My Views on News

The Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, one of Syria's most virulent critics, has alleged that Fatah al-Islam is a 'Syria's proxy,' while the exiled Abd al-Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice-president who now heads an opposition movement dedicated to the overthrow of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, has stated categorically that 'Syria is responsible.'

Proof, however, is lacking. Interrogation of captured members of Fatah al-Islam might yield some evidence of a Syrian connection but, for the moment at least, the evidence seems to point in quite another direction.

"Sponsored Post"

 If you are a collector of high-end and luxury watches or an individual who requires a strap that creates individuality then you should visit www.watchband.biz is the ideal site for you.

They offer a wide selection of genuine, high quality replacement straps. They ranges available include HIRSCH and other premium brands. HIRSCH Artisanal leather watch bands are handcrafted

They sell following types of HIRSCH replacement straps:

The quality of their leather Watch Straps is exemplary, the colors are gorgeous, the skin is beautiful and they are priced realistically. All leather watchbands are Sauna-Tested and Water-Resistant. Some straps come with HIRSCH No Allergy System.

They offer the finest Alligator, Crocodile, Lizard and Leather watch bands and straps.

They are also a reliable source of metal link bracelets. These bracelets are nickel-free and abrasion resistance. Breitling, Rolex und Tag Heuer lovers will find a fine selection of stainless steel bracelets for their watches

Their products assuredly meet all of the requirements for which one could wish; their customer service is also truly exceptional and personal - which one would expect but which is very difficult to find anywhere today.

Seymour Hersh said in an interview that Saudis are financing Sunni militant groups. He said :

The key player is the Saudis. What I was writing about was sort of a private agreement that was made between the White House, we're talking about Richard -- Dick -- Cheney and Elliott Abrams, one of the key aides in the White House, with Bandar. And the idea was to get support, covert support from the Saudis, to support various hard-line jihadists, Sunni groups, particularly in Lebanon, who would be seen in case of an actual confrontation with Hezbollah -- the Shia group in the southern Lebanon -- would be seen as an asset, as simple as that.

Well, the United States was deeply involved. This was a covert operation that Bandar ran with us. Don't forget, if you remember, you know, we got into the war in Afghanistan with supporting Osama bin Laden, the mujahadin back in the late 1980s with Bandar and with people like Elliott Abrams around, the idea being that the Saudis promised us they could control -- they could control the jihadists so we spent a lot of money and time, the United States in the late 1980s using and supporting the jihadists to help us beat the Russians in Afghanistan and they turned on us. And we have the same pattern, not as if there's any lessons learned. It's the same pattern, using the Saudis again to support jihadists, Saudis assuring us they can control these various group, the groups like the one that is in contact right now in Tripoli with the government.

via neoneocon.com :

 
Here’s a must-read (and it’s relatively short, too) by Robert Spencer on the topic of Muslim secularism.

We often speak of the need for moderate Muslims. And it’s undoubtedly true that some Muslims are indeed moderate. But as Spencer points out, that is no guarantee against a repressive Muslim theocracy such as that in Iran which, once imposed (even if this is initially done democratically), is very difficult to reverse.

Ataturk of Turkey was aware of the dilemma back in the 1920’s and 1930’s, when he instituted a number of exceedingly important reforms there that made it far less likely that the country would ever come under the sway of a repressive Muslim theocracy. And, although there is currently a threat of theocrats taking over in Turkey, so far Ataturk’s institutional reforms have held the line against it.

This was done, as Spencer points out, not by making Turkey a “moderate Muslim” country, but by adopting a nearly Western-style separation of church and state—in other words, secularism. And secularism isn’t really a traditional Muslim concept at all, it is an affront to it. That is why Ataturk represented a huge break with Muslim tradition, and why a similar break is so difficult for other Muslim countries.

Spencer writes:

[F]or peaceful Muslims to prevail over the proponents of jihad and Sharia, they must be prepared not just to ignore, but to reject explicitly, the elements of Sharia that are at variance with accepted norms of human rights and with government that does not establish a state religion.

