Zion. An island of sanity in an ocean of savagery.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Good Dutchmen
Well, women. They existed then, and they exist today.
Staring certain death straight in the face, the 18-year-old Dutch teen did not flinch. It was 1943 in Nazi-occupied Holland, with the Nazi deportation of Dutch Jews in full swing.
In a rural farm in the southern part of the country, Hilde van Straten-Duizer stood facing a group of German soldiers who were searching her mother's home for any Jews who were in hiding.
After completing a thorough search of the entire house, the teen knew where the ever-so-thorough- German soldiers would undoubtedly go next: the storage loft above the family barn.
What van Straten-Duizer also knew was among some bundles of hay in the storage loft was exactly where a 22 year old Jewish friend of the family was being sheltered, having recently escaped a Nazi deportation to a concentration camp.
With only seconds separating her whole family from certain death for giving refuge to a Jew, the country teen and her sister engaged the Germans in conversation, overtly flirting with them. Distracted by the clever ruse, the Germans would leave the house a quarter hour later without ever checking the storage area.
They existed then and they do today. Which is good news for the world in general, and the Jews in particular.
But they were always a minority. And the present-day friends of Jews belong to a shrinkin one at that.
You think stuff like this happens only in movies, with scripts written by people who desperately need psychiatric treatment. They need treatment in Iran too, only over there they act out their fantasies.
Kazemi's [an Iranian-born Canadian photojournalist] skull was badly bruised and her nose was crushed. Her eardrum was ruptured. Fingers were broken. Fingernails and toenails were ripped out. Her ribs were bruised, possibly broken. She had been flogged. A nurse reported Kazemi had been violently raped. "I could see this was torture," [Maj. Shahram Azam, a physician] said yesterday in Ottawa, after arriving this week with his family seeking asylum. And he said the torture went on for some time.
Why did this happen to her?
...was arrested June 23, 2003, outside Evin prison while taking pictures at a pro-democracy rally.
Like I said, they need treatment in Iran too. Perhaps the treatment can be combined with their lust for nuclear weapons. Make their dream come true.
Almost six out of 10 adults in Britain, France and Germany say that Iran does not pose a nuclear threat to Europe, according to the findings of a new CNN/TIME poll.
With the emphasis on 'Europe'.
And there is one other condition: Once Iran has The Bomb, it will use it for blackmail on a scale not seen before. Just to see the faces of people in Europe, it would be almost be worth it to let Iran get their murderous hands on some nukes.
Almost.
Of course, by that time Israel will have been turned into a nuclear wasteland. But that was never any concern, or reason for regret for Europe. Really just a sidenote
I know I get very negative about Israel's future, about the few friends and allies the Jewish state has. Part of this is just my way of trying to be a prophet of doom, hoping that by being alarmist I actually alarm people, and my prophecies don't come to pass.
I also get angry at people who consider themselves friends of Israel (Jews and otherwise) but who (in my humble view of course) say and do the wrong things. I can't stand it when people who have a brain (and they're rare to begin with) make choices (mostly political) that run counter to Israel's best interests. I'm not talking about people who SAY they are friends but are obviously not. I'm talking about people who really do have Israel's best interests at heart, but simply choose a path that leads in the opposite direction of where even THEY want Israel to go.
Such choices may involve the preferred President of the US, wether or not the UN (or its disbandment) is a good idea, wether human rights organizations are friends or foes of Israel, the way to deal with Muslim immigration in Europe, and many other issues besides.
This is not the time or place to go into these issues. What I want to do here is to say to these people (I have one in mind in particular, my favourite feline, but she's by no means the only one) that my blog is MEANT to polarize. I DO think that appeasement is very wrong, I DO think that the time for looking at the issue from both sides has passed. But I don't mean to drive these honest but mistaken friends away. I was told once that I am 'high maintenance'. I thought about that, and in its context the statement was correct. I never let go, I WILL have the last say when I believe I know what's what. But between friends, the issue remains just that. Nothing more.
So I will try not to feel disgusted when I see links to Amnesty International or even MoveOn or worse on blogs of people who I think ought to know better. It does sadden and disappoint me, but in the balance things are still positive. And I hope you to whom this applies read this and see that, where Israel and the Jews are concerned at least, we all have their survival and prosperity foremost in our minds.
(Disclaimer: Forgive my arrogance. Like I said, I am way past looking at these issues from any other POV than my own. I am aware other POV's exist, and have decided they are irrelevant, if only because the rest of the world already has plenty of supporters for them.)
Nathan Sharansky is always worth reading. But this article, possible because FrontPageMag received permission from Sharansky to publish part of his book "The Case For Democracy" gives great insight into what really happened in Jenin.
52 Arabs died, most of them armed terrorists. 23 Israeli soldiers died, because Israel did not carpet-bomb Jenin, as logic dictated but chose instead to fight the terrorists house-to-house. But
...Relying on phony information produced by Palestinian sources and claiming that Israel had killed over 500 civilians,(1) leveled a hospital, deliberately shot children, and executed prisoners, almost all the foreign press harshly criticized the Israeli action. The vilification rang out across the world, but the British press was in a class all by itself. The Independent called the Israeli operation "a monstrous war crime."(2) A. N. Wilson, writing for the Evening Standard, called it a "massacre, and a cover-up of genocide."(3) The Guardian, not to be outdone, ran a lead editorial opining that "Jenin was every bit as repellent in its particulars, no less distressing, and every bit as man made, as the attack on New York on September 11."(4)
New York City: An investigation by the New York Daily News in 2003 found that books used in the city’s Muslim schools “are rife with inaccuracies, sweeping condemnations of Jews and Christians, and triumphalist declarations of Islam’s supremacy.”
