Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu awaits the response of Israel Labor Party Chairman Ehud Barak regarding the possibility the Labor Party will join the coalition.

If Mr. Barak, the current defense minister, makes it clear to Mr. Netanyahu he can pass a resolution in the Labor Party convention to join the government, the prime minister-designate will request an extension of 14 additional days from Israeli President Shimon Peres for the purpose of continuing the coalition negotiations.

If it becomes apparent that the possibility of a unity government is completely off the table, Mr. Netanyahu will make every effort to finish assembling his government by Sunday.

The proposal Mr. Netanyahu submitted to Mr. Barak included five portfolios, the most senior of which was to keep Mr. Barak as defense minister. In addition, the Labor Party was offered two deputy ministers, including the deputy defense minister and a committee chair.

At the beginning of the week, Messrs. Barak and Netanyahu met at the Barak home in the Akirov Towers in Tel Aviv. The two have several channels of communication and mediators who convey proposals.

In addition to ministry positions, the Labor Party has demands regarding the government guidelines in the areas of foreign and economic policy.

Senior Labor Party figures say Mr. Barak is doing work on the ground and his people are speaking with convention members trying to persuade them to join the coalition. The opponents of joining the government are also speaking with the convention members to ensure if a proposal is raised, it will not be approved.

While it is believed that there is still a chance, although not a high one, that the Labor Party will join the government, the assessment regarding Kadima is that Chairwoman Tzipi Livni has decided to go into the opposition.

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com

The failure of the negotiations in Cairo to bring about the release of Israeli prisoner of war Cpl. Gilad Shalit has prompted the Israeli government to announce measures geared to increase pressure on Hamas in a number of ways. The ultimate goal will be to spur its leadership to show flexibility.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert formed a special ministerial committee, headed by Justice Minister Daniel Friedman, to draw up a list of strategies that would then be presented for a cabinet vote at its next meeting if the new government isn’t sworn in yet.

Among the steps being considered are worsening the terms of incarceration for Hamas convicts in Israeli jails to make them more resemble the conditions in which Gilad Shalit is being held.

Ministers proposed banning family visitation rights, and especially Red Cross visits, because Hamas will not allow the Red Cross to visit Cpl. Shalit.

Currently, the Hamas convicts live in relative comfort in comparison with prisons around the world. They have beds and mattresses, a hot shower, clean lavatories and each prisoner is entitled to possess basic foods and beverages. The incarcerated terrorists are entitled to a newspaper in Hebrew and a newspaper in Arabic, a television set in their cell, a personal radio, a kettle and soft drinks.

Some of the convicts complete their matriculation exams in prison and are also entitled to do undergraduate work at the Israeli Open University. The security convicts are entitled to visits by the Red Cross, their families and their lawyers.

Israel will try to use the convicts’ influence to pressure the Hamas leadership.

Ofer Dekel, an Israeli intelligence official, is considering making personal trips to the prisons in order to meet with these convicts.

Mr. Dekel will distribute a list of the convicts Israel was prepared to release and will place responsibility for their continued incarceration on Hamas’ obstinacy.

Israel Justice Minister Friedman said at the end of Tuesday’s Israeli cabinet meeting, “Hamas is going to discover that there are lines that the State of Israel cannot cross.”

Mr. Olmert asked Attorney General Meni Mazuz to participate on the committee in order to examine which measures could legally be taken and which could not.

Additional administrative steps that will be discussed as a means of applying pressure on Hamas include making the supervision of the border crossings stricter and reducing the volume of goods passing through those border crossings to the bare humanitarian minimum.

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com

In the wake of the failure of the talks with Hamas to bring about prisoner of war Cpl. Gilad Shalit’s release, a Druze Likud Knesset member, Ayoub Kara, has called on the prime minister to launch a military operation in Gaza to bring home the kidnapped soldier.

“Hamas needs to be spoken to in Arabic, not in French or in any lovey-dovey tone. The prime minister needs to launch a combined covert military operation that will bring back Shalit or, alternatively, will capture Haniyeh or Mashal and bring them to Israel until Shalit is released,” said Mr. Kara.

Mr. Kara added,“The State of Israel is at an unprecedented low point in terms of its leadership and power of deterrence. Netanyahu has to finish forming his government so that the Kadima government is quickly replaced.”

Aryeh Eldad of the National Union Party said yesterday Israel “needs to publish an ultimatum that all Hamas leaders, including [Hamas Prime Minister Ismail] Haniya, will be executed unless Shalit is released within one week.”

