New PA police chief marks Jews as 'only enemy' of Palestinians

[barb162]

Last update - 09:48 23/04/2006


New PA police chief marks Jews as 'only enemy' of Palestinians

By Haaretz Service

Jamal Abu Samhadana, the wanted leader of the armed Popular Resistance Committees whose appointment to a senior Palestinian Authority police post sparked a bitter feud between Hamas and Fatah, told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper that his only enemy is the Jews, and that the paramilitary force he was nominated to create was to become the "nucleus of the future Palestinian army."

The feud, which turned into armed clashes at the weekend, began on Thursday, when by PA Interior Minister Said Sayem that he was setting up a new security force that would encompass the Hamas military wing. Sayem announced that he was appointing Abu Samhadana wanted for several high-profile bombings including a deadly attack on a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Gaza and attacks on IDF tanks in Gaza to a senior police post.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas later issued a presidential order cancelling Sayem's appointment, and convened the PLO executive committee in Ramallah, which condemned the new force. On Friday, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal lashed out in response to senior figures in Fatah, comments that were understood as veiled attacks on Abbas as having betrayed the Palestinian cause and having acted as a collaborator with Israel.


Meshal's remarks sparked demonstrations in the territories by armed Fatah men. Meshall later told reporters his words had been misunderstood.
snip
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=708275&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

[Peace Patriot]

1. Your title puts a subtle coloration on what Samhadana was purported

to have said that is not to be found in the article.

The article states that Samhadana, in discussing this feud among Palestinians, "told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper that his only enemy is the Jews...."

In your title, you say that the PA police chief "marks" Jews--a very emotional word, reminiscent of yellow triangles, and the tattooed numbers on concentration camp prisoners. And you further edit the personal nature of what he reportedly told the Telegraph, that "his" only enemy is the Jews. You expand this into a statement that Jews are the only enemy of Palestinians.

It's subtle, but it's the stuff that misunderstanding and wars are made of.

I would like further to point out that the Telegraph's reportage of what Samhadana said lacks quotation marks. You accept it as an exact quotation--when it is not even a quote--and then add some spice to it, that Samhadana and all Palestinians are "marking" Jews as "the enemy."

In a situation of chronic bitterness and violence such as this, I think it would be well to apply some skepticism to all remarks that tend to give one a visceral reaction--hatred, fear, desire for revenge--especially remarks without quotations around them, and even then, consider the source. Is the translation accurate? Does the source have motives? If diplomacy and peace are ever to work, they have to start somewhere. Instead of putting that extra little visceral edge on things, why not do the opposite?

[PublicWrath]

2. I agree that the title is slanted, but it's part of the original article

[Violet_Crumble]

3. I didn't realise Israel had a Sunday Telegraph...

I rarely look at ours, but when I do I usually take everything reported in it with a grain of salt, what with it being a News Limited pile of doggy-doo that's so right-wing and full of clumsy and incompetent reporting that it makes John Howard look like the most honest man in the world. I'm suspecting the British version isn't any better. Let's hope the Israelis don't have a Murdoch empire in their country as well :)

Violet...

[cali]

4. Whatever the case may be regarding the article

itself, the appointment of Samhadana, is a significant tactical error on the part of Hamas. It widens the already perilous divide between Hamas and Fatah, as evidenced by Abbas' statement that the appointment is illegitimate and he'll invalidate it. Yesterday there was violence between Fatah loyalists and Hamas loyalists, resulting in two Gaza Universities being temporarily shuttered, and over a dozen injuries sustained by those involved.

Samhadana is responsible for many of the rockets being fired from Gaza, and has stated that he has no intention of stopping the practice. His alleged involvement in the deaths of three Americans in a diplomatic convoy doesn't help matters. He has quickly become a distraction for Hamas in the outside world, and the locus for internal divisions between the President and the ruling party.

[bemildred]

5. I did sort of wonder what they were thinking in picking him.

I doubt that it was some sort of casual error, like Bush would make, or that the reaction was unexpected, but I can't come up with any convincing rationale either.

[cali]

6. Personal connections?

that may sound strange, but so often things like appointments within a party turn on precisely that.

