Saturday, October 16, 2004

Just another UN flunky

This JeruzalemPost article details the latest 'must-earn-my-keep-somehow' actions by Jean Ziegler (who is a man) against Israel. Officially, this man is 'UN special rapporteur on the right to food' (yes, seriously) but just between you and me, he's a Kofi-wannabe.
Daniel Meron, head of the Foreign Ministry's human rights and organizations department, said Israel's ambassador to UN organizations in Geneva was instructed to raise the issue with UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Louise Arbour, and to call on her to disassociate herself from Ziegler's comments.

Meron said that Ziegler, a Swiss university lecturer and leader in the Socialist International, who is said to be Jewish, is a constant critic of Israel and abuses his mandate by unfairly "singling out Israel."

Meron said Ziegler spends an inordinate amount of time on Israel, and by contrast wrote a report on the situation in Sudan that constituted a "selected description" of what is going on there.

Meron said that in May Ziegler wrote to the US Caterpillar company calling on it to stop selling bulldozers to Israel, which are often used in home demolitions, or else they will be seen as abusing human rights themselves.
The Caterpillar affaire is true. Read more here. So this lowlife has graced these pages before. "UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler". It really is a scream. No other concern but Israel, like the rest of the UN. And this man is a Jew also! Can it get sicker? (Wait, don't answer that...)

THIS is why the US is no friend of Israel

Count on Gary Fitleberg to cut to the chase. I've said here many times the US is no friend of the Jews. I've also shown why they are not. But even without going into the deeper causes, you can judge by the actions taken.
Bear in mind that George Bush made a campaign promise in his last election that he would move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, which he has failed to do utilizing the excuse and/or exclusion provision he invokes "in the interest of national security" each time the issue comes up.

In his famous speech about the "war on terrorism", Bush decided that Israel needed to create an Arab "Palestinian" state (the second one, as the first already exists: Jordan, formerly Transjordan, according the British Mandate), thereby showing he succumbs to Arab-Islamist oil and terrorism.

Bush and his US State Department (some may quip, "US Hate Israel Department") have clearly demonstrated evidence of bias against Israel in favor of Arab/Islamist corrupt dictatorships, human rights violators, ruthless repressive regimes and tyrannies. One only need cite the alliance with Saudi Arabia, the home of Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and fourteen of nineteen hijackers who toppled the two World Trade Center buildings and left their mark on our Pentagon building, as well as on the conscience of America and Western civilization.

Bush opposed Israel's security fence throughout 2003, threatening Israel's loan guarantees, and then suddenly supported it - coincidentally, at the start of the election year.

The same goes for unilateral separation. Prior to 2004, Bush refused to call Yasser Arafat a terrorist and insisted he remain the negotiating partner. A former political officer at the Israeli Embassy in Washington noted ruefully that Bush is the reason Arafat is still around.
None of this is subject to discussion. For example, the US embassy is NOT located in Jeruzalem, as he PROMISED it would be. What exactly is holding Bush back? The wrath of Egypt? Or Iran?

Of course, the alternative, as Fitle points out, is worse.
Kerry once called "Chairman of Terror" Yasser Arafat a "statesman", believe it or not.

John Kerry has openly stated that he seeks to build a stronger relationship with the United Nations [Against Israel], which is controlled and dominated by the Arab/Islamist nations.

Syria was Chair of the Security Council. Libya was Chair of the Human Rights Committee. The UN has passed over half of its 700-plus resolutions against the only little Jewish State of Israel, but has not rebuked one Arab/Islamist corrupt dictatorship, human rights violator, ruthless repressive regime, state sponsor of terrorism, or tyranny.

Why? Why not? They run the show.

The United Nations is an Arab/Islamist, racist, bankrupt organization, both morally and politically, and can not be an honest "peace broker" in its role as one of the "Road Map" promoters and "Quartet" members. It is an organization that created a world stage for a perpetual political propaganda ploy of the fictional "Palestine" nation and "Palestinian" people, by bringing the internal case of Israel's building a security barrier and separation fence against terrorism before the International Court of Justice (or, Injustice). It is an organization that routinely vents anti-Israel sentiments, and anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist statements in its various committees and subsidiaries.

And if that is not enough of a concern, Kerry seeks an alliance with France "to build a stronger coalition and unity" in a desperate attempt at nation-building. France is one hotbed of anti-Semitism, and about as anti-American and pro-Arab as they come. France consistently creates more hostility towards Israel and the Jewish people than Germany, for example, and is a leading force in the EU, another disreputable member of the "Quartet" attempting to dictate policy to Israel.

It is no wonder why the Muslim community backs and supports Kerry.
One of the two WILL be elected in a few weeks. Bush is bad news for Israel. But he's the best president the US has had for a long time, as far as the Jewish state is concerned, no matter how sad that fact actually is.
And Kerry? Kerry can't even get himself to say the word 'Israel' out loud. Kerry will make Jimmy Carter look Ben-Gurion. THAT is how bad Kerry will be for Israel.

Cox and Forkum - LMAO

Didn't know Cox & Forkum are Jewish...
Moore once more

Friday, October 15, 2004

Oh the irony!

Even PETA is getting involved - on behalf of donkeys. And like everyone else, PETA sees moral equivalency all around.

Letter to Arafat:
Your Excellency:

I am writing from an organization dedicated to fighting animal abuse around the world. We have received many calls and letters from people shocked at the bombing in Jerusalem on January 26 in which a donkey, laden with explosives, was intentionally blown up.

All nations behave abominably in many ways when they are fighting their enemies, and animals are always caught in the crossfire. The U.S. Army abandoned thousands of loyal service dogs in Vietnam. Al-Qaeda and the British government have both used animals in hideously cruel biological weaponry tests. We watched on television as stray cats in your own compound fled as best they could from the Israeli bulldozers.
Yes. The poor cats had to flee from the bulldozers, or else. This is beyond any parody. Beyond words. But good for a laugh.

Brigitte Gabriel - If you want to know what it's really like

Brigitte Gabriel is a Christian Arab from Lebanon. Arab Christians are no less indoctrinated to hate Jews than Arab Muslims are, but Ms Gabriel knows better these days. Why?
I was raised in Lebanon where I was taught that the Jews were evil, Israel was the devil, and the only time we will have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea.

When the Muslims and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975, they started massacring the Christians city after city. I ended up living in a bomb shelter underground from age 10 to 17 without electricity eating grass to live and crawling under sniper bullets to a spring to get water.

It was Israel that came to help the Christians in Lebanon. My mother was wounded by a Muslim’s shell and was taken into an Israeli hospital for treatment. When we entered the emergency room I was shocked at what I saw. There were hundreds of people wounded, Muslims, Palestinians, Christian Lebanese and Israeli soldiers lying on the floor. The doctors treated everyone according to their injury. They treated my mother before they treated the Israeli soldier lying next to her. They didn’t see religion. They didn’t see political affiliation. They saw people in need and they helped.
I think one of the major problems for people who have never been in the Middle-East, Israel in particular, is that they have never actually experienced the difference in mentality. It exists, you know. There are a great many Jews nowadays who have strong personal reasons to hate Arabs, but still there is no collective hatred, no indoctrination, no stereotyping. On the Arab side, you can't find anything but.
The difference between the Arabic world and Israel is a difference in values and character. It’s barbarism versus civilization. It’s dictatorship versus democracy. It’s evil versus goodness.
Ms Gabriel's is a rare voice (although its kind is ever so slowly being heard more often).
Please read.

Blame America - Or actually look!

Blame America - by Larry Elder
...the United Nations' Arab Human Development Report, written by Arab political scientists and scholars, came to a different conclusion. The scholars wrote about the comparative backward nature of 22 Arab states, covering nearly 300 million people. The Arab countries scored the lowest of all world regions as to freedom, the political process, civil liberties, political rights and media independence. The report found 65 million illiterate adults. Half of Arab women still cannot read or write. Ten million children between 6 and 15 years of age are out of school. The report describes a "severe shortage" of new writing. In the last 1,000 years, the Arabs have translated as many books as Spain translates in just one year. Only 1.2 percent of the population uses a computer, and only half of those access the Internet.

