Sunday, July 28, 2013

Israel: "Thoughts for Release of Prisoners" - by Ron, from Israel

(Translated from Hebrew)
Thought for the release of prisoners:
If everyone in Gaza virtuous, and we will release prisoners, that does not give effect.

On the other hand this also: if everyone in Gaza terrorists, and we will release the prisoners,
It does not give effect.

r than support them in prisons in Israel with the conditions, and they are rewriting the daily order. 

Prisons, sending Teaching Hamas. Prisoners, they control the agenda of the Palestinian Arabs. They live better in our prisons, it costs us millions to hold them.  Release them, and soon they will get a job as a senior role.

And after a while again you will see that all Arab leaders are all criminals. 

If you hold prisoners here in prison, you fund them, and they control the Palestinian street, they do it well even if behind bars.But if the Palestinian Authority does not make moves, and their reason that we hold their righteous here in prison, it can play more are for us if we let them go. Then you will see that if justice be logical to give them in jail, but they will be released, it would be a bad boomerang only to Palestinians. For us .. They're all the same, so it will not matter as long as they are all terrorists.

Like holding a box a hundred wasps, and around you have millions of the same type. Everyone there - killers of death, the sons of Satan. Netanyahu is right. If you hold a card in your hand, will release as soon as it is beneficial for you, and your opponent thinks he won? Let him think that, that will feed his dogs himself. After 20 years in Israeli jails, it is no longer useful, let them be here. They are all criminals. 
I'm sorry for long explanation, but since English is not my language, it was long so that people will understand me from every direction of explanation. 

Ron, from Israel.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Following is the text of an open letter to the citizens of Israel from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of the proposal to resume the diplomatic process, that will be submitted to the Cabinet tomorrow (Sunday, July 28, 2013):

From time to time, prime ministers are called on to make decisions that go against public opinion – when the matter is important for the country.

In order to make decisions that are supported by the public, there is no need for prime ministers.

At the present time, it seems to me that it is very important for the State of Israel to enter into a diplomatic process. This is important both in order to exhaust the chance of ending the conflict with the Palestinians and in order to establish Israel's position in the complex international reality around us.

The major changes in our region – in Egypt, Syria and in Iran – not only place challenges before the State of Israel but they also create considerable opportunities for us.

For these reasons, I believe that it is important for the State of Israel to enter a diplomatic process that will continue for at least nine months – in order to check if it is possible to reach an agreement with the Palestinians during this time.

But even with all of the importance that I ascribe to the diplomatic process, I was not prepared to accept the Palestinians' demands for withdrawals and freezes as preconditions for entering negotiations.

Neither was I prepared to accept their demand to release Palestinian prisoners before the start of negotiations. I did agree to release 104 Palestinians in stages after the start of the negotiations and in accordance with the circumstances of their progress.

This is an incomparably difficult decision, it is painful for the bereaved families and it is painful for the entire nation and it is also very painful for me.

It collides with the incomparably important value of justice.
It is a clear injustice when depraved people, even if most of them have sat in prison for over 20 years as in this case, are released before they have finished serving their sentences.

The decision is difficult for me seven-fold because my family and I personally know the price of bereavement stemming from terrorism. I know the pain very well. I have lived with it every day for the past 37 years.

The fact that previous Israeli governments have released over 10,000 terrorists does not make it easier for me today, and did not make it easier when I decided to bring back Gilad Shalit.

Gilad Shalit's return home entailed an incomparably difficult decision for me – releasing terrorists. But I believed that the value of bringing children back home needed to overcome this difficulty.
People in positions of leadership need to choose between complex choices and sometimes the necessary decision is especially difficult when most of the public opposes it.

Thus I decided to end Operation Pillar of Defense after the elimination of arch-terrorist Ahmed Jabari and after the severe blows the IDF dealt to Hamas and the other terrorist organizations.

I made the decision to end the operation even though most of the public supported continued action, which would have required entering the Gaza Strip on the ground. As Prime minister, I thought that the goal of deterrence had been mostly achieved by the determined actions that we carried out.