[bemildred]

7. Yeah, or maybe in some way he was the man for the job.

But internal politics is not a bad guess. I don't suppose there would be much advantage in picking a mousy kind of guy, anyway. If he is to succeed, he's going to have to kick some ass.

[geek tragedy]

8. Well, it's not like Hams is interested in peace and security.

The guy's function is to wage war on the Jews. So of course his appointment makes sense.

[bemildred]

9. I figured his job was to restore order.

That would be the usual thing for a new government coming to power, try to establish some semblance of order and unify the people behind them and so on.

It would be folly to pick a fight with Israel when their hold on power was not secure, which it clearly is not, so far.

But opinions will vary, and it is certainly true that he is not a friend of Israel. But then the job of a Palestinian government (theoretically, of course) is to pursue the best interests of the Palestinian people, which are diametrically opposed to the interests of the present government of Israel.

[geek tragedy]

11. Well, that assumes Hamas is interested in stability and

governance as opposed to violent revolution.

This parable comes to mind.

I fully expect Hamas to remain Hamas.

[barb162]

13. good parable

:hi:

[bemildred]

16. Whom would they be violently revolting against?

They are the duly elected government.

I don't expect they will "renounce violence", if that is what you mean.
OTOH, they have maintained their "quiet" for a year now, which shows a
certain internal discipline, and they went to a great deal of trouble to
get themselves elected, as opposed to attempting to take power by force of
arms. It is probably true that "Hamas will remain Hamas", but the evidence
doesn't really suggest that they are irrational, or unwilling to negotiate,
far from it.

[geek tragedy]

17. I meant that Hamas will never abandon its goal

of destroying the state of Israel.

I don't think they're irrational per se. However, I view any purported signs of moderation or willingness to negotiate to be part of their larger strategy to create their caliphate. They're saying what people in Europe and other places want to hear. Occasionally they have this kind of gaffe--where they say exactly what they're thinking.

In any event, we all know that terrorist operations and rocket attacks launched against Israel have the Palestinian government's official seal of approval and tacit support. Which means that there is no reason for the Israelis to negotiate with them about anything, and that it's only a question of when the Israelis decide that a military response is appropriate.

[bemildred]

20. The notion that such political groups will not change is contrary to

the historical evidence, they always change. They die out,
they seize power and become the rulers themselves, they become
corrupt and decadent, they become allies of former enemies, and
find new enemies to anathematize. Self-interest always wins out
in the end, and the old leaders die and are replaced with new
leaders with different agendas. A concerted effort to corrupt
and suborn the once pristine principles of Hamas has every chance
of success.

[chevychase]

25. so there is no hope for

a socialist utopia then?

[bemildred]

26. Pretty much, yeah.

At least, not if it depends on having better humans to run the place.
:rofl:

[chevychase]

27. shhhh!

Let's not let the unashed masses in on our little secret!

[barb162]

28. The problems though are that it can take many lives, many years

[bemildred]

29. It already has.

In a way one could argue that that is how we got to this point, to the election of Hamas. Does Hamas represent progress compared to Arafat? Are we better off now than 5 or ten years ago, do the prospects look brighter? Are we going in the right direction? I have grave doubts.

[geek tragedy]

31. The Mullahcracy in Iran seems to be going gangbusters

Ahmadinejad is every bit as bad--maybe worse--than the ol' Ayatollah Khomeini himself.

[bemildred]

32. Yes, they do seem to be thriving.

The ability of the western powers to punish defiant and disobedient political hacks in the 2nd and 3rd world has sadly declined from what it once was.

[geek tragedy]

33. More to the point, they haven't been thrown out by their own

people yet.

[bemildred]

35. Yes, and we seem to be doing everything we can to keep it that way. nt

[geek tragedy]

37. Well, invading Iraq was a nice big present

to the Iranian government.

[bemildred]

38. Indeed.

Probably the single dumbest geopolitical move since Hitler invaded the USSR, or maybe Japan bombing Pearl.