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com

The effort to bring about Israeli prisoner of war Cpl. Gilad Shalit’s release in the last remaining days of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert in office ended in utter failure.

After two days of Egyptian-mediated intensive talks with the Hamas delegation, it became evident Hamas had backed down from understandings that had already been achieved in the past.

The Israeli prime minister’s two envoys – Israel Security Director Yuval Diskin and Ofer Dekel – returned from Cairo empty-handed.

Yesterday, the Israeli cabinet convened for a special meeting during which the ministers received a full report about the recent negotiations with Hamas.

Sources close to the Israel-Hamas talks told the Israeli media Ahmed Jaabari, the commander of Hamas’ military wing, who headed the delegation to Cairo, adopted an uncompromising position.

Hamas demanded that Israel release all 450 of its members who were convicted of multiple murders and refused the Israeli demand for the relocation of a large number of these convicts to Gaza or to Arab countries, rather than to their West Bank homes.

Hamas also demanded Israel release all of Arab terror convicts with Israeli citizenship, despite previous understandings those convicts would not be included on the list.

Prime Minister Olmert told the ministers at the special Israel government cabinet meeting “that owing to his responsibility as prime minister to safeguard the State of Israel’s national interests, there are red lines that we cannot cross.”

The negotiations likely will continue, if only thanks to the pressure on Hamas from the families of the Palestinian convicts to have their loved ones released. It seems, however, that, barring any unforeseen developments, the negotiations over Cpl. Shalit’s release will be conducted under the incoming prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

However, if anyone believed Hamas would relax its positions in order to sign a deal for Gilad Shalit, last night’s derailment of the deal showed otherwise.

Mr. Jaabari, who also is Israel’s most-wanted man said yesterday: “We are willing to continue to hold onto Gilad Shalit even for another year, until our demands are met.”

Israel let Mr. Jaabari leave Gaza for Cairo by removing him from their “hit list,” in order to speed matters along, so he could make decisions on the spot and place him under pressure from the Egyptian mediators.

However, this didn’t help: Hamas blamed Israel yesterday for the failure of the deal and said its conditions had not been met.

“Israel will bear full responsibility for the Gilad Shalit deal’s derailment,” said Mushir el-Masri last night, a member of the Hamas leadership in Gaza. “The only solution is Israel’s consent to accepting all our terms. Any attempt not to accept them has led to failure. The door to negotiations for a deal on Shalit is still open. The life of the Israeli prisoner is no more precious than the lives of our 11,000 prisoners in Israeli jails.”

Salah Bardawil, a Hamas leader, explained that Hamas had toughened its demands.

“We are demanding 450 prisoners who were sentenced to long terms, in addition to all the women, children, ministers and Palestinian Legislative Council members imprisoned in Israel,” he said. “We will not give up on even one name on the list. If Israel wants the deal, it must meet our demands.”

Even before the Israeli announcement of the talks’ failure an official statement was issued by Hamas’ military wing, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam saying, “Israel ismoving closer to our positions, and if it wants to end the negotiations, it must release all the prisoners as per our demands.”

The announcement by Hamas’ military wing said it refused to accept a proposal that referred mainly to the deportation of some of the prisoners to Arab countries, or to deport prisoners living in the West Bank to the Gaza Strip.

“For us, this is a first real opportunity to release our prisoners from jail, particularly those sentenced to long terms,” said the spokesman.

A demonstration in support of Hamas’ demands was held on Monday in Gaza. It mainly consisted of mothers and wives of the prisoners who called on the Hamas negotiators not to surrender to Israel. People in Gaza said the demonstration was a signal that Hamas was not surrendering or conceding to Israel’s demands.

David Bedein can be reached at Bedein@thebulletin.us

While negotiations remain ongoing to ransom the Israeli prisoner of war, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, in exchange for hundreds of Palestinians who were convicted of murder, the terror victims’ families are busily making preparations to track any released terrorists and to kill them.

A new organization has already begun with fundraising and discrete meetings, while their initiative, called “Eye for an Eye,” is being formulated.

Attorney Meir Schijveschuurder and his brother, Shvuel, who lost their parents and three brothers – the youngest of whom was age 2 – in the August 2001 Sbarro restaurant terror attack.

Recently, they formed a group of families who have lost their loved ones in terror attacks and contacted Jewish donors in Israel and abroad.