Spain, a country of 41 million people, boasts a greater Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than the GDP of all of the 22 Arab countries combined! Despite the presence of oil in many Arab countries, the region remains under-developed. The per capita income growth in the last 20 years stands at a level just above that of sub-Saharan Africa. One in five Arabs lives on less than $2 a day, and some estimate unemployment at 15 percent. Productivity declines, with research and development weak or nonexistent, and science and technology practically dormant. Intellectuals flee this repressive political and social climate that stifles "creativity."

In the Arab world, many call America "The Great Satan." Question: did not America, from 1945 to 1949, solely own the atomic bomb, then the greatest force of destruction in human history? What did America do with her power? Bomb her enemies? Steal the treasury of other countries? Forcibly annex territory?
America really is an amazing country - not all of it good.

The Arabs are amazing too - just about all of it bad. Why are so many of them so anxious to move to Europe and the US if they're so proud and happy with their own countries?

Read the whole article.

And while we're talking about slime

The fact that the New York Times regards Michael Tarazi as just another op-ed contributor demontrates all the more the need to expose this filth for what he is (Never mind the Times itself). I've been doing so for the last few days, and I want to add more by pointing to this great FrontPageMag article by David Meir-Levi. A point that has been made many, many times before (including by me), but that needs to be made many, many times more is the following:
Then there is the question of “Palestinian land”. As a legal adviser to the PLO, Tarazi must know that none of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has ever been “Palestinian Land”. Before Israel’s, the last legal sovereignty over these territories was that of the Ottoman Empire. The British Mandate was a temporary care-taker control established by the League of Nations. And from 1948 to 1967, the West bank was illegally occupied and annexed by Jordan, and the Gaza Strip by Egypt -- both in stark defiance of international law, Fourth Geneva Convention, and UN resolutions 181 and 194 (which declared that there should be a state of Palestine on that part of partitioned Cis-Jordan that was not given to the state of Israel). Israel conquered these territories in a defensive war (June 5-10, 1967) and then offered to return them to their illegal occupiers (Jordan and Egypt) in exchange for peace. Stunned and confused by this offer, the Arab world convened at Khartoum, Sudan, in August, 1967 and formulated their response: the now infamous three Khartoum “NO”s: No recognition, no negotiations, no peace. International law is clear. In the case of a defending country’s occupation of an aggressor’s territory, the disposition of this territory must await a peace treaty between the belligerents. In the absence of a peace treaty, the defending country’s continued sovereignty over the territory is completely legal. So, until a legal Palestinian government concludes a peace treaty with Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli land. Individual Palestinians may own personal title to some of it; but that title is under the legal sovereignty of Israel. There is no “Palestinian land”.[Emphasis mine - ed]
There simply is no disagreement possible about this point. If there was, hired scum like tarazi would make an issue out of it, instead of glossing over it and referring to 'illegal occupation' and 'stolen land', repeating it over and over until even they themselves start to believe it.

I also loved this summation:
In 1937 the Arabs could have had 85% of Palestine west of the Jordan, but they rejected the UK’s offer (the Peel partition plan) in favor of a revolt that Britain quelled at the cost of thousands of Arab lives. In 1947 they could have had c. 50% of the land, but again they went to war and, much to their surprise, were defeated by Israel. In 1949 they could have had a treaty with Israel that would have returned to them most of the land that they lost in the 1948 war, but instead they chose to maintain their belligerency and declared an eternal state of war. That is why the Rhodes conference was an armistice conference and not a peace conference.

