Ramallah attackers tied to Hezbollah, security sources say

[bemildred]

Dunno if I believe (or disbelieve) any of this, but it's
interesting, I was wondering if Hezbollah had a finger in that
attack. The theoretical Hezbollah-Tanzim connection has come
up several times now WRT attacks displaying more than usual
competence. The "explanations" of why it was successful sound
rather like those proposed for the killing of the American
guards a few days ago: being predictable.

The Fatah-Tanzim cell that killed three soldiers
near Ramallah on Sunday has close links with
Hezbollah, but was also financed by Palestinian
Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, senior defense
officials said yesterday.



Some of the cell's senior
members are currently hiding in
Arafat's Muqata compound in
Ramallah, the sources added.

It was Hamas, not Tanzim, that
formally claimed responsibility
for the attack Sunday night,
bolstering its claim with a
video clip of four rifles that
it said had been taken from the slain soldiers.
However, closer examination indicated that the
video was a fraud. First, the soldiers lost
only three rifles (one apiece), and second, the
date on the video was October 23 - that is,
tomorrow.

Intelligence sources added that there is no
information linking Hamas to the attack,
whereas there is information indicating that a
Ramallah-based Tanzim cell was behind it. The
cell believed responsible has committed some 10
previous shooting attacks in the area that have
caused numerous casualties. It is headed by
Kamel Ghanem, one of the most senior Fatah men
on Israel's wanted list who is believed to have
been holed up in the Muqata for months.

Edit:

Haaretz

[Aidoneus]

1. interesting

As you say, there's been some low level noise about this for some time now.

Pipes' people over at MEIB picked up on it also in a typical fashion, mentioning Tanzim at a point but not Kamel Ghanem. One of the more interesting claims is that the Israeli military said that Ali Saleh (martyred in that August 2nd Beirut carbomb that sparked off another Shebaa artillery duel) was the liason between Hizbullah and the Palestinians. Hadn't heard that one before, and the piece goes on with a round of other claims of a similar vein. That's basically an admission of responsibility for it on the side, but whether any of it is true or just the usual drool is something else altogether. :shrug:

I wouldn't doubt the possibility itself that there may be some exchange of knowledge at some point. Hizbullah's people were very closely observant towards the Israelis' tactics for all of the years that they fought the IDF in Lebanon, particularly in how to use the more sophisticated technology against the Israelis or to at the least get around it. There is much knowledge that could be passed on that would be of no small value to improve the more or less remarkably clumsy attempts as yet by the Palestinians to directly confront the occupation forces.

Whether they actually are or not, I don't know.. it'll take more than unnamed "security sources" and Pipes' people to make it a fact, but an interesting suggestion all the same. However plausible that I think it may be, it may perhaps be another hook aimed at directing the "KILL ARAFAT!" crowd onto somebody else to hiss and spit about to take the heat off the useful pressure valve. :shrug:

[Darranar]

2. I think that this is likely propaganda...

both Arafat and Hezbollah are indicted.

Hezbollah is the main link Syria has to an anti-israel militant organization; this, of course, helps justify the attack on the terrorist training camp.

Blaming Arafat is nothing new.

[Saudade]

3. Don't forget

Don't forget Israel's concerted and dishonest campaign to involve America in a fight with Syria. It's fairly obvious what's going on here, isn't it?

[Darranar]

5. What Israeli campaign?

Syria was being indicted by the US the minute Iraq was looking a tiny bit more stable. It was a nice scapegoat for the missing WMD.

Israel has little to nothing to do with it. Syria would probably have been part of the Axis of Evil if it wasn't supposed to equate to the three Axis powers of World war II.

[Saudade]

6. Darranar

"Syria was being indicted by the US the minute Iraq was looking a tiny bit more stable. It was a nice scapegoat for the missing WMD."

Darranar, why would America care about Syria? Syria doesn't even have oil.

I believe that the motivation to "get" Syria comes primarily from Israel, which has been trying to provoke a confrontation with Syria for many years.

Don't forget that in "A Clean Break" (written for the benefit of Israel), knocking off Saddam is only the first step in "rolling back" Syria.