Their goal is to form a professional staff that will prepare an “intelligence file” on each terrorist who is to scheduled be released in the next convict exchange deal. The staff will track the terrorists after they are released.

According to members of this new group, they are receiving professional counsel from, among others, officials who worked once with those organizations who tracked and located Nazis around the world.

On an entirely different front, they are consulting attorneys on the possibility of filing damage suits against some of the released convicts.

“We have a profile of most of the murderers, as well as information on their families,” said Meir Schijveschuurder. “For example, the parents of one of those involved in the Sbarro attack own a pizzeria in Jenin. We also have their home addresses.

“In addition, there is a woman terrorist who was the organizer of the attack. She will be the first one, as far as I am concerned. She didn’t stop smiling throughout the trial. We will erase that smile off her face. I am prepared both mentally and physically to send her to another world. Those who will be sent to the Palestinian Authority, we will deal with as is the custom there: blood for blood.”

The attorney also stresses, “We have no complaints against the government of Israel. From the moment it decides it is has finished punishing them, we are doing this as a last resort. It is very recommended to signal these murderers that they’re better off staying in Israeli jails, with all the goodies they get there. Outside jail, they will not get even one good night’s sleep. We will haunt them and reach each and every one. We will conduct ourselves in precise accordance with international or Palestinian law, based on the place where they are residing, nothing more or less.”

Another member of the organization, who lost a brother in an attack, said “We have statistics indicating that at least 20 percent of the released convicts return to be terrorists. We are now in the stage of finalizing a plan of action that will not only span the Palestinian territories, but across the entire world.”

These family members of terror victims stress they plan on dealing with each terrorist in accordance with the law of the country in which they reside:

“If we locate a terrorist who was sent to Germany or Holland, we will file a lawsuit against him through the attorneys who are assisting us. We need about $5 million in order to hire staff and complete the mission, and we already have part of the sum.”

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com

At a time when many major cities may soon have no major newspapers, Philadelphia is still blessed with two. One of the beauties of two newspapers is that they serve as a check on each other. For example, when a regular columnist of one of the papers consistently displays moral blindness, intellectual bankruptcy, overarching bias and overpowering stupidity, in a one-newspaper town you have to grin and bear it. But in a two-newspaper town, when a columnist displays the qualities I’ve enumerated above, someone can tell you why and send a message to the other newspaper and the world. (As the readers of this column know, in my heart of hearts I think there would be more beauty in a one-newspaper Philadelphia… provided it was The Bulletin and not The Inquirer.)

So here we go with my explanation of why Trudy Rubin, who regularly writes on the Middle East and foreign policy for The Inquirer, displays all the qualities I’ve enumerated above. That’s just my opinion, and I’ve tried to be kind so I have not given you what might be a more complete enumeration of my opinion.

Let me try to convince you that I’m right with my analysis of Ms. Rubin’s Philadelphia Inquirer column of March 15, titled “Decision Time on the Middle East.” The column addresses three tough decisions that Ms. Rubin says the Obama administration will have to make in the near future on the Israeli/Arab conflict.

What is so striking about the column is that her criticism is only directed at Israel. I would suspect the uninitiated reader would assume that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are governed by angels or at least great statesmen. Yet every tic in every Israeli leader is expounded upon with the full fury of the columnist sparing us no detail, but no reference is made to Palestinian leadership.

She starts by noting that Benjamin Netanyahu is about to form a “right-wing” government for Israel and his policies will “complicate nearly every aspect of Obama’s strategy for the Mideast.” For example, he has chosen Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister. Ms. Rubin writes that he is “a figure whose inflammatory views may undercut any new peace moves in the region.” Mr. Lieberman has said that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak should “go to hell” and proposed Israel bomb the Aswan Dam in the event of a war with Egypt. (I have to agree with Mr. Lieberman: Anyone that facilitates the work of terrorists, by not policing tunnels on the Gaza-Israel border, should go to hell, and as far as I’m concerned, they should make the trip sooner rather than later.) But I should add any “inflammatory” views of Mr. Lieberman are mild compared to the calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews made by Hamas all the time with machine-gun regularity. But Ms. Rubin only has time to criticize the Israeli and cannot find it in her heart to utter criticism of terrorism and genocide.

Now consider Ms. Rubin’s indictment of the Israelis – a right-wing government, with someone who said Mr. Mubarak should “go to hell.” She goes on and on nit picking the Israeli leadership to death to prove it is an obstacle to peace. But she has no criticism of Hamas, the terrorist organization, ruling Gaza, or the Palestinian Authority, that like Hamas is dedicated to inciting its people to hate and murder Israelis. I ask my readers as fair-minded observers which leadership poses the greater obstacle to peace. Don’t you think Hamas’ genocidal dedication just might be a greater obstacle to peace than that posed by Israel?

