistic.19

DEMOCRACY

As a protégé of David Ben-Gurion, I subscribe to his philosophy that "I may not know what the people want; I do know what is good for the people."20

ZIONISM

We are discovering that all the things we are fighting for are not so important.21

The more we give up land, we discover we have more Ph.D.s per kilometer -- so we are going to make a living on the Ph.D.s and not on the mileage.22

We live in a world where markets are more important than countries.23

POLITICS

[To those who disagree with his vision]: It's a changed world and . . . you are out of date.24

[In the Knesset, to Benjamin Netanyahu]: You were in America and you are still in a daze. You have just come back and, believe you me, you have not got a clue what we are talking about.25

THE FUTURE

We are in transition from a world of identifiable enemies to one of unidentifiable problems.26

What we have to do is to economize our policies, and not to politicize our economies, which is so costly and so expensive. Dictatorship, nowadays, is so expensive that only rich countries can afford it. Poor countries can hardly suffer it -- with an outsized secret service, the censorship, the permanent control, the worries, the suspicion, the narrowness, the closeness, the ignorance.27

I have become totally tired of history, because I feel history is a long misunderstanding.28

SHIMON PERES

I feel in some ways the most independent political figure in Israel. Nobody can add to what I have done, and nobody can take away from what I did.29

[Describing his courtship]: Her name was Sonia, and she was eventually to become my wife. I sought to impress her by reading to her, sometimes by the light of the moon, selected passages from Marx's Das Kapital.30

2 Pennsylvania Gazette, Nov. 1994.

3 Statement before the 50th Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, Feb. 10, 1994.

4 Jewish Week (New York), June 2, 1994.

5 Heritage (Los Angeles), June 3, 1994.

6 Israel Radio, May 23, 1994.

7 Speech in New York City, May 23, 1994.

8 The Jerusalem Post International Edition, Feb. 3, 1996.

9 Address to Council of the Socialist International, Oct. 6, 1993.

10 Remarks to Fourth Business Forum Conference, Jerusalem, Feb. 28, 1994.

11 Die Welt, July 14, 1995.

12 Shimon Peres, The New Middle East (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1993), p. 18.

13 Remarks on acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, Dec. 10, 1994.

14 Ibid.

15 The Jerusalem Post, May 7, 1995.

16 Ha'aretz, Dec. 24, 1995.

17 Ha'aretz, Jan. 29, 1996.

18 Speech to The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Feb. 2, 1994.

19 Remarks before the Knesset Economic Committee on the Arab Boycott, Feb. 21, 1994.

20 The Jerusalem Post International Edition, Dec. 23, 1995.

21 Jewish Week, June 2, 1994.

22 Pennsylvania Gazette, Nov. 1994.

23 Ibid.

24 Speech in New York City, May 23, 1994.

25 IBA television, Jerusalem, Aug. 30, 1995.

26 The New Middle East, p. 82.

27 Remarks to Fourth Business Forum Conference, Jerusalem, Feb. 28, 1994.

28 The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 30, 1994.

29 The Jerusalem Post International Edition, July 16, 1994.

30 Battling for Peace, p. 25.

So Shimon Peres, when young, used to court his wife by reading to her aloud from Das Kapital. Note to froggies who would a-wooing go: apparently it worked. One would like to know what other texts Peres found particularly useful in his later celebrated womanizing. Possibly Lenin on Renegade Kautsky? Or excerpts from Stalin's "Short Course"?

Physically, Shimon Peres reminds one of Chico Marx. Mentally Peres reminds one of the Fool of Chelm. And for too long, in Israel, over the past 30 years when he started to undo what he had done, Shimon Peres has been near -- or even at -- the helm.

[Posted by Hugh at May 12, 2008]

Speak for yourself Perez, you simpleton, who has spoken for all rose-colored glass-wearing simpltons for, what?, 50 years now? So much experience, so little knowledge.
I'm a non-Jewish American whose "only" contact with terrorism is stomping around it the rubble of the Pentagon soon after it was hit on 9/11. After a few weeks of reading Islamist literature and core text of the Koran, it was a obvious as a ton of bricks landing on my head. Only the Nazis had as clear an agenda of murder as the program outlined in the Koran, Hadith and Sira. Hamas and Al Qaedas' agenda is clear; It is Islam, and they are merely the militant arm of that murderous, bigoted, and irrational idealogy.

That should have been "Peres."

