Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Hamas PM-designate, Assassination Target

Mofaz: Hamas PM Could Be Israeli Target
Mar 7, 4:10 AM EST
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel's defense minister said Tuesday that the Islamic militant Hamas group's prime minister-designate, Ismail Haniyeh, is not immune from an Israeli targeted killing.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told Israel's Army Radio that Israel's policy of pinpointed killings has proven to be effective, and will continue.

"There is no question about its efficacy," Mofaz said. "Look what happened to Hamas in the years it conducted an untrammeled suicide bombing war against us. When we started the targeted killings, the situation changed."

"We will continue the targeted killings at this pace," he added. "No one will be immune."

Hamas, the militant Islamic group sworn to Israel's destruction, swept January parliamentary elections and is in the process of forming a Cabinet. It has rejected international calls to renounce its violent and anti-Israel ideology, but has maintained a year-old moratorium on suicide bombings.

Asked if Hamas' prime minister-designate would be a target if Hamas were to resume its attacks on Israel, Mofaz responded: "If Hamas, a terror organization that doesn't recognize agreements with us and isn't willing to renounce violence, presents us with the challenge of having to confront a terror organization, then no one there will be immune. Not just Ismail Haniyeh. No one will be immune."

Salah al-Bardawil, a Hamas spokesman, denounced Mofaz's comments.

"This statement and Israeli practices on the ground reflect the bloody, inhumane and inflammatory character of the Zionist enemy," al-Bardawil said. "We are not seeking immunity or mercy from Israel. We are in a confrontation. The side that is most steadfast is the side that will survive."

On Monday, two Islamic Jihad militants and three Palestinian bystanders were killed in an Israeli pinpoint attack in Gaza City. Two of those killed were children.

The Economist (March 4)

[Brazilian president Luiz inácio] Lula [de Silva] recounts how he once questioned China’s president Hu Jintao, about his opposition to a permanent seat for Japan [on the UN Security Council], one obstacle to reform. “We can’t allow the problems of the last century to influence decisions that will affect future centuries,” he told Mr Hu.

Estonia and Latvia [issued] declarations underlining their status as occupied territories during the Soviet era. Russia contests that view, insisting the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally… Most west European countries… think [Estonia and Latvia] are being neurotic, and should shut up about the past.

Hmmmmm… Try to replace “Estonia and Latvia” with “Korea”…

From “Elusive Peace”:

CAMP DAVID TALKS, DAY 3, 13 JULY 2000: When the President (Clinton) explained to Arafat what was in the paper he was at first satisfied, but not for long. After seeing the President, Arafat immediately summoned his advisers… As Arafat started to read from the draft document the mood among the Palestinians changed dramatically. Saeb Erekat recalls, ‘When I translated to [Arafat] what it said about Jerusalem… he was extremely upset. President Arafat took the paper out of my hand, threw it in the air and said, “This is a non-starter.” I told you it was a set-up for us.’ What so upset Arafat was the fact that the new American paper made reference to Israel’s plan to expand Jerusalem so that Arafat could establish the Palestinian capital in an outlying neighbourhood instead of within the city’s traditional boundaries. (p. 90)

DAY 5, 15 JULY 2000: … General Shlomo Yanai offered a map showing the West Bank as Israel envisioned it in a future Palestinian state. But Abu Ala rejected the map out of hand, refusing even to look at it until Israel accepted the ‘principle’ that any territorial agreement had to be based on the lines of 4 July 1967… Clinton then blew up at Abu Ala:

OK, we know that you think that your position is that you should get the 1967 line. We agree that’s your position. And let’s assume that the Israelis accept it. Now draw me a line [on the map] of the kind of things you could accept, what percentage of land could you accept [to be annexed by Israel so that large Jewish settlements could be included in Israeli proper]?

But Abu Ala still would not look at the map… Clinton burst out again at Abu Ala: ‘OK you don’t like the map, but it’s an Israeli proposal and either you get specific about what you need to change or offer you own map… You’re not here to posture. I invited you here for a summit. I’m doing this for your sake, all you can do is come back with posturing. This is not a negotiation. This is a joke.’ (pp. 93-94)



No comments: