Mahmoud Abbas is half right. It was partly Israel's fault. Abbas and I reach roughly the same conclusion - for different reasons, of course.
Israel releases a small army of prisoners on a Thursday and the following Monday a small army of Arabs tosses stones at Jews visiting the contested Temple Mount site in Jerusalem. On Tuesday, three civilians - none Jewish, but not for want of trying - die in a mortar attack amid a series of shellings of Jewish communities. An Israeli woman and her daughter are wounded that day in another rocket attack.
The Palestinian Authority's president blamed Israel for allowing Jews to visit the Temple Mount, also where the Al-Aqsa Mosque is located, saying, "The Israeli government and the international community must stop these unjustified and dangerous violations."
Would it surprise anyone if some of the recently released inmates were among the stone-throwers? There is no way of knowing, but it stands to reason that some of the former inmates will join the terrorist forces - those who were among the 398 released on Thursday, June 2, and the 500 who were let out last February.
These recent episodes reflect a mindset that makes little sense. They have already fueled speculation that the war is on again and prove once more that Abbas has insufficient control of extremists in the territories.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon released the prisoners in order to bolster Abbas' standing with his people, even though charges against the most recently released inmates included possessing weapons, plotting attacks and belonging to a prohibited organization, as the New York Times reported. What guarantee is there that none of these prisoners will become involved in terrorism?
There is no question that Israel should do what it can, within reason, to help the Palestinians. But is releasing nearly 900 prisoners within reason?
All reason can be thrown to the wind when Muslims catch Jews visiting the Temple Mount, where the Biblical Jewish Temples existed. Muslims view it, at best, as a disruption and, at worst, an invasion of their third holiest site. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000, followed by violent outbursts, led to the current or now-dormant war, which claimed the lives of 3,500 Israelis and Palestinians.
Palestinians must have deemed the recent visit, on the 38th anniversary of Israel's capture of Jerusalem, an invasion when several Jewish visitors who were accompanied by police toured the compound. Hundreds of Palestinians tossed stones at them, a Jerusalem police spokesman told the Associated Press. What is wrong with this picture?
The Temple Mount sits on land - namely, the city of Jerusalem - which is controlled by the Israeli government. That land was seized by Israel in a war that neighboring Arab nations effectively initiated. The war is popularly known as the Six-Day War of 1967. Under such circumstances, doesn't Israel have the right to do what it wants with the site?
For understandable reasons, Israel fears the Mother of All Holy Wars if it touches the real estate, which is administered by Muslim spiritual leaders. On merit, who has full property rights? Incidentally, Israeli troops who took the Temple Mount stuck an Israeli flag on it, and military commander Moshe Dayan ordered the flag removed. The mosques and the Temple Mount were subsequently turned over to Muslim leaders.
Frustration about this situation was expressed by Helen Freedman after police detained her before allowing her to visit the Temple Mount in 1998. Police told her they recognized her as an activist; she is currently executive director of Americans for a Safe Israel, which is campaigning at this time against the Disengagement Plan.
She wrote at the time, "As I waited for instructions, tears came to my eyes, knowing that it was Jews, in our beloved sovereign state of Israel, who were taking their orders from... Yasser Arafat and his Arabs as to what would be permitted on the site of the Holy Temple. Who could have imagined such a thing after the delirium of 1967, when Jerusalem was reunited and the Har HaBayit was in Jewish hands once again? Who could have imagined that after the bitter struggle, the great loss of lives, the many wounded, this people... would give away our holiest places?"
To top it off, the Palestinians have twice responded to Jewish visitors with violence. What other people in the world responds to a mere visit with aggression? While I happen to disagree with Freedman on the Disengagement issue, her words mirror my thoughts on the Temple Mount. What was the Six-Day War all about if Israel would cede control of the property to the Palestinians? They were not killing anyone or kicking them out of their homes.
Tossing stones at the visitors was not enough, on the surface, for Hamas. They claimed to have fired rockets into Jewish communities the day after the Temple Mount outburst to avenge the visit. Actually, observers speculated that Hamas was trying to undermine Abbas for delaying elections.
At least Islamic Jihad contended that they were avenging the deaths of a military commander and other Palestinians when they launched mortars on a Gaza settlement, killing two Palestinians and a Chinese laborer. It did not matter that Israel cited legitimate reasons. IDF soldiers tried to arrest the leader, Mrawah Kamil, when he resisted arrest in a long gun battle.
Kamil's death possibly resulted from his own violent past. Israelis told the Times that he escaped from a Palestinian Authority prison in Jericho in May after directing attacks against Israeli targets, including the shooting of a soldier in Jenin the month before.