America has no interest in Syria apart from Israel's interest.

[Darranar]

7. Why?

Two reasons come to mind:

A. Syria is an obstacle to US domination of the Middle East. The reason for this is that they DON'T have oil; they have little fear of offending the US, beyond fear of being regime-changed. Oil countries would lose too much money if the US stopped buying for any reasonable amount of time; they won't try to offend the US. The oil business works both ways.

B. Syria is an excellent scapegoat. They can be blamed for all the problems in Iraq, and threatened for it; real action will not follow, IMO, but the interest the US is expressing towards Syria is part of that.

[Saudade]

8. Darranar

Your reasoning simply ignores Israel's intense interest in making war with Syria for many years. You cannot deny that, it is historical record.

I do not say that the neo-cons' interest in Syria is entirely motivated by Israel, but I do believe that Israel's interest is a primary motivation here.

I think it is fairly obvious that Sharon's bombing in Syria a few weeks ago was an attempt to escalate Bush's bogged-down "war on terror".

In December 2002, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated, "We are certain that Iraq has recently moved chemical or biological weapons into Syria." After the Bush-Blair summit on April 8, 2003, an unnamed "Bush administration official" said: "Significant equipment, assets and perhaps even expertise was transferred, the first signs of which appeared in August or September 2002. It is quite possible that Iraqi nuclear scientists went to Syria and that Saddam's regime may retain part of its army there. . . . Satellite photographs revealed heavily guarded convoys moving from Iraq to Syria last year."

On October 14, super-hawk, Defense Policy Board member, and member of Jerusalem Post board of directors Richard Perle told an applauding audience of Jewish and Christian "analysts and politicians opposed to conceding a Palestinian state" that he was "happy to see the message was delivered to Syria by the Israeli air force, and I hope it is the first of many such messages." Perle was quoted the next day in the Jerusalem Post as stating: "President Bush transformed the American approach to terrorism on Sept. 11, 2001, when he said he will not distinguish between terrorists and the states who harbor them. I was happy to see that Israel has now taken a similar step in responding to acts of terror that originate in Lebanese territory by going to the rulers of Lebanon in Damascus." When asked whether this would include possible U.S. military action against Syria, he said: "Everything's possible," adding that despite heavy commitments elsewhere, it would be easy to commit U.S. forces to Syria too, because "Syria is militarily very weak."

[Darranar]

9. It's cooperation...

not service.

Sharon backs any claims Bush makes, and reinforces those claims with his own. In trade he gets tremendous US support.

[Saudade]

12. Israel/Syria

The neocons are not wholly in charge in Washington, and despite what some want to believe, Bush is not driven primarily either by the neocons or Israel's interests. Israel is the junior partner, advantaged at present by U.S. policy that principally serves U.S. corporate, military and geopolitical goals. Control of Southwest Asia, a vulnerable and turbulent but resource-rich region, will give Washington enormous leverage over longstanding allies it now wants to "contain," and over any future rivals. In Bush's Terror War so far, Israel has played a bit part. One would think the Bushites would want to keep it that way, and given the historical antipathies, just ask Israel to stand aside and not complicate U.S. ambitions in the region. But again, one mustn't assume that they're acting rationally even in their own imperialist interests.

With Syria in the cross hairs, Israel will probably achieve an expanded role in this terrible war. The Prince of Darkness, and some of his colleagues, plainly want it to, even if some in the administration might be rolling their eyes, considering early retirement, wondering how much stupider U.S. policy can get. Undoubtedly al-Qaeda, the original foe of 9-11 with its own apocalyptic visions in mind, its ranks now swollen by the Iraq invasion, wants this too.

[Darranar]

13. That's my point...

Israel is the spoke of US foreign policy, not the hub.

[BeFree]

15. War on Terra

Began before 9/11. Clinton made attempts to get a handle on it well before 9/11. Israelis and Palestinians have been terrorizing each other for a long time.

Iraq was supporting terror in I/P. That is the only connection between Iraq and terror that I know of. Certainly Iraq had no involvement in 9/11... right?