It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine

This raises the question of, if successful, whether Hamas will comply with EU mandates and amend their Charter to say,

It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every centimeter of Palestine

I understand Javier Solana has taken a hardline on this matter.

The goals of Hamas, Shimon Peres and others like him must be told (it won't have an effect, but at least they should be told) are no different from the goals of Lashkar-e-Toiba, or Ansar al-Islam, or Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda. All of these groups, whether they are local in their effect, or have managed to spread their tentacles more widely, have the goal of suppressing Infidels, and enlarging the domain of Dar al-Islam. While solemn "terrorism experts" carefully parse a tape or a communique, and go on the air to tell audiences whether or not this or that group is "actually" part of Al Qaeda or "shares Al Qaeda's aims," the essential irreducible fact is that Muslims who take Islam seriously, and almost all Muslims do, and who take the duty of Jihad seriously, and a great many Muslims do, and who choose to participate, directly or indirectly, in the use of violence to promote Jihad, and many Muslims do, are all working toward the same goal: the goal of everywhere removing all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, as by right, of Islam. The immediate goal may be to destroy Israel, or seize Kashmir, or take over the Balkans, but in the end it is the entire world, and not merely those parts that once were possessed, for however long or short a time, by Muslims, that is the goal of Jihad.

And while Spain ("Andalusia"), and Sicily, and Greece, and the Balkans, and Bulgaria, Rumania, much of Hungary, all of the Caucasus, much of Russia, almost all of India, that are, like Israel, on the To-Do List of Islam, it is the entire world that belongs to Allah, and that Muslims, the "best of peoples," are commanded to subdue for the sake of Islam, and to make sure that the world is ruled by Muslims. Whether or not the goal is achieveable does not matter; what counts is that in the trying or striving, Muslims have done, are doing, and will certainly do, a great deal of damage, to the legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, and sense of civiliational identity and history, and also to the physical security, of non-Muslims everywhere.

And because of the need for Muslims to feed on triumph, and the triumphalism of Islam, any victory accorded Muslims anywhere, will whet not sate Muslims (and Arab) appetites, and must be denied, whether the Infidels have an overwhelming case, as in that of the Jews of Israel, who managed to throw off dhimmitude and after 2000 years re-establish a Jewish Commonwealth that, in every aspect of its existence, is a reproach and a constant source of humiliation to the most fanatical, and even the less fanatical, Muslim AQrabs, or in cases where the Muslims may have a tiny case (as in that of Chechnya or possibly, among the Uighurs of Xinjiang), because of the historical circumstances, but that tiny case must be ignored, and Infidels must take the side of Russia, of China, not because they are countries threatened as Israel is threatened, but because any Muslim victory anywhere feeds Muslim triumphalism everywhere.

That, I'm afraid, is where things stand. So support a Free Tibet all you want. But do not support any loosening of restrictions on Muslims in Xinjiang. There is no contradiction there. There is simply a policy, or there should be, based on an understanding of the nature of Islam, and what the triumph of Islam means for the rights of the inidividual (Islam is a collectivist faith; the individual is a "slave of Allah" and has no rights separate from that of the collective, the Umma), for science, for art, for mental freedom. The nature of Islam explains for us what is at stake for all Infidels (and for those who, born into Islam through no fault of their own, would also like to be free of its mind-forged manacles, but cannot free themselves) should Islam be allowed to triumph anywhere, over Israel, or over the Buddhists in southern Thailand or the Hindus of India, or over the Christians in the southern Sudan, southern Philippines, southern Nigeria, or the post-Christians, so blithe, so heedless, so confused and so afraid, all over the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, of Western Europe.

Shimon Perski (Peres is not his original last name) is an appeasing fool, a radical leftist and a traitor (maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a pompous Francophile proud of his heavily French-accented English...). When Qassam rockets began to fall in Sderot several years ago, he said, "Qassams, shmassams", that is, the fact that Jews were murdered was nonsense and shouldn't be taken too seriously, and that the "peace" process (land-for-nothing) should not be halted as a result. He considered the arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat a "partner for peace." When his party (Labor) lost the 1996 elections to Netanyahu's ("right"-wing) Likud party, he commented to a reporter, "Today, we the Israelis lost and the Jews won." In other words, Perski drew a distinction between two supposedly antagonistic camps, "Israelis" and "Jews", and, like most radical leftists, he considered religious Jews to be the worst enemies of "Israelis." Shimon Perski is the quintessential self-hating Jew, similar to George Soros, Noam Chomski, Norman Finkelstein and other demented scum.