[bemildred]

30. See, that is what this guy argues:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x123400

"Several telephone conversations with acquaintances in the Gaza Strip have given me the impression that the appointment of Jamal Abu Samhadana as inspector general in Hamas' Interior Ministry and the establishment of a new security force under his command have won broad public support in Gaza. Abu Samhadana is very popular in the Strip, in part because of the terror attacks he has carried out and which many people in Gaza think led Israel to withdraw from the Strip. He was a prominent activist in the Fatah movement and gathered young people from other political groups into an organization called the Popular Resistance Committees, which has carried out many of the terror attacks.

If Abu Samhadana succeeds in establishing the new security force - despite the opposition of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas - his job will be to help the police to impose law and order and to restrain the militias and the gangs running around the streets of Gaza. Lawlessness is an important issue in Gaza, no less so than the financial crisis threatening to bring the Strip to the verge of hunger. Every important clan, every neighborhood, every political group has a kind of private army."

[geek tragedy]

34. And what will happen to that order when

the IDF comes in and starts knocking doors down?

[bemildred]

36. Well, I would not think that would help much. With the order, I mean. nt

[barb162]

10. Forum rules require that an article title be used as subject

so I am not slanting anything.

[barb162]

12. This is clear: "We have only one enemy.They are Jews...."

TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE : "According to Abu Samhadana, "We have only one enemy. They are Jews. We have no other enemy."

That seems pretty darn clear and is in quotation marks

[King Mongo]

14. Sounds like Abu Samhadana is a racist...

...unless he meant to say "Israelis" instead of "Jews". Maybe he thinks that Israel is a Jewish State for Jews and thus maybe he wrongly thinks that Israel was created because of the efforts of all Jews? Isn't it always wrong to blame the people of a territory for the criminal deeds of a few individuals in that territory?

It's sad that both Israelis and Palestinians have racists who are in important political positions. Abu Samhadana reminds me of Netanyaho, among others.

[geek tragedy]

15. He meant Israeli Jews. Presumably, Arab Israelis

would be welcomed as full citizens were Hamas successful in its dream of establishing a medival caliphate in that part of the world.

[Peace Patriot]

18. I stand corrected. "Marking" the Jews was in the original title. You did

not color it. And I apologize to you. But this means that the Haaretiz.com news site DID color it. And it's those sort of colorations that I think we should be wary of. How can we trust a news article that starts off with such a coloration? I also wanted to comment on the word "enemy" and "my (or our) only enemy is the Jews." We really do not know if this is an accurate translation--and in the hot atmosphere of of the P/I conflict, we should be wary--but even if it is, a) we don't know if this man truly has launched rockets at Israeli sites (it is an allegation); b) "enemy" can be a political word, not a violent word; and c) he speaks of Jews (if that is the word he used) as his enemy in the context of defense, and also of opposing corruption. I am not convinced that we understand what this man was really saying, and I think it's unwise to jump to the conclusion that a violent warrior against "Jews" has been appointed chief of police. I really don't know. I am skeptical. I distrust this source as much as I distrust the New York Times and our other war profiteering corporate news monopolies. It doesn't feel straight to me. Are we getting a wholly or partially twisted, colored, anti-P picture? Are the allegations of violence against him true? If so, what are his justifications for it? What kind of situation was he violent in? Was his statement racist, or was the word "Israel" or or the phrase "Israeli Jews" "Israeli rightwing Jews" changed to (all) "Jews"?

You see what I mean? I'm just very distrustful--and it makes me want to know about the financial investments or funding of the source (the news organization).

One other thing: You say, above, that Israel has "no reason" to negotiate with the Palestinians. There have been many violent conflicts in history where both sides are so hot that they feel this way--yet negotiations can ALWAYS occur, even in the midst of violence, anger and vengeful feelings--if the wise and the peaceful step forward and initiate them. What are you proposing as an alternative? More violence? Crushing them? Maintaining Israel as an armed medieval fortress, all walled in with its weapons, while Big Brother stomps all over its neighbors?

You don't help your case by saying such a thing--that negotiation is not possible. It just makes me think you are a hothead.