You decide what is the threat to peace – the right-wing Israeli government or the terrorists and advocates of murder and genocide that represent Palestinian leadership in Gaza and the West Bank. You probably know enough about the terrorist organization Hamas to know where it stands – its very charter and all the pronouncements of its leadership call for genocide to be committed to exterminate the Israelis. Hamas also reject any concept of negotiation with Israel or accepting Israel’s right to exist. What would you rather face and what do you consider the greater threat to peace?

You may know less about the Palestinian Authority, which in fact is the same kind of “peace partner” as Hamas. Consider what it just broadcast on its official television station – on March 12 and March 15, 2009, the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast an hour-long special celebrating the single most murderous attack against Israeli civilians in the history of Arab terrorism.

Let me refresh your memory of what the Palestinian Authority commemorates, celebrates, and glorifies. Arabs penetrated Israel using rubber dinghies from Lebanon and then carried out what is known in Israel as the Coastal Road Terror Attack on March 11, 1978. The terrorists hijacked a tourist bus and killed 38 civilians including 13 children. Among the dead were Gail Rubin, an American nature photographer and a cousin of the late Sen. Abraham Ribicoff, D-Conn.

This is how this hour-long terror attack celebrated, commemorated and glorified the slaughter of men, women and children. The Palestinian Media Watch reported what the narrator said in opening the special:

“… one of the most important and most prominent special actions, executed by the Palestinian revolution by sea, on the coast between Haifa and Tel Aviv. The action, which was carried out by a group of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi [a woman], had a great impact on continuing events in the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

Notice the Arabs and the Palestinian Authority not only perpetrate the slaughter of innocents, but they call those that carry out this kind of barbaric butchery “heroes.” An article published in the July 10 edition of the Palestinian Authority’s Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda daily newspaper called the leader of the slaughter of men, women, and children “a living legend and a wonderful example for all women.” This broadcast should tell the world what kind of a peace partner Israel has in the Palestinian Authority.

This hero worship of those who butcher of men, women and children is widely held in the Palestinian and Arab world. All Jazeera TV aired a program in 2008 focusing on Al-Mughrabi and praised her exploits. This occasion for paying tribute to these barbarian butchers was the transfer of her body to Hezbollah as part of the ransom for the bodies of IDF soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

I wrote most of this column before I saw the Monday newspapers (March 16, 2009). But when I first saw a notice of the Palestinian broadcast, I knew it would not be reported on in the traditionally anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Philadelphia Inquirer and New York Times. I so describe those papers not because of one edition, but of a long history, which sadly thoroughly documents my conclusion on them. It is also interesting The Bulletin not only reported on the story on Monday, but also made it the lead front-page story. Almost alone among the 12 newspapers I check daily, it recognized the importance of the story as it reveals once again that the Israelis still do not have a partner for peace and that the Palestinians should not be trusted with statehood at this time. And The Bulletin, unlike The Inquirer, has someone on the scene in David Bedein, one of the best reporters on what is going on in the Middle East.

But all this is of no concern to Ms. Rubin. She only has time to worry about an Israeli saying Mr. Mubarak should go to hell. She apparently is not offended by the slaughter of innocents, but is outraged by a comment that someone should go to hell.

She also complains about the fact that Israel (to keep terrorists at bay) has imposed constant blockages of imports and exports, but she has no complaints or concerns about the parade of terrorists and child-killers that Hamas and the Arabs have tried to get into Israel. Like most of the mainstream media, she would deny Israel its right of self-defense and its right to take measures at its border to protect itself.

With that in mind, Ms. Rubin says Mr. Obama must make his first decision: “He must declare his administration believes ‘economic peace’ cannot substitute for political progress.” In the context, Ms. Rubin clearly intends this declaration be directed to Israel. That’s because Mr. Netanyahu believes in economic development in the Palestinian Authority before statehood. So Ms. Rubin advises Mr. Obama to tell Israel to start making political progress. But based on her views here and her writing in general, she thinks Israel should start moving toward peace and making concessions, while the Palestinian Authority and Hamas continue to wage war against it and continue to incite their people to hatred, murder and genocide directed at Israelis. Ms. Rubin only has declarations, orders, and concessions for the Israelis. She has none for the terrorists, who will continue their usual work… unimpeded by Ms. Rubin.