One more thing.

Israel's seeming power against Hamas should not be permitted to disguise two facts. The first is that the 6,000 rockets that have already rained down on Israel may not have caused a great deal of damage, but they have put under siege one million Israelis. And this was allowed to happen because the Israelis removed themselves from Gaza. They keep being snookered, and allow buildups, fantastic buildups, of tens of thousands of rockets and every other sort of deadly equipment, to their north and to their south, and then they console themselves, idiotically, with the notion that they can "always go back in." No, they can't. It becomes more and more difficult, as the tentacles of the Islamintern extend from the U.N., to the E.U., to the BBC, and Agence France Presse, and now, by dint of the Muslims so carelessly, so negligently, allowed over the past three decades to settle in the lands of the Infidels, it becomes harder for the IDF to act, for it is keenly aware of the fantastic propaganda effort by the Arabs and their many willing collaborators, and are well aware of the constraints they must labor under, know perfectly that =every single civilian casualty, and in war there are always civilian casualties, and everyone of sense understands this, and judges an army not on the unhappy fact of civilian casualties, necessarily in all wars, but of course impossible to avoid where the Muslim Arab enemy deliberately places all of its weapons caches and installations smack in middle of civilian areas, even in the same buildings as civilians (so that one floor in an apartment building might be loaded with weaponry), and counting on the permanent scrupulosity of the Israelis (and the same has been true everywhere that non-Muslim armies have tried to deal with Muslim terrorists and other enemies, in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and elsewhere), a scrupulosity that cannot continue, for it would render the Israelis permanently hostage to their own impossibly high standards, and would reward the vicious calculations of its enemies.

So how does one judge a fighting force? One notes the circumstances it confronts. In the case of Israel, it has an enemy that carefully, deliberately, places all of its weaponry in the midst of civilians. For example, that "Islamic Univeristy" that was bombed, was a target because it contained a bomb-making factory right on the "campus" of this so-called "university" -- really, a trainer of present and future Hamas members, inculcating the world-view with which Infidels are now becoming so grimly acquainted.

So along with the deliberate emplacement of anti-aircraft missiles on tops of schools and mosques, as Arafat and the PLO did so assiduously in Lebanon, and then Hezbollah after it, Hamas has squirreled away nearly 10,000 rockets and a great deal of other, quite expensive military equipment, despite all that whining about an "impoverished" population (over the past month or so I have heard interviews with "impoverished" Gazan Arabs, including the owner of a cell-phone store and other who sold DVDs in what was described, un-ironically, as a "refugee camp" -- some refugee camp, with its DVD and cell-phone stores!). And in these circumstances, the Israeli airforce is to be congratulated on its amazing feats, the nearly pinpoint accuracy of its bombing. Of course Hamas and its many willing collaborators in the international media will continue to exaggerate figures of "civilian" casualties -- a "civilian" will no doubt be anyone whom Hamas chooses to count, and that will include all those who die during this period of natural causes, and of course those whom Hamas executes in cold-blood, as it did yesterday in a hospital, shooting dead at least five Arabs who had been imprisoned on charges of "collaborating" with Isrrael, and when the prison was bombed, they were among the wounded, but Hamas decided, instead of allowing them to be treated, and not waiting for any trial, simply to execute them on the spot. What amazes about this incident is not that it occurred -- it's par for Hamas' murderous course -- but that it managed to be mentioned in a dispatch in today's New Duranty Times.

So Israel should take careful note of the horrific conditions under which it is defending itself, and of the malevolence and cruelty of so much of the world, or at least of that part of the world that has taken leave of its moral sense, and apparently never bothered to put into any context whatsover -- beginning with those 6,000 rockets Hamas has flung Israel-wards, hoping to kill as many civilians as possible, which is quite a contrast, or should be for anyone paying attention, to Israel's deep desire, and amazing efforts, to minimize civilian casualties, always and everywhere.

And that brings up the second point. The reason Israel is now attacking in Gaza is because the Muslim Arabs there are behaving as they were going to behave, sooner or later. Those who predicted this would happen if Israel lost control of Gaza, and it lost control when it withdrew completely, are in the right, and those who predicted that all kinds of good things would now be possible are in the wrong. And the lesson should be drawn, and applied, obviously, to the "West Bank" (or, as it was known to Jesus, and for more than two thousand years all over the Western world until the Jordanians carefully renamed it after 1949, parts of Judea and Samaria). Anyone who thinks that, if the Israelis were to withdraw, that somehow those temporarily seeming "moderates," those carefully-feigning "no-one-here-but-us-accountants" of Fatah (see Fayyad, see Abbas after his makeover), would prevail, anyone who in any case believes that Abbas means, when he says "we have chosen peace a as a strategic option" that this means that Fatah really wants "peace" with the Infidel nation-state of Israel, is whistling crazily in the dark.

Fatah is more corrupt, and more worldly, than Hamas. It recognizes that it must use salami-tactics to destroy the Jewish state. And it further realizes that it needs, or at least its warlords very much want, the tap of Infidel aid turned on, and kept on, full blast, and in order to assure that some smiles and wiles -- not very much, by the way, really not very much at all -- will be temporarily necessary. And the result will be a dimidiated Israel, stripped of any strategic depth, stripped of control over the aquifers on which Israel so depends, stripped of command of the Judean Heights, stripped of its own sense of itself that will undoubtedly play out with a plummeting moral, and more and more people choosing to be yordim, emigrants, from an Isrrael reduced to a thin and impossible-to-defend strip, with a handful of airfields, all of them within range of handheld weapons, and a waist, from Qalqilya to the sea, of eight miles.

Barak may have played things cleverly so far. But so what? So what if Hamas is temporarily defeated? The problem remains, and the lesson needs to be learned. Israel cannot, simply cannot, give up control of the "West Bank." The only reason the Slow Jihadists of Fatah are in control in the "West Bank" is because Israeli troops, and Israeli civilians in large numbers, are there. Remove them, and that's the end of the Slow Jihadists, and the triumph, sooner or later, of those who most truly represent the primitive masses of Muslims -- that is, Hamas, or some other group just like it with a different name.

And in any case, the goal of the Slow Jihadists of Fatah, even if they could hold on, for a few years, ruling the roost in a "West Bank" suicidally surrendered by Israel, share exactly the same goal as the Fast Jihadists of Hamas. They differ only on tactics and on timing. The final aim -- the elimination of the Infidel nation-state of Israel -- is exactly the same for Hamas and for Fatah, tough one is more direct in its proud admission of that goal, and the other a bit more studied, a little bit more oblique in signalling, to all of its followers, what it really has in mind. And must, because of Islam, have in mind. Fatah can do no other.

So even if "Cast Lead" is some kind of success, no one should thank Ehud Barak. He was responsible for removing Israeli troops and shutting down Jewish villages in Gaza in the first place. He is now, at great cost, undoing what he did. But this strategy cannot continue. The very idea that "we can always go back in" is idiotic, and dangerous. It is clear that Israel's forces must operate under constraints that no other army in the world must endure. Every single civilian casualty is immediately reported on separately ("two sisters, aged 11 and 13" and so on). How often, in the coverage of Iraq, or Afghanistan or Pakistan, or any other place where there are Western armies involved (forget about non-Western armies, and especially Muslim armies -- their causing of mass civilian deaths is simply taken for granted and ignored), do you hear the precise ages listed, or the sob stories gone into at great length? This is only, and everywhere, done in the case of Israel. And there is not a hint of understanding of how the Arabs manipulate, not only numbers, but bodies. Does anyone remember the pictures of the same man, carrying, at supposedly different places on different days, after different Israeli attacks, the exact same corpse? Does anyone remember the put-up Pallywood epic of Mohammed Al-Doura? Do we have to remind ourselves of the Arab mastery of propaganda, and how, for example, the PLO used to make sure that whenever there was any Israeli retaliation that any photographs taken would show an Arab mother with at least one baby in her arms -- it was de rigueur, no photograph could be taken, would be allowed, without that carefully-staged babe-in-arms).

No, the lesson of Gaza is: don't repeat the mistake of Gaza. Don't keep being prodigal with the lives of Israelis, making mistake after mistake and then thinking "we can always go in." No, you can't. Draw the right conclusions. And for god's sake don't confuse, in the case of Barak as in the case of Sharon, the exploits of a successful general with the sobriety and knowledge required of a leader capable of fashioning, and then explaiining to the world, a new Israeli policy based on the grim recognition that the war against Israel is a Jihad, and is not to be assuaged or diminished by any further surrenders of land, and the entire basis of the last several decades of "peace-processing" was based on ignorance, wilful or not, of Islam, its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, and that mistake will no longer be made by Israel, and it hopes -- hopes, but will not count on -- that understanding coming to be shared by the American, Western, and other Infidel governments, and peoples, around the world.