In June, 1967 they could have gotten back the land they lost in the 6-day war, in exchange for peace (which Anwar es-Saddat did in 1979 – peace in exchange for Sinai at Camp David 1); but the Arab world could not deal with the reality of the need to make a deal with Israel. So Israel kept the land. Never has Israel coveted Arab land. Quite the opposite. Dragged into unwanted wars of survival, Israel has consistently offered to return conquered land in exchange for peace. It is only because of Arab obduracy and psychotic Jew-hatred that Israel today holds legal sovereignty over what was supposed to have been the Arab State of Palestine.
Really, this is all that needs to be said. Everyone should really just shut up after this. Well, the Arabs won't of course, just like children who play marbles, cheat, lose all the same, and then whine about their losses. And just like indifferent parents, the UN and the world at large insist that the truth must be 'somewhere in the middle' and that Israel should give the marbles back. Not just once, but time and time again. No matter how bad the cheating, or how often. A trait of the UN the Arabs are counting and relying on. No need to guess, they KNOW where the world stands on this issue.
And the future?
For 125 years, Palestinian leadership has been preaching "death to the Jews". For 55 years Arab nations have been engaged in a series of wars whose goal was the annihilation of Israel. For 35 years Arafat has led a relentless terror war whose goal was the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jews. And for the past four years, Arafat and his terrorist minions have made a last-ditch, desperate effort to prevail via endless terrorism, violence, murder, and intimidation.

And they all failed.

No one can predict the future, but past behavior is statistically the best indicator of future behavior.

So how did Arafat and his terror army behave in Jordan from June 1967 to September 1970? - so badly that King Hussein had to drive them out with a full-scale war (black September, 1970) that took the lives of c. 10,000 Palestinians.

How did Arafat and the PLO behave in Lebanon from October, 1970 to August, 1982? - they terrorized the Lebanese, created a civil war, killed tens of thousands of Christian Lebanese, drove hundreds of thousands from their homes, and threatened to bring down the entire Lebanese government.

It is not by chance that no Arab state was willing to offer safe harbor to Arafat and his minions when he was cornered by Sharon in Beirut in 1982.

And how has Arafat behaved since Oslo? - 18,000 terror attacks against Israel, 1700 Israeli dead and almost 7,000 wounded since 9/13/1993 (when Arafat declared on the White House lawn his unshakable commitment to peace), and Arafat continues to cheer on his terrorists, call them his heroes and martyrs, and dub his female homicide bombers his “army of roses”.

Palestinian national aspirations are unique in the world and throughout history. Their sole defining paradigm has been terrorism, their unabashed self-expression has been the diatribe of genocide, and their unequivocal aim has been the destruction of a sovereign state and the annihilation of its population.

There is no society in the world that would want to share its sovereignty with the world's arch terrorists. No government could rationally be expected to share its power with those who have left in their wake an abysmal travesty of murder and extortion, intimidation, torture, terror and destruction.

Why would anyone expect that Israel would want to?
They KNOW Israel doesn't want to, just as they wouldn't. But they DO want ISRAEL to keep bleeding and suffering.

This is great reading. So
read it all.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

UN's Peter Hansen speaking

I now see this man's problem: He's one of those anti-Semites who genuinely believes he is NOT a jewhater. No amount of evidence and experience in his own life will make him see it. For the rest of us, it's not all that hard. In fact, you must be blind to miss it. Jerusalem Post interviews UNRWA's Peter Hansen. Just a choice quote about the Arab refugees after the War of Independence:
These Palestinians did not feel Syrian or Kuwaiti; they are different. I mean, if World War II had turned out differently, and Hitler had wanted the Danes to disappear from the face of Denmark and live in, say, Norway or England, that wouldn't have worked.
Here comes the inevitable comparison to Hitler again; and he isn't even aware that he's making it. It beggars belief.
He also refuses to talk about the eight hundred thousand or so Jewish refugees forcibly expelled from the Arab countries in and after 1948. They settled in Israel with no real problems, even though they actually outnumbered the Jews IN Israel at the time!
Lastly, it is simply a lie to say people could not grow new roots, no matter how unjust their uprooting may have been. After WW2, many ethnic Germans were forced out of Poland and Checkoslovakia. They made a new life in Germany. As any sane person would have done.