If Ms. Rubin were acquainted with the negotiating posture of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, she would call him the hardliner, not Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Abbas wants the return to the 1949 boundaries of Israel that would make it absolutely indefensible. In addition, he wants the right of return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. That would overwhelm Israel with a hostile population and destroy it as a Jewish state. So he wants Israel to accept a guaranteed national suicide pact certain to destroy Israel in two different ways. He could hardly take a more unreasonable and unacceptable negotiating position if he tried.

In contrast, Mr. Netanyahu, in Ms. Rubin’s own account, has two reasonable approaches. He wants to stress economic development in the Palestinian Authority, something that is workable and sensible. In addition, he doesn’t think the Palestinians are ready for statehood. Ms. Rubin admits in the column that there are more than three million “bitter” Palestinians in the disputed territories (which she mistakenly calls occupied territories, a term only applicable to territory seized by aggression… not in a defensive war). They are not only “bitter” but have been brainwashed by their leadership into hating Jews and Israelis and told that they must drive them into the sea. Statehood would only give the Palestinians additional methods of stepping up their ongoing war against Israel that has gone on for decades. So you can understand why Mr. Netanyahu is not eager to equip these people that have been taught only to hate and destroy Israel with the power to do so. The Palestinians must stop their incitement and try to bring forth new generations ready to leave in peace, not with hate and genocidal intentions in their DNA.

Notice that Ms. Rubin does not call for Mr. Obama to tell the Palestinians to stop their incitement.

Then she comes to Mr. Obama’s second decision. He must firmly confront the Israeli government and tell it to stop its settlement expansion. She forgets that Israel has a right to expand settlements and only promised to stop on condition that the Palestinians stop the terrorism, stop waging war against Israel, honor its previous agreements, and stop inciting its people to hatred, murder, and genocide of Israelis. The settlements can be viewed as a defensive measure. But Ms. Rubin, as is her custom, only has duties and responsibilities for the Israelis, but apparently is content to let the Palestinians continue terrorism, murder, genocide, and incitement… business as usual for the Palestinians – and Ms. Rubin.

Then comes Mr. Obama’s third decision. Ms. Rubin says this decision involves talks with Syria. Mr. Netanyahu said he would never give up the Golan Heights and return them to Syrian control. He said he is willing to talk to Syria, but he hasn’t said he’s open to giving back any territory.

Ms. Rubin writes, “Obama must try to convince Netanyahu that such an effort is in Israel’s interest, and decide how hard to push if the Israeli leader resists.” This suffers from sloppy and ambiguous writing on Ms. Rubin’s part, but apparently she means Mr. Obama should push for a return of territory such as the Golan Heights. She doesn’t tell us why Mr. Obama or anyone else knows better than Israel how to protect its security. Remember that the Golan Heights were taken from Syria in response to Syrian aggression. Israel paid a terrible price in blood for the capture of the Golan Heights, and perhaps that gives them a better insight into their security and strategic importance.

Ms. Rubin concludes: “This is a crucial moment. The new U.S. president needs to show that, besides being a close ally of Israel, he is committed to a stable Middle East.” I think that President Obama and Ms. Rubin should both be advised that the first order of business to bring about a stable Middle East and a real and lasting peace there is to start pressuring the Arabs to stop terrorism, to stop murder, to stop attempts at genocide, and to stop incitement to hatred of Israelis. Ms. Rubin should also be advised that if you want a real and lasting peace and stability in the Middle East, you should not limit your criticism to Israel and call on concessions and actions by Israel, while writing and thinking like you are perfectly happy to let the Arabs, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas continue to wage a genocidal war against Israel.

By chance, right next to Ms. Rubin’s column in The Inquirer is one by Michael Smerconish titled, “As newspapers fight for life, a reminder of their vital importance.” That title tells you exactly what the column is about. But the column overlooks one important consideration. Newspapers are valuable and are of vital importance when they are fair and balanced, not when they are biased, fraudulent and dishonest. They play a vital role when they advocate American values and America’s best interests. But, as this column has often reported, when newspapers are anti-American, anti-military, anti-family-values, anti-law enforcement, and seem to be more interested in protecting terrorists and America’s enemies than in protecting Americans, and when their coverage is so distorted they do not present a truthful portrayal of the world scene, then newspapers may be doing more harm than good.