This is a huge leap. It’s also the underlying reason that democracy, in and of itself, will not necessarily save or even help the Muslim world. I have always tried to be explicit about that by using the term liberal democracy—that is, democracy with protection of human rights, including separation of church and state—to refer to the goals for government in that part of the world and elsewhere. And encouraging liberal democracy is a far more difficult and lengthy proposition than instituting pure democracy, which unfortunately is no bar to tyranny.

via  Asharq Al-Awsat:

This article does not seek to ‘judge’ whether the US media is biased or not, as "there is no such thing as a completely unbiased media" to start with. This is a widely held belief that is reiterated everyday in most classrooms of mass communication and journalism colleges, irrespective of the country in question.

Rather, the intention is to convey some convictions that many people in the Arab world hold, namely, that all or most of the American media is slanted against Arabs and Arab issues, to various American media organizations and prominent journalists and find out what their opinions and positions are in return.

It is important to point out at the beginning that many critics in the Arab world judge American media without monitoring it closely, while some do not even speak English.

In addition, the number of Arab institutions that professionally observes or criticizes media (be it Arab or Western) is small when compared to the huge amount that exists in the US.

On the other hand, exploring the shelves of any prominent bookshop in the US will reveal a vast choice of books that question the credibility or criticize American media. Fox News Channel (FNC) could be a good example of an organization that is continuously under the microscope; several books and documentaries have come out to criticize the editorial policy of the channel. Many American agree with Arab critics that Fox News leans toward the American extreme right, while being predominantly biased against Arabs and for the most part adopts anti-Arab positions in favor of Israel.

FNC’s press office did not offer any comment despite repeated attempts by Asharq Al-Awsat to get a response. For its part, CNN International’s office replied by quoting a statement by executive vice president and managing director Tony Maddox. The statement did not answer Asharq Al-Awsat’s questions adequately, including a question about what its reaction would be upon the discovery of errors and unbalanced coverage.

The statement said, "When emotions run high in a crisis, objectivity can seem like bias," adding that " CNN International's editorial focus encompasses the whole world, not individual world country region, and reaches an audience all over the globe … In recognition of its importance on the news agenda, we maintain 5 permanent news desks across the region." The statement concluded "Accurate, responsible and balanced reporting guide CNN's principals of news coverage."

However, it is not only CNN that invariably cites its editorial guidelines and its dedication to accuracy and balance, most American media organizations do. The common ground shared by most of these organizations is their vehement defense of their neutrality and the fact that they rectify mistakes – if they occur. Perhaps the most prominent example is when well-established media organizations apologized for their coverage and positions taken during the 2003 war on Iraq.

This is extremely evident today as various television programs and articles sound like daily court hearings for the US administration over Iraq. One must also not forget that the harshest story the current US administration had to face was the "Abu Ghraib" scandal, which was not an Arab ‘exclusive’ in any way but rather a purely American story reported by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

Another point worthy of consideration is that editorial standards and policies differ between various organizations.

For example, Deputy Foreign Editor of the ‘The New York Times’ (NYT), Ethan Bronner does not regard not publishing the findings of a Human Rights Watch report in 2003 on Israeli violations against the Palestinians (according to an American book entitled ‘Israel-Palestine on Record: How The New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East’ co-authored by Howard Friel and Richard Falk), as a bias or a mistake.

Ethan points out that he was not yet appointed to his current position when this report came out, and that he had to verify whether the report was in fact unpublished.

Never the less, Ethan says: "I do not think that we view a report by a human rights organization as something we absolutely must carry", a statement many journalists would probably agree with.

Another issue for example that the books points out is that the NYT does not label Israeli settlements as a violation of international law. In this respect, Bronner comments: "If it was agreed that we did publish something that was factually wrong, we would publish a correction. We do that on a daily basis" adding "For example, earlier we overstated that millions of Palestinian refugees after 1948 events, but in fact there were about 750,000 in total. So we published a correction twice his over the years." However, Bronner adds: "With regards to settlements, we stay away from assertions of legality on most international issues, because law is less clear about international affairs than about national affairs."

However, another question poses itself, what is extent of influence exerted by pro-Israel pressure groups on the American media? which is an issue you hear quite often in the Arab world.