Another huge, HUGE lie about the refugees: Their number.
One particular problem I am facing now is that descendants are only from the male side of the family. A child of a Palestinian woman refugee and a non-Palestinian father is not entitled to our education. Now that's a pity because it flies in the face of gender equality. But if maternal lineage were included, that would create even greater problems in the area - if, all of a sudden, instead of 4.2 million refugees, there were more than 5 million. This is just one of the moral-ethical dilemmas that we are facing. No matter what you do, you will violate a basic principle.
4.2 million. That is more than even the wildest Arab claim. And for Hansen, this is the MINIMUM. With any luck, he could have five million clients on his hands, a fourth generation refugees already underway. It really is too ridiculous for words!
Also, the man simply is a liar.
I could easily have told the reporters that we know the hearts and minds of everyone who works for our organization, but that would be an obfuscation. Instead, I said that I would be very surprised if there weren't some employees who, for religious or nationalistic reasons, sympathize with Hamas. [In fact, in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Hansen said: "Oh I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime."]
I already let loose on this guy. But he is worse than I thought. And that is saying something.

Cox and Forkum - Pictures and Words

So while hardly any space or time in the MSM (=Mainstream Media) is allotted to the latest finding of one of Saddams many mass graves, and while the media carefully picks out choice quotes from the Duelfer report to 'prove' that there were no WMD's in Iraq (something Bush never once stated; he stated - and this HAS been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt - that Saddam was close to producing and/or aquiring them), Cox & Forkum refocuses attention: Saddam was a monster of rare proportions, certainly for the second half of the 20th century.

But if your concern is 'the Bushitler', then none of that matters of course. What matters is the 'legality' of the invasion according to UN standards. What matters is that Bushitler 'lied'.

Cox & Forkum

Again: Michael Tarazi

Another point I failed to deduct from Michael Tarazi's op-ed in the NYT was fortunately picked up by this bright mind, Barry Rubin at the JeruzalemPost. Tarazi makes the point that by 'threatening' to become 'Israelis' out of despair, the 'Palestinians' are effectively returning to a one-state solution, in which they would pursue full citizenship. Israel would then be forced to either grant this, and in the not-so long run be turned into a Muslim-majority state, OR force a type of apartheid upon the Arab (something Tarazi argues already exists), thereby showing its true colors.
Rubin has the following to say about this:
[The PLO] has gone back to the explicit demand for a unitary state at the beginning of the process rather than as the outcome of years of subversion.

One need not be a genius to understand the consequences of such a "solution." The daily power struggle, bloodshed and civil war would make what is happening now look like a picnic.

To take the scheme Tarazi proposes seriously would be to assume that the Palestinian leadership is so humanitarian, so liberal and democratic-minded that it will sacrifice its own ambitions and totally change its historic behavior.

The movement's promotion of terrorism and vicious anti-Israel incitement belies any such intention.
Rubin makes another point, so simple that I have yet to see it being made anywhere else: Why would the Arabs fight on another state (it would be #23), called Palestine, while at the same time insisting on the 'Right of Return' for hundreds of thousands (if indeed not millions) to what is now Israel? Why would the Arabs want their own people to live in another sovereign nation, when they should contribute to the fledgling Arab state? It doesn't make sense, unless
Demanding a "right of return" to Israel sabotages any real Palestinian nationalism.

If the goal was to build a strong, stable Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel, everything would be done to discourage refugees from going to Israel. For why should a Palestinian state make a gift of these people, their money and talents to someone else?

But if you know that Israel will reject such a "return," then demanding it ensures postponing the end of the occupation, more violence, casualties, and billions of dollars in compensation.

The demand for return - PLO documents explicitly make this clear - is intended to subvert Israel and place it under Palestinian rule. That being the case, the returnees would not be lost to Palestine but would soon be making a real return - to the State of Palestine, bringing all of Israel with them.
Rubin has an important insight here. So please read it all.

Tarazi - Genocide equals 'Struggle For Equality'

Clifford May at has a brilliant analysis, a debunking if you will, of the notion that the wars and the terrorism being waged against the Jews by the Arab world have anything to do with a 'struggle for freedom' or a 'fight for a country'.
In 1948, genocidal anti-Semitism took the form of 5 Arab armies attempting to drive Israeli Jews into the sea.