We would be better off if newspapers like the Philadelphia Inquirer, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and New York Times went out of business… as well they might. In discussing the reasons for the trouble most newspapers find themselves in, one factor seems to be overlooked. One reason readers are turning away from them is that they feel they can’t trust them and they feel they are enemies, not friends, of America and Americans.

I should note that Israel is a tiny sliver of land with a population of about seven million. But it is surrounded by a ring of iron and hate of dozens of Arab and Muslim countries with hundreds of millions of population that want to destroy it, and that anti-Israel faction is backed by an alliance of many more countries in the Third World that subject it to endless unjustified attacks in the United Nations. With that to deal with, I would suggest that Ms. Rubin and The Inquirer kindly get off of Israel’s back.

There’s one more important point, which my brother Mike, the orthopedic surgeon in California, made to me in an e-mail after reading an early draft of this column. It provides a perfect summary of the column and at the same time makes a powerful suggestion on how peace in the Middle East can be obtained, so I reprint it verbatim:

“The irony of Ms. Trudy Rubin, who arrogates to herself knowing how to attain peace in the Middle East, is that writing like hers only delays the conditions that might actually bring peace, and encourages the violence, terrorism and wars the Arabs/Muslims have used against Israel. She shows the Arabs/Muslims that their use of these actions will be accepted and there are no consequences that might encourage them to abandon terrorism, violence and war, which is their stated goal that they may use any means to destroy Israel/Zionism/Jews. By promising them rewards, by putting pressure on Israel to make compromises and relinquish their territory while requiring no reciprocation from the Arab/Muslims, even to stating they recognize Israel’s right to exist and to live in a secure peace, presents no reason for them to offer peace. Her one-sided self-righteous erroneous condemnation of Israel shows she neither understands the Middle East nor knows how to progress toward a peaceful Middle East. The Arabs/Muslims need very, very tough love if there is going to be any hope for peace, and the media only maintains their addiction to violence, terrorism and war. Ms. Rubin should write about other topics, which she hopefully might better understand. Perhaps what would best promote peace in the Middle East best would be better, more balanced and educated journalism on the Middle East.”

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

On March 12, the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot confirmed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have issued operational orders, as their tenures draw to a close, for the Israeli army to return weapons to Palestinian terrorists belonging to the Fatah-affiliated al-Aqsa Brigades terror organization.

The Israeli army had confiscated weapons from the Fatah-affiliated terror organization during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002.

A month earlier, the United States government defined the group as an official Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). That categorization has never changed, even though United States military currently advises Fatah, which also runs the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Israeli Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Members were contacted to discover their responses to the information the Israeli government intends to return weapons to the terrorists.

One Knesset member of that security committee, Professor Aryeh Eldad, of the Israel National Union Party, responded to the query with a demand for the immediate convening of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to discuss the matter. Mr. Eldad’s demand will be discussed today.

However, it may already be too late.

Last night, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency confirmed that the Israeli army returned 300 confiscated weapons to the Palestinian Authority yesterday morning, according to the head of the PA’s Department of Civil Affairs.

The official, Husein ash-Sheikh, told Ma’an that, during a visit to the former Beit Eba military checkpoint yesterday, Israel had returned 300 pieces of weaponry to the PA’s security services.

Thousands of PA weapons were confiscated by Israel during an operation in 2002, he said.

Meanwhile, he noted that the PA is working to “totally remove the Huwwara checkpoint,” which is located south of Nablus.

“Removing Beit Eba checkpoint, west of Nablus, was a good move but insufficient as around 50 checkpoints surround the entrances of various districts,” Mr. ash-Sheikh said.

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com

On March 13, United States Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said the United States government will not maintain relations with a Palestinian government that includes any organization that maintains a state of war with Israel, specifically mentioning Hamas.

However, the Palestinian Authority (PA) official media has delivered a clear message to Mrs. Clinton, rejecting her position.

According to the reliable Palestinian news agency Ma’an, the PA has said Hamas will be be allowed to keep its political position in any Palestinian government with Fatah.

A senior Fatah official, Ahmad Abd Ar-Rahman, said in a statement sent to Ma’an: “Fatah is working forward to reaching [an] agreement; it gave lots of initiatives within those meetings and ahead of them, and it still has the ability to cooperate with Egypt to reach a conclusion for the talks… Fatah wants a government that would not bring another blockade and a government that can unite the land and open the doors for the future. Hamas should not only worry who will join the government but should pay attention to the form and structure of it that will serve the people’s interest until an agreement is reached.”

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com