Tony Blair called off his trip to Gaza, citing specific security threats. Of course Hamas denies they were threatening Tony Blair, but it’s significant to note that he was visiting Gaza, but refusing to meet with Hamas officials. Hm. Wonder who made the threats, and why? (I wonder how many prisoners they’d get for the release of a former British PM?)
Mideast envoy Tony Blair on Tuesday called off what would have been the first visit of a top Western diplomat to Hamas-ruled Gaza, citing a ”specific security threat.”
Blair’s visit Tuesday was to have included a tour of a Gaza waste water project and meetings with traders and UN officials, but not with leaders of Hamas, which seized Gaza by force more than a year ago.
Still, Hamas had made security arrangements for Blair, setting up checkpoints in areas he was expected to tour, banning cars from using roads, and lining streets with black-clad policemen carrying AK-47s.
And wouldn’t that have made a pretty picture. Oh, and here’s your “objective” AP analysis:
Although the once lawless Gaza has been mostly pacified under Hamas’ stern rule, there are still shadowy extremist Muslim groups in the territory. On an Islamist forum popular with Gaza residents, some users slammed Blair’s expected visit, but there were no direct threats of violence against him. Those comments were later removed from the Web site.
Got that? Hamas’ forbidding wedding parties from singing Fatah songs, blowing up video stores and forcing more Islamist behavior has “pacified” Gaza. Throwing Fatah members off buildings is “stern rule.” Way to go, our old pal Ibrahim Barazk.
Taher Nunu, a Hamas government spokesman denied there were any security threats against Blair. “Gaza is still open for all visitors, to break the siege and see the extent of suffering here,” he said.
Yes, the suffering. Hamas members have fuel for their vehicles. The average Gazan does not. Hamas members have the latest weapons and ammunition. The average Gazan has whatever Hamas lets trickle down after it’s delivered, if Hamas stops shooting mortars at the crossings long enough to let supply trucks through. Hamas fakes power blackouts and the press goes along with it, holding candlelight vigils in broad daylight behind curtained windows as AP photographers snap pictures—and the AP runs sympathetic stories that echo this one. Whitewashing the terrorists: that’s the AP’s job, apparently.
One last thought: If Hamas rule has “pacified” Gaza so well, why can’t they protect Tony Blair against terrorist threats? He can visit Iraq at the height of the insurgency, but he can’t manage to get enough protection to visit Gaza?
Blair visited Iraq six times. He’s never been to Gaza. That fact speaks volumes.
“Pacified” Gaza also launches daily rocket an mortar attacks- and I’m sure the AP would say that those aren’t launched by Hamas themselves.
Would the AP refer to an area of Iraq (or the Bronx) that was launching daily attacks on it’s neighbors as “Pacified?”