In 1967, a second conventional war was led by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. The “Voice of the Arabs” radio station declared the goal: “extermination” of Israel. Ahmed Shuqayri, the first leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, added: “We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants.”

Since the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000 – when Yasser Arafat turned down an independent Palestinian state on 93% of the West Bank and Gaza – radical anti-Semitism has taken the form of suicide bombings in Israel's streets, shops and restaurants.

Former Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen said this month many of those responsible believed that “after the killing of 1,000 Israelis in the Intifada, Israel would collapse.”

Well, about 1,000 Israelis have been slaughtered, but Israel has not collapsed. Instead, the Israelis are demonstrating that terrorism can be defeated.

So genocidal anti-Semitism is taking another form. This week, The New York Times gave Michael Tarazi, an American lawyer who advises the Palestine Liberation Organization, space on its op-ed page to make this audacious argument: That having failed to eradicate Israel with tanks and terrorism, Palestinian leaders are now “being forced to consider a one-state solution.”
Tarazi is the kind of creature (he outwardly closely resembles a human being) that gives lawyers a bad name. He has the mind of a physics Nobel Prize winner, and the morality of a garden slug. This creature would work through laws to destroy Israel. So what is his plan? The 'Palestinians' would be
“forced” to consider demanding a “right” to flood Israel with people who hate Israelis, people loyal to such terrorist organization such as Hamas, and who want to replace Israel with a radical Islamist state.

And if Israelis refuse to willingly become a despised minority in their own country, ruled by people who have been waging genocidal campaigns against them, that will demonstrate, Mr. Tarazi declares, that “Christians and Muslims, the millions of Palestinians under occupation are not welcome in the Jewish state.”

“Not welcome.” Imagine that. The nerve. The chutzpah.

As Mr. Tarazi well knows but neglects to mention, there is only one Jewish state on the planet. It's about the size of New Jersey. By contrast, there are 22 Arab nations and more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries, covering an area larger than the U.S. and Europe combined.

In these lands, Jews are – to varying degrees – conspicuously not welcome. In Jordan, a relatively liberal country that maintains diplomatic relations with Israel, Jews are prohibited, by law, from being citizens.

In Saudi Arabia, no synagogue or church may be built.

Mr. Tarazi forgets to note, too, that half of Israel's Jews have their roots in such places as Egypt, Yemen, Iraq and Iran -- but that after intense persecution they fled what had been their families' homes for centuries. Similarly, Christians have fled from Syrian-controlled Lebanon and from Bethlehem and Nazareth since those cities came under Arafat's control.

Nor does Mr. Tarazi appear to recall that almost 15% of Israel's citizens are Muslims. They enjoy more rights and freedoms than Muslims elsewhere in the Middle East – including the right to free speech, to vote, and to worship as they choose. You do not see graffiti on mosques in Israel.

Israeli Arabs have been elected to Israel's parliament and serve on its supreme court.
Tarazi represents the 'decent', 'civilized' part of the effort to destroy Israel. The very fact that he lends himself to this goal so willingly, coldy and rationally working towards this end is frightening. It can only be compared to a Reinhardt Heydrich, the designer of the plan to exterminate the Jews in an industrial, logistically efficiently manner. So please read about Michael Tarazi, another personification of evil.


Bill Whittle at EjectEjectEject! has written some simply brilliant essays. This one definitely qualifies. It comes in two parts, both are long but still too short (if you catch my drift). Subject is the current run-up to the election in the US, and why voting Kerry is a bad idea, to put it mildly. It does not directly relate to Kerry's position on Israel, but has everything to do with the way Kerry would (not) fight the current war.
It all comes down to carrots (liberals) or sticks (conservatives). By the way: if you’re in a rush and need to run, here’s the spoiler: You can offer a carrot. Not everybody likes carrots. Some people may hate your carrot. Your carrot may offend people who worship the rutabaga. But no one likes being poked in the eye with a stick. That’s universal.

I’m a stick man. I wish it were different. But part of growing up – in fact, the essential part of growing up – is realizing that wishing does not make it so.