Today, almost one year after the end of Operation Pillar of Defense, we are witness to the quietest situation in the south in over a decade. Of course, this quiet can fray at any minute but my policy is clear on all fronts: We will, as much as possible, foil threats against us in a timely manner. We will react strongly to any attempt to harm our people.

In the next nine months, we will consider whether there is a Palestinian element opposite us that, like us, truly wants to end the conflict between us.

Such a conclusion will be possible only under conditions that will ensure security for Israel's citizens and ensure our vital national interests.

If we succeed in achieving such a peace agreement, I will submit it to a referendum.

Such a fateful decision cannot be made by a close vote in the Knesset.

Every citizen must be allowed to directly influence our future and our fate on such a crucial issue.

The best answer we can give to those same base murderers that sought to defeat us through terrorism is that in the decades that they sat in prison, we built a glorious country and turned it into one of the most prosperous, advanced and strongest countries in the world.

I promise that we will continue thus.

Benjamin Netanyahu.

Bee's note:
Wasp Nest

I am grateful for Rony's perspective about the prisoner release.  It is difficult to understand PM Netanyahu's announcement of releasing over 100 Arab terrorist prisoners. 

America is very aware of President Obama's support for Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood.  We have watched our President push Israel's back to the wall on so many occasions, in support for the PLO-Fatah-Abbas "2-state" solution, including making some demands that would be suicide for Israel, if such demands were met.

That being said, the release of prisoners comes as a shock to many of us, as we are aware that PM Netanyahu had specifically said, "No preconditions" before talks begin between Abbas and Israel's leaders.  

One issue not being discussed is Hamas.  The Palestinians voted for Hamas (rejecting Abbas/Fatah) and any "peace" talks must take into consideration the problems associated with the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza.

Rony's explanation sheds light onto a difficult decision by PM Netanyahu.  Now, when I hear about Arab-Palestinian's, I will think about a wasp nest.  If you have been bitten by a wasp, you know their sting is painful, just as these "Palestinians", including Hamas, are dangerous to all Israelis.    


Hundreds of thousands celebrate 20 years of Hamas in Gaza.(Photo : AFP)
Hundreds of thousands celebrate 20 years of Hamas in Gaza.
(Photo : AFP)
The Islamic movement Hamas was elected to government by Palestinians in 2006 but Israel, the US and the European Union say it's a "terrorist organisation" and refuse to talk to its representatives.

What is Hamas?

by Marco Chown Oved
Article published on the 2008-04-24 Latest update 2008-04-26 06:32 TU

Hamas was founded in 1987 by Sheik Ahmed Yassin at the beginning of the first intifada (uprising) of Palestinians against Israeli occupation. Its armed wing, the Ezzedine al-Qassam brigades, quickly became well-known for suicide-bombings and other violent forms of opposition to Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Hamas's founding charter called for the destruction of the state ofIsrael and its replacement with an Islamic state encompassing the West Bank, Gaza Strip and what is now Israel.

The first intifada finished with the Oslo peace accords in 1993, which created the Palestinian Authority as a provisional government while the details of a final Palestinian state were worked out.

Hamas, along with other radical Palestinian groups, opposed the Oslo agreement and refused to take part in elections in 1996. The peace process collapsed and in 2000 a second intifada flared up.

Hamas participated in legislative elections in January 2006 and won 74 of the 132 seats  the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Israel refused to deal with the new government and stopped handing over the Palestinian share of customs duties. The so-called "Quartet" – the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - cut all aid to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), demanding that Hamas recognise Israel and renounce armed action.

After five months of political crisis, a Palestinian unity government was formed by the former majority party, Fatah, and Hamas. But factional struggles continued and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dissolved the government in June 2007.

Shortly thereafter, Hamas’ militias forced remaining Fatah members from key posts in the Gaza Strip, taking sole control of the region and leaving Fatah controlling the West Bank.

The Quartet resumed limited funding to the West Bank Fatah government following the scission.

Hamas largely observed a unilateral ceasefire between 2005 and 2007 and has made several offers of peace with Israel, based upon the understanding that Israel would withdraw to its 1967 borders. But it stops short of formally recognising Israel's right to exist and still considers the whole region the Palestinians' homeland.