Jul 1, 2006

Report: Israel Vows to Kill Palestinian PM

Ismail HaniyehLeft: Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh

(Tel Aviv) The Israeli govenrment last night threatened to assassinate Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh if militants with ties to Hamas did not release captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit unharmed.

The remaining Hamas political leaders - including Haniyeh -- have gone into hiding. The assasination warning was reportedly delivered to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a letter.

Militant groups have issued new demands before they will free Shalit, calling for the release of 1,000 prisoners being held by Israel and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis have not yet proven fruitful.

"After a week of continuous and long contacts with all parties, Palestinian, Arab, international and particularly Egyptian, the president ... is still exerting efforts to stop the Israeli aggression and avoid more disasters for the Palestinian people," he said in a written statement. "The next hours are critical, sensitive and serious. And though the efforts are still ongoing, we have not reached an acceptable solution until now."

Israeli warplanes continued the bombardment of Gaza in 30 air raids last night, hitting the Hamas-run interior ministry, suspected Hamas training camps, and access roads. The anticipated invasion of northern Gaza has not yet taken place.

Electrical power has been severed to hundreds of thousands of residents in Gaza, and humanitarian organizations fear that there will soon be no tap water for many of the Strip's 1.4 million residents.


Anonymous said...

Allright!! Another post in which ot play "They started it first" tennis, so who's going to start with the first volley.

historymike said...


It's interesting how the anonymous poster implied I am condemning the Israeli incursion.

I found disturbing the news that the Israelis may be threatening to assassinate the democratically-elected leader of the Palestinians. This is a dangerous trend, if the report is accurate.

While I believe the Israelis have the right to defend themselves against rocket attacks from Gaza, the idea that they would attack infrastructure targets such as power plants and bridges is also of concern to me, as is the detention (kidnapping?) of scores of Palestinian legislators.

Finally, my interest goes beyond the localized battle between the IDF and Palestinian militants. I see this as the sort of spark that could lead to a much larger war in the Middle East, perhaps of a "World War III" variety with oil as a backdrop.

liberal_dem said...

Moses....tablets....'Thou shalt not kill'

Does it matter?

Anonymous said...

No, Mike I'm not implying that at all. I'm merely referencing the the previous middle east post where it seemed to degenirate into a "dirty jew bastard interloper" vs "free world hating towel head muslims" Thats all

historymike said...

Gotcha. Yes, it did get quite heated and polarized.

Unfortunately, too many people sink into that black-and-white, good-evil mentalité on issues like this.

For the vast majority of Palestinians, who just want to carry on their lives with a chance to eke out a living, this turn of events is hideous and will set them back a decade or more.

As much as many Palestinians think they got a raw deal(and, let's face it, the 1947 Partition Plan did screw the Palestinians, although it turned out to be better than they ended up with), only lunatics and ideological zealots can hold onto the idea that the 6 million+plus Israeli population can be "relocated" somewhere else on the planet.

A two-state solution has to be the cornerstone of lasting peace.

The Israelis, however, seem to want Palestine to be a subordinate, powerless client state instead of a sovereign nation. Until that is rectified, there will be militants in Palestine rising up to demand justice.

Dariush said...

An excellent overview of events from Jonathan Cook within the format of a critique of the British media's coverage.

Kate said...

This just keeps getting worse and worse.

The kill commandment is a confusing one. I have studied it quite a few times. The Bible I had when I was younger (NIV) said the commandment was you shall not murder. That confused the hell out of me because as mentioned in another post - God often sent people out to kill. And did it himself. So it didn't add up.

An earlier version - King James translation (long story but it wasn't common to be able to read the books and the Catholic church did not even allow Priests to have the Bible - but this guy had it translated into the people's language and made it accessible). But in this version it says that 'Thou shalt not murder'.

Anyway - you sure can't say there isn't plenty of killing going on.

Kate said...

yes - someone caught the typo and emailed me. Yes - the NIV is the one that says 'you will not KILL' and the KJV says 'thou shalt not murder'.

The difference in meaning in the two words is significant. You would think someone writing a translation would keep the intent. But obviously, in some cases - no.

Anonymous said...

A two-state solution has to be the cornerstone of lasting peace.




The Israelis, however, seem to want Palestine to be a subordinate, powerless client state instead of a sovereign nation.


Not altogether sure.


there will be militants in Palestine rising up to demand justice.



Whose justice?

Militants: Read "terrorists".

dusty said...

Its a long jump between "militant" and "terrorist". I refuse to label all militants as terrorists. To me, they mean entirely different things.

I also do not think its right to hold the entire nation of Palestine hostage over one Israeli soldier.

Dariush said...

Mike: "there will be militants in Palestine rising up to demand justice."


Anon: "Disagreed.

Whose justice?

Militants: Read "terrorists"."

Well, for the record, the liberal traitors and terrorist appeasers in the Bush administration seem to agree with that assessment of Mike's.

Anchorage Activist said...

Kate - I sympathize with your confusion over "thou shalt not kill".

This is why the Bible contains stories about how different peoples handled this at different times - to define and establish more coherent limits.

For example, God not only told King Saul to raise an army and kill all the Amalekites - men, women, children, AND flocks, but took the kingdom from him and gave it to David when he (Saul) failed to execute the command completely. However, God judged King David for merely inserting Urriah into the hottest part of the battle, causing his death. David didn't personally lift a finger to kill Urriah, but he desired Urriah's death so he could steal his wife Bathsheba.