Folks, it’s time to reach down deep and get in touch with our inner adult.
And how can anyone argue with this:
Folks, some people who steal and rob are not fundamentally bad people. Some of them are desperate, some of them are stupid, and some of them are just plain lazy. Some of them, though, are psychopaths who’d kill you for a nickel and think nothing more about it – they’d trade your life, and the welfare of your spouse and children, for two hours of getting high and it would not bother them in the least.

Nations are governed by people. People are noble and base, honest and corrupt, brutal and gentle and all the adjectives in between. Yes, even Americans! The success of democracy, it seems to me, is that there is always a counterweight to the most mendacious and the most harebrained of human activities. It’s harder to fool all the people all the time.

Dictatorships, on the other hand – well, you’re down to the limits of one man’s sanity, ego, vanity and judgment. And when you consider the kind of person it takes to rule absolutely and totally the lives of millions of others – many of them more intelligent, educated and capable – then what you are left with is a giant, enormous, destructive Iron Giant – a state – with a tiny, desperate, paranoid, perpetually fearful psychopath pulling the levers. Dictatorships put the power of millions, the muscle and capability of entire nations, behind the guy with the gun in that dark alley.

It is a prospect to make sane people shake with fear. Surely we can agree on this much.
Presenting a few snippets here does not do justice to Bill's writing. Please read it all. And then read it again. You'll have a great weekend. And you'll have no doubt about who to vote for.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

I really hate the UN

I don't mind admitting it. I know many people that in spite of all they know and see, are still too wise and mature to stay away from hate like this.

Not me. If the UN building was located in
Busher, Iran, the reasons for bombing that place back into the stone age would double.

I think whatever is wrong in the world, the UN makes it worse.
Whatever goes right in the world, the UN hinders or screws up.

The UN is a place where people and countries that should (at best) be ostracized and ignored by the civilized world get treated as if they are decent and normal. The UN perpetuates misery, war, oppression. In fact, it has to, because the UN has become a goal unto itself.

One of the very few people with a knowledgeable, consistent view on (at least a part of) the UN is ms Anne Bayefsky. She graces this blog often. Read her
most recent article in the JeruzalemPost on the UN General Assembly. After reading, I don't see how you can disagree with my view on this corrupt organization, led by an immoral fraud like Kofi Annan.
...THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S turn arrived the following week. Kofi Annan opened the General Assembly on September 21 by naming only one country on earth as guilty of violating international law through the "excessive use of force."

You guessed it – Israel. A previous version of the speech, which was distributed to journalists, condemned "Israeli operations presented as 'self-defense'" – Annan's quotations, not mine.
In a well-known UN tactic, the secretary-general didn't actually use the word "Sudan," referring instead to the ethereal "Darfur region" – about which he would now "investigate reports of human rights violations...and determine whether acts of genocide have been committed."

In fact, nowhere in Annan's speech could he muster the word "democracy," a concern one might have considered central to our time.

The secretary-general, however, is not alone. September 30 was the last day of two weeks of speeches from prime ministers and foreign ministers clarifying expectations for the session to come. Here's a sampling:

Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs Farouk Al-Shara: "Syria condemn[s] terrorism in all its forms and manifestations... Arab... and... Islamic... conventions... distinguish between terrorism and the legitimate right of people lingering under foreign occupation to resist occupation..."

Lebanon's Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares: "There are Syrian forces in Lebanon. These forces are on our territory upon the request of the Lebanese government..."

Foreign Minister of Iran Kamal Kharrazi: "[P]revent[ing] the proliferation of nuclear weapons...must be a comprehensive and non-discriminatory manner.... We insist on our right to technology for peaceful purposes... Israel.. [is] the single greatest threat to regional and global peace and security."

Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (chairman of the 100+ Members of the Non-Aligned Movement): "[C]hange must be effected without sacrificing certain immutable principles such as...non-interference in the domestic affairs of states..."
She ridicules the French, and the IAEA for insisting on dealing with irrational, unreasonable regimes in a rational, responsible fashion. As if bombing a madman BEFORE he gets his hands on a nuke is irrational!
Ms Bayefsky closes with this:
In the first presidential debate on September 29, Senator John Kerry declared the UN a centerpiece of his would-be American foreign policy. According to Kerry, "You don't help yourself with other nations...when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations."

