Friday, March 25, 2005

What is a terrorist to think?

This thru Jerusalem Newswire:
"The suicide attacks…have taken their tolls on the Jews, both psychologically and economically, in addition to the high number of casualties,” [Ahmed al-Bahar, a top Hamas leader] continued.

Bahar said Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s “disengagement” plan was a sign Israel had been morally defeated by its Arab Islamic foes.

“All indications show that since its establishment, Israel has never been in such a state of retreat and weakness as it is today following more than four years of the intifada,” he told reporters.

“The withdrawal marks the end of the Zionist dream and is a sign of the moral and psychological decline of the Jewish state. We believe that [terrorism] is the only way to pressure the Jews.”
There's bound to be a lot of bluster, rhetoric and propaganda in there. After all, Hamas has basically had its ass handed to it.
But there's no denying that Israel is not leaving Gaza because it's just such great idea.

The Arabs have won that part of this war of attrition. Thru the surrender of the Jews. Under the leadership of Sharon.

Proponents of 'disengagement' say that dozens of Israeli soldiers dying to defend a relatively small number of 'settlers' is crazy, and withdrawal to 'Israel proper' is logical and right.

I say this is a matter of a sliding scale. It will always seem as if the sacrifices are too high. What will happen to Sderot? It will not be 'worth' defending against the relentless attacks from gaza that are sure to continue.

Again, the ONLY reason for not doing the right and logical thing is foreign public opinion. Even the Arabs would be better off, and would suffer less casualties if Israel would simply retake Gaza, retake Judea and Samaria and annex it for all eternity. Resettle the Arab inhabitants in Egypt and Jordan. And the consequences be damned.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

More on sovereignty

Who decides what is the capital of a country? You may be forgiven fo thinking it's the country itself who decides, because if you're not a Jew, you would be right.

What's my point? Apart from the principle itself? (not a minor issue, I might add).

The point is that the capital is where other countries have their embassies. Not that there are that many who have diplomatic relations with Israel (86 countries out of about 200). Of those 86, exactly 3 have their embassy in Jerusalem, one of which is the International Christian Embassy, and I have no clue who they are (but they're friends of the Jews, I know that much). The rest have their embassy in Tel-Aviv. If Israel's lucky, they may have a consulate in Jerusalem as well.

Why does Israel even allow other countries to decide where they choose to have an embassy? Countries can choose to have an ambassador in Israel, or not. Most in fact choose not to. But to allow other countries effectively to say "We think Tel-Aviv is your capital, and not any city you choose" is outrageous. Imagine saying that to Chirac, or Blair.

Why does Israel choose to swallow these insults, these breaches of sovereignty? As a matter of principle, it could deny any embassies in Tel-Aviv, and it would be in its right to do so. Of course, there would be consequences, perhaps serious ones, but currently Israel is acknowledging that these possible consequences are effective as a means of blackmail and extortion. Which means that Israeli sovereignty is an illusion.

Of course, Israel is not alone in caving in to external pressures. In 1995, the US actually adopted a law stating its embassy must be located in Jerusalem, which (the law also states) is the capital of Israel.
Since that time (10 years ago now) Both Clinton and Bush have on multiple occasions cited 'security concerns' as their reason to delay the relocation of their embassy.
The American government continues to fear that moving the embassy would infuriate Palestinians and other Arabs, who would see it as recognition of Israel's annexation of the eastern half of Jerusalem.
Of course the relocation would piss the Arabs off. And that's something both Jews and Americans will only do in dire need. I have some bad news for the Americans, and for the Jews waiting for them to move their embassy to the city of David: There will NEVER be a time when the Arabs will agree to this relocation. So the relocation will then never take place?

There's a word for this type of behaviour. It's called 'fear'. And it is the dominant factor in any policy where the Arabs are concerned.

Human Rights = Palestinian Rights

FrontPageMag has this article on the hiring of researchers by Human Rights Watch, an organization taken seriously by many otherwise sane people. In this particular case, it would be laughable, if it weren't so sad and disgusting.
Ms. Mair's qualifications include writing for the "Electronic Intifada" and work with Grassroots International, a radical pro-Palestinian political organization. (Since HRW's employment process is secret, and not subject to independent review, we are unable to compare her credentials and expertise on universal human rights issues with the other candidates.)
It's funny that the even the people who fund and sponsor this organization aren't allowed insight into its hiring policies. But anyway, when they use decidedly biased and partial persons like Mair, any credibility they might have had goes out the window. Like it does for Amnesty, here, and here.

'Charities' like human rights organizations are always Left-leaning. This is not strange, because people with socialist/leftist sympathies tend to be more sensitive to the problems of other people, and more inclined to donate to such causes, or even take action. All of which is good.

These days however, Left-leaning has become synonymous with anti-Israel, anti-American and pro-Evil. Which means that HRW and Amnesty have simply become part of the lopsided political struggle, have joined the team of Goliath (how apt, since he was a Philistine too), and are no longer even trying to keep up appearances.

Can anyone please direct me to an instance, an article, anything at all where a human rights organization has stood up for the Jews? Any Jews, at any time? It would restore a little bit of my faith in mankind.