For all Infidels have a stake, though they may not realize it, in the survival of Israel, in the success of Israel in withstanding the permanent Jihad against it, and against, in the end, all of us, if we are Infidels, everywhere.

Stinky little goat herd primitive Arabs running around with modern day weapons firing missiles into a progressive sovereign state to establish rule of Allah over lands conquered by Arab supremacists forever until Islam's Last Days. That in a word is Hamas: Jihad.

"Nobody in this world understands what are Hamas' goals and why it continues to fire missiles," the president said. "This shooting has no point, no logic, and no chance."

Shimon Peres

My mouth hangs open in stunned disbelief, no there must be a mistake here? Either Peres has been living in a place referred to as la la land,or he is in total denial. Only a person with demensia ,or Alzheimers could be excused for making such a comment after having governed and lived in Israel.

How could the 36 articles of the Hamas Charter escape his reading? Did he stop reading about the aspirations of the Palestinians 25 years ago? Has he totally failed to keep up on current events in his own country?

Thank you Hugh. I really feel angry that because of leaders like him who refuse to read and learn about Islam we have to now go into our safe rooms. They’ve just started targeting Be’er Sheva, and we are some 39km from the Gaza Strip. Never in human history has the future of our civilization depended on the group so reluctant to look into quite easily accessible information.

Mladen

may the Holy One be with you.

Here in Australia I have done the best I could - I have emailed my Deputy Prime Minister commending her on publicly stating that Hamas started this brawl and that Israel's response was justified.

I also explained to her a little of what Mr Fitzgerald has said so eloquently above - since she spoke of the need to minimise civilian casualties, I explained that this was exactly what Israel had done and was doing, but that it was extremely difficult because of Hamas' deliberate embedding of its installations among civilians; and I stressed that one should remember that Hamas' rockets fired into Israel were essentially aimed at civilian targets, and that jihadist groups like Hamas have never hesitated to prioritise the killing of non-Muslim civilians.

She (and others) will be getting a follow-up letter with a few things about the Hamas Charter, and about the Treaty of Hudaybiyya model of Muslim 'treaty' making, so as to make quite, quite plain that the 'two-state solution' is - given the all-pervasiveness of classical jihad-and-sharia Islam among the local Arabs - a dangerous mirage.

I am also thinking that it is time that in the capitals of the western world the kafir resisters of jihad and sharia started getting out on the streets and into the faces of all those predictable anti-israel demonstrations.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the very next time a mob of Muslims and their dhimmi enablers marched toward an Israeli embassy to scream, yell, throw rocks and indulge in a vicious display of antisemitism, they found that their way was blocked by a mass of Friends of Zion, of all colours and backgrounds and all the non-Muslim creeds, with informative placards bearing intelligent messages inspired by the kinds of things that Mr Fitzgerald has written in his postings above?

It would be particularly piquant if, in Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA, such crowds of Friends of Zion were liberally sprinkled with faces and costumes proclaiming Indian Hindu and Sikh affiliations...

Thank you Hugh for your absolutely brilliant comments above.

I really do think that Peres is senile, although even if he is, his long years on the political scene in Israel have shown him to have been a problem for years. Regulars on jihadwatch know what Hamas stands for, unbelievably the President of Israel doesn't.

When the late King Hassan of Morocco secretly contacted Israel some years ago, with a view to Mossad training his own security forces, the then head of Mossad (an English-born head of the service but I can't remember his name) and a hand-picked diplomatic and security team prepared to fly to Morocco.

The strict conditions on which the King insisted included total secrecy and no media leaking. In his memoirs the Mossad chief writes angrily about how Peres all but wrecked the initiative. Despite not being wanted on the trip he managed to turn up anyway. The top-level Israeli team, including the head of Mossad, were in one plane. Peres not only had his own aircraft, but filled it with journalists (I think they were made to leave the plane before it left by the official delegation, but of course the damage was done, although the arrangement with the King went ahead and was kept more or less out of the media, while persisting as rumour).

Since a retired Mossad chief wrote this about 20 years ago I assume Peres was regarded as unreliable at the highest levels even more long ago.