Robert (Bob) Zelnick, professor of journalism at Boston university and a former ABC News correspondent who reported from Israel in 1980s, does not deny the presence of ‘some’ influence by these groups. However, he says: "They employ the right technique. That is, they are very scholarly and nothing surprises them as they always seem prepared if a reporter calls in to enquire about a given Israeli practice or policy," adding, "they come back to you quickly with accurate information. You may not accept the spin they put on the facts but you will never be embarrassed to have published wrong information."

Zelnick had written articles for newspapers such as ‘The Washington Post’ in which he criticized aspects of the Israeli policy and yet the articles were never blocked from publication. He said that after publishing certain articles, he did receive criticism by pro-Israel groups but that he never received any threats. "During my time in Israel with the ABC, the news anchor was Peter Jennings, whom Israeli groups here label anti-Israeli and many Palestinians regarded as a close friend of their movement and ambitions for a democratic state in Palestine," he added.

So if Peter Jennings was a ‘friend’ to the Palestinians, was he the rule or the exception? In other words, how does an average American journalist view the Palestinian issue? Ethan Bronner says: "I think that the typical American journalist believes in the two-state solution and regard Israel as a legitimate state that they do not wish be destroyed.”

Another point is that some in the Arab world believe that the fact that a large number of American journalists are Jews. They also claim that Jews own many media organizations, which is believed to be the underlying reason behind the bias against Arab issues. It is important to state here that for some people in the Arab world the lines are blurred between the meanings of being a ‘Jew,’ ‘Zionist’ or an ‘Israeli’. In addition, whilst many Jews support Israeli policies, many others disagree with them.

Regarding this issue, Professor Zelnick says "If I am to take the point that some in the Arab world see Zionist control of the [American] media as a fact, I say that if they examine the situation on the ground, they would reach a different conclusion". He adds that "The American media has mostly the same motivations as any for-profit organization that wants to attract the largest number of audiences to win the largest possible share of advertising, which translates into income".

However, if we take Zelnick's words for granted while learning that most Americans, 53 percent, sympathize with Israel according to a Gallup poll published by ‘The Jerusalem Post’ about two months ago – the obvious question becomes why would a newspaper take a position that is different from that of the majority of its readership? "I believe that most Americans who pick up a newspaper in the morning want informed, fair and accurate coverage rather than one that favors one particular side, whether Israel or the Arabs. This is not what they buy the newspaper for," Zelnick stated.

Bronner recounts that it was not until 1984 that the NYT sent a Jewish reporter to cover events in Israel (Which was Thomas Friedman, who is currently a distinguished columnist for the paper). The Deputy Foreign Editor points out that ‘The New York Times’ backed down from this "unstated thing" because it had found it meaningless to prevent a reporter from continuing their work provided they were doing it well. However, he did point out that, “we try to avoid reporters who have strong political positions [toward a particular issue].”

Another inevitable question was about to the absence of Arab journalists. Bronner vehemently denied the existence of any form of discrimination against any person, particularly Arabs, when it came to jobs within the paper. He said that it was subject to the required academic and professional background (which applies to all other races and religions), and that “In fact, we are currently actively looking for Arabic speakers, which is good because it helps us in the Arab world and here with Arab communities."

According to Bronner, the NYT currently has three Arab journalists and a number of Arabic-speaking American reporters. Arabic classes are given at the newspaper's headquarters in New York City.

Elaborating on his view on the relationship between the American press and Israel, Zelnick argues that through his observations over more than 50 years, he could say that "there were periods when the Arab issue captured American imagination, other times when the Israeli issue captured American imagination and periods when neither of them did," he points out.

Zelnick explains: "Israel captured the romantic imagination of the American people, especially after the Holocaust, where we had a group of virtually unarmed people who were planting their flag in Israel backed by a UN resolution and who were attacked by 5 Arab armies and managing to survive nevertheless. This was in the late 1940s."

"However, after the end of the Six-Day War of 1967 and as Israel became an occupier over time; the American press began to show courage and report abuses on Palestinian territories. If we have an honest look at the record, we will find much of such coverage." Zelnick explains stating that "Much of this reporting was labeled by Zionist critics as sympathizing with terrorism and Arafat-led armed operations against Israeli targets".