Which means that if the Palestinians attack Israelis, then Israel cannot respond unless it wants to risk more attacks. More nonsense.
Israel releases a small army of prisoners on a Thursday and the following Monday a small army of Arabs tosses stones at Jews visiting the contested Temple Mount site in Jerusalem. On Tuesday, three civilians - none Jewish, but not for want of trying - die in a mortar attack amid a series of shellings of Jewish communities. An Israeli woman and her daughter are wounded that day in another rocket attack.
The Palestinian Authority's president blamed Israel for allowing Jews to visit the Temple Mount, also where the Al-Aqsa Mosque is located, saying, "The Israeli government and the international community must stop these unjustified and dangerous violations."
Would it surprise anyone if some of the recently released inmates were among the stone-throwers? There is no way of knowing, but it stands to reason that some of the former inmates will join the terrorist forces - those who were among the 398 released on Thursday, June 2, and the 500 who were let out last February.
These recent episodes reflect a mindset that makes little sense. They have already fueled speculation that the war is on again and prove once more that Abbas has insufficient control of extremists in the territories.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon released the prisoners in order to bolster Abbas' standing with his people, even though charges against the most recently released inmates included possessing weapons, plotting attacks and belonging to a prohibited organization, as the New York Times reported. What guarantee is there that none of these prisoners will become involved in terrorism?
There is no question that Israel should do what it can, within reason, to help the Palestinians. But is releasing nearly 900 prisoners within reason?
All reason can be thrown to the wind when Muslims catch Jews visiting the Temple Mount, where the Biblical Jewish Temples existed. Muslims view it, at best, as a disruption and, at worst, an invasion of their third holiest site. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000, followed by violent outbursts, led to the current or now-dormant war, which claimed the lives of 3,500 Israelis and Palestinians.
Palestinians must have deemed the recent visit, on the 38th anniversary of Israel's capture of Jerusalem, an invasion when several Jewish visitors who were accompanied by police toured the compound. Hundreds of Palestinians tossed stones at them, a Jerusalem police spokesman told the Associated Press. What is wrong with this picture?
The Temple Mount sits on land - namely, the city of Jerusalem - which is controlled by the Israeli government. That land was seized by Israel in a war that neighboring Arab nations effectively initiated. The war is popularly known as the Six-Day War of 1967. Under such circumstances, doesn't Israel have the right to do what it wants with the site?
For understandable reasons, Israel fears the Mother of All Holy Wars if it touches the real estate, which is administered by Muslim spiritual leaders. On merit, who has full property rights? Incidentally, Israeli troops who took the Temple Mount stuck an Israeli flag on it, and military commander Moshe Dayan ordered the flag removed. The mosques and the Temple Mount were subsequently turned over to Muslim leaders.
Frustration about this situation was expressed by Helen Freedman after police detained her before allowing her to visit the Temple Mount in 1998. Police told her they recognized her as an activist; she is currently executive director of Americans for a Safe Israel, which is campaigning at this time against the Disengagement Plan.
She wrote at the time, "As I waited for instructions, tears came to my eyes, knowing that it was Jews, in our beloved sovereign state of Israel, who were taking their orders from... Yasser Arafat and his Arabs as to what would be permitted on the site of the Holy Temple. Who could have imagined such a thing after the delirium of 1967, when Jerusalem was reunited and the Har HaBayit was in Jewish hands once again? Who could have imagined that after the bitter struggle, the great loss of lives, the many wounded, this people... would give away our holiest places?"
To top it off, the Palestinians have twice responded to Jewish visitors with violence. What other people in the world responds to a mere visit with aggression? While I happen to disagree with Freedman on the Disengagement issue, her words mirror my thoughts on the Temple Mount. What was the Six-Day War all about if Israel would cede control of the property to the Palestinians? They were not killing anyone or kicking them out of their homes.
Tossing stones at the visitors was not enough, on the surface, for Hamas. They claimed to have fired rockets into Jewish communities the day after the Temple Mount outburst to avenge the visit. Actually, observers speculated that Hamas was trying to undermine Abbas for delaying elections.
At least Islamic Jihad contended that they were avenging the deaths of a military commander and other Palestinians when they launched mortars on a Gaza settlement, killing two Palestinians and a Chinese laborer. It did not matter that Israel cited legitimate reasons. IDF soldiers tried to arrest the leader, Mrawah Kamil, when he resisted arrest in a long gun battle.
Kamil's death possibly resulted from his own violent past. Israelis told the Times that he escaped from a Palestinian Authority prison in Jericho in May after directing attacks against Israeli targets, including the shooting of a soldier in Jenin the month before.
Which means that if the Palestinians attack Israelis, then Israel cannot respond unless it wants to risk more attacks. More nonsense.