Surely Israel worked to get the U.S. to invade Iraq, and not just for the oil. Israel saw Iraq as a threat, and in the pretext of the war on terror, did everything it could do to get the U.S. to invade in order to end that threat.

[Darranar]

16. Israel had little to do with invading Iraq...

that was on the PNAC planbooks quite a while before the Second Intifadah.

Bush invaded Iraq. There are motivations to it that make perfect sense, and are proved further each day. Why must Israel have something to do with it?

[BeFree]

17. Israel would have invaded

Iraq itself if it could have.

Israel would not exist were it not for the U.S. The terror threat by Iraq towards Israel is the ONLY real terror link to Iraq. Remember, * has repeatedly said Iraq was a terrorist sponsor. He lied about al Queeda, and he couldn't say that we are invading Iraq to protect Israel, but beside the resources, that is the other reason the U.S. invaded. To protect Israel.

Hasn't the the U.S. always done what it could to prop up Israel? The invasion is another prop.

[Darranar]

18. Well...

The US hasn't done everything it can to prop up Israel. They veto Security Council resolutions and help pay for Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, but aside from that they haven't done much.

They have never gone to war for Israel in the past; why should they now? Their support only extends to votes and monetary aid.

The war in iraq had several major motivations:

1. Oil

2. Oil

3. Political gain

4. Oil

5. The impression of actually doing something in the war on terror.

6. Oil

7. Oil

That pretty much sums it up.

[BeFree]

19. Ya nailed it #3&#5

Besides political gain with Israeli supporters, the invasion was an act of furthering the 'war on terra'.

I shall leave it at that, Sir/Maddam, I do not wish to argue with you. I have relished your responses (the few that I have read) and wish no fight with you over such a minor piece of this awful puzzle.

Peace.

[The Magistrate]

20. There Is One Point, Mr. Free, Requiring A Little Clarafication

"Political gain with Israeli supporters" was an immaterial factor. The political gain that was the chief motivating factor in the invasion of Iraq was the corruption of the elctoral process in our country, in three chief ways. First, to distract the people of our country from the economic difficulties inflicted on them by the criminals of the '00 Coup; second, to render difficult criticism by mainstream politicians of the criminals of the '00 Coup; third, to attach more firmly to the criminals of the '00 Coup those among the people who, owing to susceptibility to traditional symbols of patriotism and religiousity, tend to vote for reactionary candidates, even though they would be better served by voting for progressive ones. Fortunately, it is beginning to seem, owing to the hubris and ignorance of those who planned this invasion, that the political effect is turning out rather other than its authors intended.

[The Magistrate]

4. Correct Me, Mr. Aidoneus, If My Impression Is In Error

But it seems to me the Tanzim is much the most professional of the various armed bodies, amounting almost to real "security forces" out of uniform, and pretty closely tied to the actual structures of the Palestine Authority.

My intent is clarafication only, you understand: put bluntly, "regularization" of this conflict would probably prove beneficial.

[hossdiddy]

10. Syrian terrorist training camp

I think it is fairly obvious that Sharon's bombing in Syria a few weeks ago was an attempt to escalate Bush's bogged-down "war on terror".

Or maybe it was just an attempt to kill some terrorists at a training camp?

Maybe the presence of the terrorist camp was the escalation?

[Darranar]

11. Yet they killed none...

if they had wanted to, they would have done so.

And how do you know it was a terrorist camp?

[bemildred]

14. The idea that "unusual" occurrences require explanation is all I have.

Mostly what I see is as you say: "more or less remarkably clumsy
attempts". Then, every once in a while there is something that one
must call competent, the objective is achieved, the perps might
even get away, it is the IDF - for a moment - that looks not in
control.

It does seem to me that Tanzim is "frequently" involved in these.
I can think of a couple. Indiana Green was of a mind that Al Qaeda
was involved (Edit: in the convoy bombing) , but I would think they
would have let everybody know by now.

Al Aqsa seems more inclined to just blow up as many random people
as may chance to be possible, or do some random incompetent shooting,
as do the other loudmouth groups.