President Obama Rewards The Hamas Lobby
Why is the terrorist group more interested in attacking Israel than improving the lives of its people?

by Steven Emerson
Forbes.com
June 22, 2010

A ship packed with violent, radical activists tries to run a blockade aimed at preventing terrorists from receiving illicit material. Video shows them beating commandos with clubs as they land on the ship, pelting them with slingshots and carrying knives.

What is America's response? To demand that the nation whose soldiers were attacked conduct an investigation to "find out the facts."

It is clear Israel sought to peacefully secure the Mavi Marmara on May 31 as it approached Gaza. But the hardened activists, who openly discussed their desire for martyrdom, weren't going to let that happen. Fighting for their lives, the Israeli soldiers opened fire with their sidearms, killing nine people on the ship.

But that does not make the Obama administration's demand for an investigation from an ally any more sensible. It was the first such demand made by the U.S. of another country, let alone an ally, in recent memory. There was no call for a probe on Russia's treatment of Chechnyans, for Egypt's persecution of the Christian Copts or for the murderous rampages against the Ahmadiyan Muslim sect in Pakistan.

Just Israel made the history books. Israel, however, has proof of what really happened. It released at least five videos on YouTube showing Israeli soldiers being attacked as they landed.

Moreover, details emerged about IHH--the Turkish charity instigating the attack--and its long history of abetting Islamic terrorist attacks and Islamic terrorist organizations. Reports produced by MEMRI showed the violent attack at sea was planned by radicals vowing to go to their "martyrdom." By June 3 more YouTube videos appeared showing the efforts by the Turkish flotilla extremists to battle with the Israelis.

But that wasn't enough for President Obama. Appearing on CNN's Larry King show on June 3, he repeated his demand for an Israeli investigation. But this time, Obama revealed his own biased predisposition when he told King, "You've got loss of life that was unnecessary."

Unnecessary? According to whom? For Turkey's radical Islamist regime, it was not only unnecessary, but evidence of a premeditated "bloody massacre." But to the Israeli soldiers who would have been murdered had they not used their sidearms, the deaths on the ship--as tragic as any death is--were anything but unnecessary.

And then the president blurted out his real agenda, when he criticized the Israelis for their blockade of Gaza: "you've got a blockade up that is preventing people in Palestinian Gaza from having job opportunities and being able to create businesses and engage in trade and have opportunity for the future." Here, he joined the world Hamas lobby--Islamic and European countries--in piling on Israel for creating such a humanitarian mess in Gaza, which in reality does not exist.

Stores are full of food. Pharmacies are stocked with medicines. Fancy restaurants on the coast flourish. There is no hunger. Every week Israel sends in hundreds of Israeli truckloads with food and other essentials.

The embargo exists because Hamas has proven it is more interested in arming itself and attacking Israel than in helping create a better life for its people. What country would ignore these provocations and terrorist attacks? In the past, Israel intercepted two international vessels destined for Gaza containing vast arsenals of weapons, explosives, rockets and missiles. Does Israel have an obligation to help a terrorist government bent on its destruction?

After falling for the agenda of the Free Gaza flotilla, whose membership included more than 100 known Islamic militants and terrorists, the president blurted out in the CNN interview something that was truly incredulous. He said, "...and I think Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process once we've worked through this tragedy." Turkey? The country that sponsored the would-be killers on the Mavi Marmara?

Turkey has allowed IHH to operate freely. IHH's accomplishments include assisting the Millennium bomber, supporting Hamas and smuggling weapons to mujahedeen. Arab language newspapers have reported that the leaders on board the Mavi Marmara planned to "martyr" themselves by attacking Israeli troops that might come on board. These newspapers also reported that the Turkish leaders armed themselves with knives and slingshots before boarding the Turkish ship.

Instead of rewarding Turkey, the president should have demanded that an international investigation be conducted of its role in inciting and arming the terrorists aboard its ship. He should have ordered Treasury to list IHH as a terrorist entity and ordered the Justice Department to investigate the activities of the Free Gaza Movement in the U.S. and its predecessor the International Solidarity Movement for materially supporting Hamas.

Israel alone was the recipient of the demands for an investigation.

Faced with the pressure from the president, Israel created a committee to investigate the flotilla incident. Moreover, Israel also capitulated to U.S. and international pressure this past weekend and loosened the blockade that will surely help to prop up the declining popularity of the Hamas regime in Gaza. It only goes to prove that terrorism pays.

Steven Emerson is executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Related Topics: Steven Emerson

en

Reader comments on this item

because Israel has long been our loyal friend, sharing intelligence and technology

Submitted by jen, Jun 25, 2010 23:11

"What's wrong" with this is that: 1. Countries usually trust their allies to tell the truth about incidents like this. 2. Countries usually ask the perpetrators to explain, not the victims., 3. Israelis WERE the victims, as not only the film, but reports of journalists who have covered the story tell about the beating of the soldiers rappeling down into the flotilla, 4. There were many people with terrorist ties on board., 5. Palestine does not need this type of help.

As for security, have you followed the middle-east situation long? Israel has been forced, by world opinion and strong urging by the U.N and Europe., to OFTEN give in to their enemies, thus threatening their own security. Examples include giving land they had won in the 6-day war back, giving Gaza to the "Palestians -- (full of greenhouses and equipment the "palestinians" destroyed), agreeing to bulldoze their citizen's houses because the "palestinians will not share land with the Jews," etc.

In Israel, all religions have equal rights - can you say the same about any muslim country? Israel is a true democracy and we owe our own government to judeo-Christian values. Those are a few of the reasons why it is wrong to act as a neutral party and demand that Israel explain.

If North Korea sent ships in and attacked South Korean soldiers, would we demand that South korea explain? Same thing.

 

Israel Must Stop Jeopardizing Its Own Security

Submitted by Linda Sax, Jun 24, 2010 13:17

Israel is relenting to world pressure and relaxing its security against Hamas-controlled Gaza. This capitulation is bound to come at great cost to Israel.

Why is Israel providing tons of humanitarian assistance to its avowed enemies while they hold Gilad Shalit?

Why did Israel force the expulsion of Jews from the community of Gush Katif in Gaza, making all of Gaza free of Jews. Jewish presence in Gaza predates Moslem presence there by well over 1000 years.

I wonder what Hamas did with the Arabs who worked in those greenhouses for the expelled Jewish residents...

Clearly, Ms Samuels, Israel has made many concessions which "endanger their security." Since the Jewish expulsion, thousands of rockets from Gaza have killed, maimed and terrorized Israelis, including Israeli Moslem Arabs.

 

So what's wrong with finding out the facts?

Submitted by Linda Samuels, Jun 23, 2010 13:00

I watched the video that's been circulating on YouTube, and it was inconclusive at best: Just a bunch of yelling, and too dark to see anything. If the Israelis have real proof of what happened, then let them present it. Serious proof would put American (if not world) opinion on their side.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government is taking steps to loosen the blockade. Knowing Israel's history, they wouln't do so if they thought it would endanger their security. So why such a tough blockade--and tough action to enforce it--to begin with?

 

Comment on this item

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: IPT will moderate reader comments. We reserve the right to edit or remove any comment we determine to be inappropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that include swearing, name calling, or offensive language involving race, religion or ethnicity. All comments must include an email address for verification.

Click here to see the top 25 recent comments.