On a similar note and according to Bronner, ‘The New York Times’ also receives such criticisms. He said that some hold that they are a newspaper that “makes excuses for terrorists” and that it is “pro-Arab” because “Hamas, Hezbollah and many Arab governments are anti-Semitic and publish anti-Jewish textbooks and statements and let their clerics talk against the Jews. They accuse us of hiding these facts from our readers because of our incomplete coverage of what is happening.”

But does criticism from the both sides embroiled in conflict; the Israelis and Palestinians for example, prove that the media establishment is doing its job well? Bronner disagrees. He stated that all criticisms must be heard and examined.

Another interesting issue to note is that at times there are similarities between Arab and Israeli criticism of the American media. Just as many Arabs are discontent with the US media’s focus on disputes and conflict only (which is a criticism that applies to most journalists, not just the American ones), many in the Israeli government and some Israeli advocates in the US feel that there is too much emphasis on Israel, according to Bronner. He adds, “in there minds, there is undue emphasis on Israeli problems and they are concerned that our focus in such a manner causes people to think that Israel is a country with endless problems. They worry that support for and faith in Israel will drop as a result."

Also, with regards to the issue of "image" and focusing on negative aspects, many in the Arab world were deeply disturbed when some American networks, including CNN, aired footage of people who were supposedly Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attacks as part of the world reactions to the attacks. The criticism lies in the fact that it might have given the impression that all Palestinians or Arabs shared these feelings. (The same applies to recurrent scenes of burning American flags in Arab demonstrations and the scenes of terrorists slaughtering hostages).

At this point, it is worth mentioning that it is fair to argue that we seem to be discussing the outcome (the photo) rather than the cause (the act in itself).

Thus, it must be pointed out that the question here is not about whether or it would be right to publish pictures or footage of something that has actually happened: but what are the ramifications on those who do not share the same views as the perpetratoar? It would also be fair to say that the perpetrators should have considered their actions before doing them.

Commenting on this point, Bronner said: "Once again I was not in my current position at the time of the 9/11 attacks nor was involved in choosing a pictures. However, had I been , I would say that post-9/11 polling data showed that a significant proportion of the Arabs and Muslims actually felt that it was time for America to suffer the same way they did," adding that "therefore, I do not believe it is inappropriate to publish such a picture."

"There are broad lines for stories. It is fair to say now that in light of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is even truer that there is growing anger in the Arab world over the United States and its policies," Bronner adds.

Zelnick agrees the complaint that the press only reports bad news is common

to most criticisms of the media. He added that every once in a while good things happen, such as the end of the Cold War, the Oslo Accords and sports events; "However, the job of the journalists is to report each as it occurs and not to invent an artificial balance."

He adds "Certainly someone who burns an American flag, or slits the throat of a

hostage, cannot complain that the media rushed to report this bad news or

failed to counter-balance it with good news. Yet, Zelnick concludes: " I do agree, however, that it is important to identify with the greatest particularity who was and what was

not involved in any ugly business".

* Additional reporting by Talha Gebriel in Washington DC.

via conflictsforum :

 Is the Bush administration violating the law in an effort to provoke a Palestinian civil war?

Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams — who Newsweek recently described as “the last neocon standing” — has had it about for some months now that the U.S. is not only not interested in dealing with Hamas, it is working to ensure its failure. In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a “hard coup” against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.

While those closest to him now concede the Abrams’ words were issued in a moment of frustration, the “hard coup” talk was hardly just talk. Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank. A large number of Fatah activists have been trained and “graduated” from two camps — one in Ramallah and one in Jericho. The supplies of rifles and ammunition, which started as a mere trickle, has now become a torrent (Haaretz reports the U.S. has designated an astounding $86.4 million for Abu Mazen’s security detail), and while the program has gone largely without notice in the American press, it is openly talked about and commented on in the Arab media — and in Israel. Thousands of rifles and bullets have been poring into Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan, the administration’s designated allies in the program.

As the Hamas-led multiple missile offensive against Israel marked its first week, voices were heard in Israel and overseas, well-meaning or despairing, calling for Israel to start talks with the Palestinian Islamist group’s leaders.