Any use by a president of the option of a "preemptive strike" must be done "in a way...that passes the global test where... you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

While Rome burns.

Got a live one

A Hamas terrorist actually surrendered to the IDF after being surrounded. Wonder why he didn't go down in flames? Anyway, this diseased individual was responsible for many, perhaps dozens of Israeli's murdered.
On August 31 2004 Ahmad Qawasma and Nissim Gaavry, directed by Imad Qawasma, carried out a double suicide bombing attack in Beer-Sheva which resulted in the death of 16 Israelis.

In June 2004 Qawasma enlisted Alaa Kafisha, a Hamas terrorist from Hebron, to assist Malec Nazar Aladin, a Hamas terrorist from Hebron, to carry out a suicide attack in Jerusalem. After they failed to carry out the suicide attack at the "Kafit" cafe in the center of Jerusalem, Nazar Aladin was killed and the other cell members, residents of Hebron and Jerusalem, were arrested.

Qawasma directed a Hamas cell in Hebron responsible for a series of shooting attacks carried out since January 2004. One of the attacks resulted in the injury of an IDF soldier. Most of the cell members were arrested in July 2004 possessing a large amount of ammunition and weapons.
Read more about the arrest here.
This guy is in for a seriously GOOD time. A LONG, GOOD time

BBC News - UN 'should have led Iraq' action

The insurgency in Iraq would be a lesser problem if there had been a second UN resolution before military action, Peter Mandelson has said.
This is hilarious, it really is. The incoming EU commissioner feels the UN would have done a better job of turning Iraq into a democracy than the US is now doing. Why?
"International legitimacy... counts for a very great deal in international affairs," the incoming EU commissioner told a political gathering in Hungary
I get it. The Muslim Psychotics that are now murdering their own people at a rate even Ol'Saddam would have admired, and who have invented the new fad of sawing off people's heads on video, these depreved maniacs would have instantly turned into decent human beings if only the likes of Kofi Annan and Peter Hansen would have been in charge, and not those bad, mean Americans. Oh, but wait! Saddam would STILL HAVE BEEN IN POWER! There would have been NO INSURGENCY!
What there would have been is maybe one or two extra mass graves like
this one, found yesterday. It is estimated Saddam murdered around 300.000 people during his reign. But the UN never had any intentions of getting rid of this monster. Neither did the EU.

So even their 20-20 hindsight vision is distorted beyond belief. Oh well, no news there.

Islamic group condemns Egypt bombs

Yeah right.
Al-Gamaa al-Islamiya said the attacks had no religious legitimacy.
First of all, this alleged lack of religious legitimacy never seems to stop the rest of the Islamic Psychotic Brotherhood. I wonder if they feel the same way and just choose to bomb anyway, or that they simply disagree that atrocities like these are not legitimate.
But secondly, what exactly do they condemn,
according to the BBC?
The Islamist group said the Taba bombing had resulted in the death of Muslims, as well as women and children, and that that was unlawful under Islam.
Unlawful under islam. Not actually immoral. just 'unlawful'. And that only because it had 'resulted in the death of Muslims, as well as women and children'.

Egypt pushing troops into Sinai DMZ

IMRA has the following story. It seems the Egyptians are getting security-conscious all of a sudden. In the Taba area, that is, and not just South of Gaza, where Jew-murdering scum has been smuggling their weapons and explosives from Egyptian army bases.

Again: What is Egypt preparing for? Or just threatening, keeping Israel too tied up to do other things like take out Tehran?

Update: Just a thought but... Since there are many conspiracy theories on the motive and perpetrators for the Taba massacre circulating already, I'll just add my own.

The Egyptians did it. They get to murder sone Jews, get away with it, AND they now have an excuse (if not an actual reason) to deploy more troops in this area. Cool eh?