Los Angeles: The Omar Ibn Khattab Foundation donated 300 Korans (titled The Meaning of the Holy Quran) to the city school district in 2001 that within months had to be pulled from school libraries because of its antisemitic commentaries. One footnote reads: “The Jews in their arrogance claimed that all wisdom and all knowledge of Allah was enclosed in their hearts…Their claim was not only arrogance but blasphemy.”
On and on it goes, insidious but not all that hidden. Intended to polarize at best, to create an enemy within at worst.
Jerusalem’s Hadassah hospital received a $50 million donation last week from one of the people born there – famed Jewish actress Natalie Portman. ... 23-year-old Portman, whose family name is Hershlag, was born in Israel, and her father worked as a doctor in Jerusalem. She spent last summer studying Jewish History at the Hebrew University.
While studying at Harvard University, Portman wrote an open letter defending Israeli security policies after a pro-PLO student attacked Israel in the campus newpaper. She also frequently paid visits to Israeli victims of terrorism in hospitals during the course of the Oslo War.
Now I just want to marry her. But she was cute even when she was little...
The logical conclusion of the Gaza 'disengagement' is of course that instead of Sderot being singled out by Arab terrorist for their murderous rocket attacks, now all the lands around Gaza becomes part of the shooting range. The terrorists will have a free reign to fire from wherever they want, and the leisure to develop rockets with ever-increasing range. And the Jews? Well, they'll just have to build stronger roofs
The IDF is preparing for what it sees as the dangers of the disengagement: a program for the reinforcement of roofs in the Negev – those that are considered to be within rocket range of nearby Gaza.
The buildings of nurseries, kindergartens and day care centers within several kilometers of Gaza will be protected, according to the new Home Front Command army program.
What do you think will happen when - G-d forbid - the Arabs gain control of (parts of) Judea and Samaria?
Let's just say it will be a prosperous time for roofers in Israel. And for undertakers too.
The logical conclusion of the Gaza 'disengagement' is of course that instead of Sderot being singled out by Arab terrorist for their murderous rocket attacks, now all the lands around Gaza becomes part of the shooting range. The terrorists will have a free reign to fire from wherever they want, and the leisure to develop rockets with ever-increasing range. And the Jews? Well, they'll just have to build stronger roofs
The IDF is preparing for what it sees as the dangers of the disengagement: a program for the reinforcement of roofs in the Negev – those that are considered to be within rocket range of nearby Gaza.
The buildings of nurseries, kindergartens and day care centers within several kilometers of Gaza will be protected, according to the new Home Front Command army program.
What do you think will happen when - G-d forbid - the Arabs gain control of (parts of) Judea and Samaria?
Let's just say it will be a prosperous time for roofers in Israel. And for undertakers too.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach at WorldNetDaily has the same point of view on leaving Gaza (and the implications it has for the rest of Israel) as I do. Uses the same arguments too:
[Reasoning goes like this:] The military commitment of protecting the settlers is just too expensive and the potential loss of life too costly. It's time to pull out. It's painful, but logical. There are other places in Israel for the settlers to live, and these brave pioneers dare not allow themselves to become obstacles to peace.
There is only one problem with this seemingly unassailable reasoning. Taken to its logical conclusion, it becomes an argument against the very existence of the state of Israel itself.
Exactly. When do we come to the point where we say: This is worth fighting, yes, dying for? And at what point do we say: This is not? This we cede to the Arabs?
What future does a country of 5 million Jews really have in a region of 500 million Arabs? The military cost of settling those Jews in Israel has been astronomical, and the human cost incalculable. And the Jews who have settled Israel indeed have other places to live. Whereas once there may have been a need for a Jewish homeland, today Jews live in peace and prosperity in dozens of countries from America to Australia. Why should Jews aggravate the Arabs and serve as obstacles to peace by insisting on cultivating a land which the Arabs claim has been theirs for generations and which the Jews only conquered through war?
Boteach has a new (to me anyway) insight into Sharon's motives:
It is the misfortune of the Israeli people to have a former general in the twilight of his career who, like so many warriors who preceded him, wishes to end his days as a peacemaker. ... The error of all these great men was not to understand that war and weapons are righteous and just when used to protect human liberty and life. Abolishment of war cannot precede the abolishment of evil. Hence, the ancient biblical prophecy of swords being beaten into ploughshares is concurrent with the wolf lying down with the lamb, a metaphor for the menacing claws of tyrants and terrorists being permanently expunged. Yet, Sharon insists on retreating before the enemy before any tangible sign of disarmament.
King David was not allowed to build God's temple because he was a man of war. It was left for his son Solomon, who would enjoy peace. Ariel Sharon's tragic miscalculation is to confuse the two roles. While one's enemies are still armed with evil intent, one must forever remain a David. Of the two men, it is the legacy of the father that is greater than the son.
Indeed. The enemy is still 'armed with evil intent', and lot more besides. Sharon was good at winning wars. I wish he would just resign to winning this one as well. Or maybe he should resign first to the fact that war is still the most accurate description of the situation Israel is currently in.
If he can't resign to any of those facts, it's probably high time he'd just resign.
We search the purses of little old ladies so that recent immigrants from Saudi Arabia named "Mohammed" wearing massive backpacks don't get singled out.