Hamas soon knocked that notion on the head. After hurling some 150 missiles against Israel, one of its officials, Nizhar Riyah, issued a clear statement of intent Monday, May 21:

“Hamas is determined to wipe Israel off the map and replace it with the state of Palestine,” he said. Hamas will fight “until the last Jew is expelled” - not only from Sderot but also from Ashkelon and “all of Palestine.”

In February 2006, Hamas beat Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah in the Palestinian general elections, which the incoming Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni, against every Israeli security interest, allowed to take place.

Ret. Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, then head of Israel’s national security council, strongly advised them to make the best of a bad job and engage the new Palestinian leaders in talks. This recommendation was emphatically reported by DEBKAfile’s analysts just days after the election. But it was turned down by leaders who preferred to follow advice from Washington.

Just as US State Department urged Israel to permit an election which gave Hamas its victory, officials at State also had a plan to deal with its unfortunate aftermath: a campaign spearheaded by the US and Israel, and adopted by the Middle East Quartet, to boost the Palestinian loser, Fatah and its leader Mahmoud Abbas, and boycott the winning Hamas.

It was soon clear they had backed the losing horse - and still are.

In the intervening 15 months, Hamas was not idle. Instead of breaking down under international pressure, Hamas went from strength to strength, taking advantage of Israel’s indecision and inaction and the ineffectiveness of Abu Mazen and his sidekick Mohammed Dahlan.

The Palestinian fundamentalists quickly jumped aboard the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah bandwagon. That bandwagon is now racing ahead in the Middle East arena, leaving Israel behind with the United States and its crises.

In these circumstances, and after the Lebanon War less than a year ago, Israel must on no account turn to Hamas for talks, because the only agenda on offer now would be terms for Jewish state’s capitulation and demise.

The outcome would reflect the consequences of Washington’s two years of talks with Iraqi Sunni insurgent leaders, brokered by dozens of Arab and Muslim mediators, including Jordan’s King Hussein. The result has been the exacerbation of terror in Iraq.

For Hamas, diplomacy would serve only as a respite to gear up for more aggression. Saudi King Abdullah tried his hand in Mecca earlier this year. Once again, Washington and Jerusalem were deluded into believing the Saudi royal hand could tame Hamas and persuade its leaders to share power with Fatah in a unity government.

Instead, the group was strengthened in its radicalism; three months later it has embarked on its current 20-missile-a-day offensive against Israel. Day by day, Hamas spokesmen say the blitz of the western Negev is only the first step in its open-ended war for the final goal of destroying Israel.

Olmert told his second cabinet meeting on Gaza Sunday, May 20: “We will not let Hamas dictate our time table.”

But that is exactly what he has done in all his sixteen months in the prime minister’s office.

Israel exercises less control than ever before over the time table now that a disastrous factor has entered the equation.

Hamas’s blitz against Israel is part and parcel of a savage offensive to destroy the Palestinian Authority and oust Mahmoud Abbas, which is aligned with Tehran’s overall strategy for anticipating two prospective events in 2007 and 2008:

One is the beginning of the withdrawal of the bulk of the US army from Iraq. The other is the possibility, though not certainty, of an American military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and strategic infrastructure.

To prepare for the two eventualities, Tehran is building a military and logistical base in the Gaza Strip. Combined with Hizballah’s support structures in Lebanon, the Gaza base will comprise not only a threat to Israel, but also to US bases in Israel and Jordan and the American and European fleets present in the eastern Mediterranean.

Israel’s failure in the Lebanon War last year gave Iran an easy victory and a free hand for upgrading its military strength in Lebanon. Tehran is after the same effect in Gaza.

In the face of this looming juggernaut, the Olmert government would be courting disaster by entering into bargaining mode with Hamas – especially in the absence of any realistic strategy for repelling it.

The Olmert-Livni policy, joined by defense minister Amir Peretz, has consisted until now of lurching from crisis to crisis and applying patches for makeshift repairs. This path left Israel groping among hard options:

On the one hand, they have held back from ordering an effective military operation against Hamas – and not only because of the brakes applied by Washington. After the Lebanon fiasco, the trio is afraid the IDF is not up to delivering the goods, naturally preferring to make the army accountable for that conflict’s shortcomings rather than their own faulty leadership.