Based on those two examples, as well as others, I suggest that the commandment really means "Thou shalt not kill for gratuitous purposes." The litmus test: Did you, or did you not want the person killed for purely selfish reasons?

Makes you glad only God has the burden of prescribing final judgment on Judgment Day, doesn't it?

liberal_dem said...

One comment from my blog that relates to the question of 'militant or terrorist' was this:

Let's face it, the term "Founding Fathers" has come as a certain cover-up for what these men really were, that is, rebels, revolutionaries, ingrats, insurgents, terrorists, secularists, etc.

People with a specific agenda love the predicate nominative, 'terrorist.'

Kate said...

Yup Anchorage. It'll be good to see the day come.

I'd come to my open simpler version of it. Course, that's because I'm a bit simple :-)

That murder is the intentional theft of the life of another. Be it someone who slept with your spouse, stole your money etc. etc.

To kill, is the unintentional taking of a life. As in self-defense or as mind boggling as it is to me - the war efforts you describe. I know there will be an explanation one day that I can understand. But I still can't wrap my mind around the concept of 'war'. I look at the ideologies and the religious battles but I can't really understand how people can choose to do battle over differences that could be settled by other means. Over the whole of the history of the world. I do not say it is wrong or right - that is up to God - only that I cannot fathom it.

Anonymous said...


Yeah, because we all know that Israel's disengagement from Gaza and capitulation to Pali demands has done nothing but increase the peace and security in Israel.

Tell me a better one. The Palis want the whole country, pure and simple. Capitulation to them, thus, only accomplishes more terrorism and agression.

Anonymous said...


...``If this will be done, then everything will be changed," Ehud Olmert, a key architect of the plan, promised in a speech last June. Israel would be better off without Gaza than it ever was with it. But the surrender of Gaza didn't appease Hamas and Fatah. Instead, it convinced them that Israelis were weak, that terrorism worked -- and that more terrorism would work even better.

So more terrorism followed. ``In just the past two weeks," I wrote last September, ``a Palestinian knifed a Jewish student to death in Jerusalem's Old City, an Israeli policemen was stabbed in the throat by an Arab in Hebron, Kassam rockets were fired from Gaza into the southern Israeli town of Sderot, a suicide bomber blew himself up in Beersheba's crowded bus station, a Katyusha missile launched from Lebanon exploded in the Israeli village of Margaliot, a firebomb was thrown at an Israeli vehicle on a highway outside Jerusalem, and a 14-year-old boy from Nablus was caught with three bombs."

In the months since then, the Palestinian war against Israel has continued without letup. All that changed was the frontline -- with the Jewish settlements and soldiers gone, it moved right up to the border, making it easier than ever for attacks to penetrate Israeli territory. The Gaza security fence has been no panacea. Sderot and other towns in southern Israel have been bombarded by hundreds of rockets fired over the fence. The gunmen who abducted Shalit and killed two of his comrades entered Israel by tunneling under the fence.

``We are tired of fighting," said Olmert last year, making the case for retreating from Gaza. ``We are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies."

But Israel will either defeat its enemies or be defeated by them; ``disengaging" from them is not an option. In 1976, Israelis understood that in their bones. Thirty years later, do they still?
--Jeff Jacoby

Hooda Thunkit said...

I'm still thinking we should just stand back and let them do what we have been preventing for years, in not decades.

I'm sure the survivors will make their presence known to us, in good time...

Dariush said...

lmao @ Jeff Jacoby & the anonymous shabbos goy.

Why stop at Jacoby. Why not quote from an even more hysterical, foaming-at-the-mouth self-serving chosenite? How about Mark Steyn or Steven Plaut for your next quote?

"So let's turn to the issue that Josh wants to address, namely the context. I’m very happy to do so. Let's look at the context. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in September 2005 'til today, the estimates run between 7,000 and 9,000 heavy artillery shells have been shot and fired into Gaza. On the Palestinian side, the estimates are approximately 1,000 Kassam missiles, crude missiles, have been fired into Israel. So we have a ratio of between seven and nine to one.

"Let's look at casualties. In the last six months, approximately 80 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza due to Israel artillery firing. Now, on the Israeli side, we hear all of these terrible things about these Kassams. Even Shlomo Ben-Ami, yesterday on your program, who I respect, he said what's Israel to do about these Kassams? What does the record show? I mentioned a moment ago, 80 Palestinians killed in six months. There have been exactly eight Israelis killed in the last five years from the Kassam missiles. Again, we have a huge disproportion, a huge discrepancy.

"Now, Josh says Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens. I totally agree with that. But Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinians. They have a responsibility to protect their citizens. They have a responsibility to get back their 9,000 hostages. They have a responsibility to protect their Palestinian civilians, who are being daily attacked by Israel."

--Norman Finkelstein

Kate said...

It almost seems inevitable to me, hooda thunkit. I don't see how it can be held back anymore

Anonymous said...

Why stop at Jacoby. Why not quote from an even more hysterical, foaming-at-the-mouth self-serving chosenite? How about Mark Steyn or Steven Plaut for your next quote?


You mean like Israel Hater and Holocaust-denial nutcase Norman Finkelstein?

Yeah, there's an objective source of commentary and information.