Not gonna happen, is it? I guess I should call it refreshing that the masks have come off. Please read the whole article.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Blair pledges to fight anti-Semitism

Blair - rhymes with hot air.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has promised the Jewish community he will "never allow the Labor Party to be tarnished by anti-Semitism."
says the Jerusalem Post. Too late I say, and I point to the Labour Party's other golden boy, Red Ken Livingstone. Unless of course Blair feels (like the moronic Livingstone himself does) that Red Ken is not a Jew-hater, he is merely being objectively critical of Israel, but nevertheless a great friend.
Here's why Ken is so 'major' in the Labour Party: The voters just love him too much to let go.
And here's more on the opinions and attitudes of this vile piece of shit. Please know your Livingstone. Mayor of London, too big for the Labour Party to ignore.

Another example of the serf mind-set

Who does the Temple Mount belong to? In fact, who does Jerusalem belong to?
According to the Jews, the Temple Mount belongs to the Arabs.
[Shmulik Ben Ruby, Jerusalem police spokesman] said the current police restrictions of only allowing small groups of about 30 to 50 non-Muslims to ascend the Temple Mount, the holiest site for Jews, will apply on the day of the scheduled gathering.
Such restrictions do not however apply to Arabs:
"We would and we do allow 10,000 Palestinians to go up," he said. "They are going up there to pray in their mosques."

He recognized Jews cannot pray on the Mount: "Yes, those are the restrictions."
And what was the cause of all this?
The Temple Mount, the area directly behind the Western Wall in Jerusalem, was opened to the general public until September 2000, when the Palestinians started their intifada by throwing stones at Jewish worshipers after then-candidate for prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the area. Following the onset of violence, the new Sharon government closed the Mount to non-Muslims, using checkpoints to control all pedestrian traffic for fear of further clashes with the Palestinians [Emphasis mine - Ed].
Good eh? An angry mob with stones, and the knowledge that any serious measures being taken to control its rioting will be broadcasted worldwide, is enough to make the Jews keep the peace, by making all the sacrifices unilaterally. IT SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

Notice that it was the toothless lion Sharon of all people, who took this dhimmi-like measure.

There's nothing wrong with taking the Arabs' needs into consideration. It's not very hard to do a better job at that than the Arabs do for non-Muslims in Mekka.
But making yourself a second-class citizen in your very own country is ridiculous. And very counterproductive. It reinforces the Arab belief that if they make enough trouble, they'll get their way. So far, the Jews are proving them right.

Monday, March 21, 2005

Perhaps it's time to abandon ship

According to this article in Al-Haaretz, 75% of 'Palestinians' see the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as a victory, as a result of Arab terrorism, to which Israel succumbed.

The article makes a valid point when it states that a precedent exists, both for the Arabs' belief that violence and terrorism pays off (and it must seem to be true, and sometimes it was) and for Israeli weakness in the face of that violence and terrorism.

But the real problem of course is not that Israel caves in to Arab violence. There has never been a physical danger large enough to really threaten Israel in its existence. Even in 1973, despite overwhelming numbers arrayed against the Jews, and the element of surprise in favour of the Arabs, Jews were on the defensive only days, after which Israel could have taken the capitals of all surrounding Arab countries without serious opposition, and could have slaughtered tens if not hundreds of thousands of Arab soldiers in the process.

No. The problem is that Israel caves in to foreign demands. Israel lets countries and entities like the US, UN and EU determine how to deal with terrorists, how to deal with countries that attack with Scud missiles, how to deal with countries that seek to aquire nuclear weapons to be used against Israel.

It is not Israel who decides where Jews can and cannot live in Israel, who to talk to when trying to come to terms with the Arabs, what 'maps' to follow to make peace.

If Israel were a person, its actions would be those of a slave, not a free man. He would let other 'persons' decide how far to go in self-defense, how to redecorate the house, how to solve disputes with the neighbours.

What does Russia have to do with the problems between Israel and the Arabs? What is Germany's stake in Judea/Samaria? What are France's interests in the Golan?

None of those countries have Israel's interests at heart. Quite the contrary, a cynic might say. Israel should completely disregard everyone except those who are PROVEN friends. And quite honestly, I can't think of any.

The Arab perception of the success of using violence and terrorism against Israel is surely a problem. It convinces the Arabs it is the path to victory, and makes coexistence less likely then ever before.
Israel could cure the Arabs of this perception in no time at all. But it is exactly the absence of the will to do so that makes up the much larger problem. Without that will, the will to do what is right for Israel and its Jews, Israel will give up the 'West Bank'. And then Jeruzalem. And ultimately, every last bit of land. If Israel does not come this realization very soon, it will start dying a slow and horrible death.

And the saddest thing is: It will be by its very own hand.

A good day for Islam

People must be getting very desperate in Qatar: Car bomb targets theatre in Qatar. Whoever did it must have been so oppressed and desperate for a country of their own. Poor suicidists.
The BBC feels it may suspect the reason for the atrocity:
The attack comes on the second anniversary of the start of the US-led war in Iraq.
I honestly fail to see the connection. The BBC must know something I don't.

And then more of the same in Pakistan. This time it's the Shia'a being mean to the Sunni's. So what's a good Sunni Muslim to do? Isn't it obvious? Pakistan blast toll climbs to 44. CNN helpfully offers the following cliche:
Most of the Muslims live together peacefully, but small groups of militants on both sides stage attacks.
150 MILLION Muslims live in Pakistan. If 1% of those belong to the 'small groups of militants', that's 1.5 MILLION extremists for you. Even a tenth of that could plunge the world into darkness. Lucky for us they hate each other first. Don't count on that to last though.