On the other hand, Olmert has obstinately held back from diplomacy with Hamas. Therefore, if anyone has maneuvered Israel into its present tight corner, it is not Iran or Hamas, but his misguided policies.

In these circumstances, Israel has three available courses of action:

1. To embark on full-scale war in the Gaza Strip, turning the tide of the Lebanon setback and seriously impairing Iran’s plans for exploiting the territory.

2. Carry on as before, that is dithering while the missiles rain down from Gaza – and not only against Sderot and its neighbors, but also strategic Israel towns which the improved Qassam missiles can reach. The air force will continue to execute pinpoint reprisals including targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders. Not all will hit their mark, like the attack on the Gaza home of key Hamas spiritual and strategic leader, Khalil al-Yahya, Sunday night.

3. Do nothing and wait for the American attack on Iran while the situation deteriorates, in the hope of some outside force stepping in and taking the job out of Israel’s hands.

All three options are obviously unhealthy for Israel. But not much is left for a government which is too muddled to see its way to clear and logical action in the real Middle East arena.

Hamid al-Ali has been linked with forming al-Qaeda cells in Kuwait and supplying financial and ideological support for al-Qaeda across the Middle East. His communiqué forms one of a growing number of collective attempts by the global jihad movement to undermine Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as al-Qaeda attempts to gain a foothold in Gaza.

 In a statement posted on an al-Qaeda internet forum, al-Ali unleashed a torrent of anti-Semitic statements, saying, "There is no nation on earth, and in the history of humanity, that is more deceitful, and false and fraudulent... than the Jewish nation."

 "They have lied about God... and the messengers, and his angels, and have committed only sins," he added.

 Reiterating Hamas rhetoric, al-Ali declared, "The Jews do everything to head towards one goal, the Judaization of Jerusalem and the obliterate of its Islamic features, especially the al-Aqsa Mosque, to build their temple."

 "It is known that the Zionist entity has today reached its weakest form," al-Ali said, adding: "They are tired, divided, and dispersed, and they are weak and torn... they will never be able to stop the Islamic tide exploding on them, (and that) they incurred the wrath of Allah Almighty."

 "For this we say to our people in Palestine, the Islamic Jihad is the only way out of the crisis, you have no other," al-Ali concluded.

Jews are not divided. Arabs are divided. Don't call it a Islamic Jihad. Call it a Arab Jihad.

A spokesperson for Hong Kong's Television and Entertainment Licensing authority (TELA) said it had received 838 complaints about the Bible by noon on Wednesday.

The complaints follow the launch of an anonymous Web site -- www.truthbible.net -- which said the holy book "made one tremble" given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest.

The Web site said the Bible's sexual content "far exceeds" that of a recent sex column published in the Chinese University's "Student Press" magazine, which had asked readers whether they'd ever fantasised about incest or bestiality.

That column was later deemed "indecent" by the Obscene Articles Tribunal, sparking a storm of debate about social morality and freedom of speech. Student editors of the journal defended it, saying open sexual debate was a basic right.

If the Bible is similarly classified as "indecent" by authorities, only those over 18 could buy the holy book and it would need to be sealed in a wrapper with a statutory warning notice.

TELA said it was still undecided on whether the Bible had violated Hong Kong's obscene and indecent articles laws.

But a local protestant minister shrugged off this possibility.

"If there is rape mentioned in the Bible, it doesn't mean it encourages those activities," said Reverend Wu Chi-wai. "It's just common sense ... I don't think that criticism will have strong support from the public," he added.

By Tony Karon

05/17/07 "Rootless Cosmopolitan" --- -

There’s something a little misleading in the media reports that routinely describe the fighting in Gaza as pitting Hamas against Fatah forces or security personnel “loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas.” That characterization suggests somehow that this catastrophic civil war that has killed more than 25 Palestinians since Sunday is a showdown between Abbas and the Hamas leadership — which simply isn’t true, although such a showdown would certainly conform to the desires of those running the White House Middle East policy.

via MUCKRAKER REPORT:

Cons