As for the caliphate, well--maybe they should be permitted to have it. Some of the old caliphates were not so bad, were in fact the light of the Mediterranean in terms of learning and artistry, and were far kinder to the Jews that anyone in Europe. Not my cup of tea--being a western woman. But I do try to see the long view of this. And I do NOT mean eliminating Israel. I mean fostering development of Islamic infrastructure, culture, learning and advancement, and genuinely supporting the self-determination of Islamic peoples and Islamic democracy (unlike our western previous actions in the past, of utterly smashing democratic movements in Islamic countries). Some Islamic countries badly NEED development--especially empowerment of the poor majority--and if the west hadn't been so hell-bent on controlling Mideast oil over the last sixty years, the populations of these countries wouldn't be so desperate and wouldn't be so angry at us, or Israel. I think it's very likely that most people in Islamic countries--if they desire a caliphate--are not particularly thinking of a violent caliphate. They are thinking of self-determination--which the west has, in so many cases, denied them. Why not in fact foster a PEACEFUL caliphate--that is, a sphere of power and influence and self-determination for Islamic peoples, that is created in a context of general disarmament and new international institutions (or beefing up of the existing ones) for dispute resolution? Why cluster so much fear around this word, caliphate?

It is at least possible to imagine a prosperous and peaceful Middle East in which Israel is both safe and shares a community of interest with Islamic countries, even surrounded as it may be with a "caliphate" (some sort of regional Islamic consortium, agreed to by all). We really do need to start imagining something else than this endless and dangerous affliction: the Mideast war.

There are already signs that Mother Earth has had enough of us, and may give human civilization the heave-ho, if we don't stop polluting her--even before we destroy all life on earth with nuclear weapons. We need to think bigger thoughts--and extricate ourselves from tribal conflicts and land and resource wars. We have only a limited time to save our planet. The World Wildlife Fund gives the planet 50 years. 50 years! To the death of the planet--from pollution, overconsumption, and loss of biological diversity. We need a CREATIVE, far-thinking plan to end the conflict in the Middle East, and get on with saving the home of all humanity.

[ShalachEtAmi]

19. Well just last wek ALL Jews worldwide were indeed MARKED....

`Palestinian militants threaten to attack Jews abroad
17 Apr 2006 12:48:56 GMT`

Source: Reuters: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17629557.htm




``Palestinian militants linked to President Mahmoud Abbas's increasingly fractured Fatah movement threatened on Monday to attack Jews overseas `

`Marked` for attack..even if residing in ...

Tel Aviv,Toronto,London,NYC,Johannesburg,Budapest,Argintina,Paris,Istanbul or Sydney.

[King Mongo]

21. The inability to recognize that both States exist is causing more racism

This is mad. I dislike, however, how some people attempt to blame Abbas, Arafat prior to him, and other members of the Fatah, due to the activities of a small group which broke away from another group. That is no different from blaming Israeli Jews or even all Jews because of activities practiced by the Israeli government. Was there a need to add Abbas's name to this? No. Was Abbas's name added to place blame on him? Yes. Is this behavior correct or necessary? No. The writer of the article should leave Abbas out of it and just list the name of the group being described so that other folks are less encouraged to blame all Palestinians.

[ShalachEtAmi]

23. if they are linked to Abbas ,they are linked....

He has the choice and ability to distance himself from any group he wants to, or to sever those links.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. He has distanced himself from those groups...

He's totally opposed to their attacks on civilians. What do you think he must do? Resign from Fatah coz of a group that's linked to it?

Violet...

[King Mongo]

22. It is even racist to say that Israelis are the enemy...

...or Palestinians are the enemy. Even if the guy meant to say Israeli Jews, instead of all Jews, then the guy is still a racist. It would be correct to say that the current Israeli government is the enemy and it would be correct to target and kill the IDF but not the government or the people. As for Israel, the extremists are the enemy and the Hamas government is the enemy, but Israel does not have the right to target and kill Palestinians or the Palestinian government. Rather, it should target Palestinian security forces and extremist groups, not government officials. Government officials are best tried in the court of law. Personally, I would prefer for many government officials to be assassinated, but I can't support something which contradicts our standards, given that the murder of non-combatants is known as a form of terror.

haaretz is usually a pretty good source of information, but it's not perfect and some articles are more critical of Palestinians than they need to be.