Thursday, June 30, 2005

I just read a very interesting open letter to Paul Krugmann on TCS ( ), which accuses the once renowned economist of having forsaken objective argumentation in favor of cheap, emotional polemics.

TCS’ contributing editor Arnold Kling goes on to point out his systematic fault with the help of half a dozen examples of possible pro- and contra arguments on various issues from school vouchers to the Iraq War.

He contrasted two types of arguments by doing so:

The type M arguments, and the type C arguments.

Type C arguments are what we’re taught at schools and universities ( hopefully ! ):

Objective criticism of the adversary’s views, based on facts and theories, thereby focusing on the outcome, the result of a policy, its consequences ( therefore “type C(onsequneces)” )

Type M arguments, on the other hand, ignore the implications, consequences, possible or likely outcomes of the policies they criticize, but concentrate on the motivation ( type M(otivation) ) which a political agitator – person, party, corporation – might have to support or oppose a certain policy. Type M argumentation leads to personal attacks instead of attacks on the arguments of the opponent. As you can guess, that tears the level of discourse down tremendously, as facts can be proven, but motives only suspected ( even if there are strong indicators for certain motives ). What’s more, objective arguments can be countered with contradicting arguments or evidence of similar cases, or experience etc. An attack on a personal level, on the character of an individual or party cannot be countered rationally … you can ignore such attacks, which may leave the impression that you agree with the assessment. You can try to counter a smear by smearing the opponent and his party as well, but then you stoop down to his level, and every further discourse is rendered impossible – or will be reduced to exchanging swear words.

Example of a type C argument against the Iraq War:

“Saddam’s army had been rendered largely in-operational due to lack of spare parts for tanks and jets, and low morale trough-out the ranks, from the drafted men up to the officers. Therefore another attack on a neighbouring country like Iran or Kuwait would have been rather unlikely, and Saddam did not pose an imminent threat to anyone but the Iraqi people.”

While I personally supported the Iraq War, I must concede this would be an objective argument ( no wonder I just constructed it by myself – *patting myself on the shoulder* ), which might be sustained further by evidence and stats about the number of tanks operational in 1990, vs. the corresponding number of 2000 for comparison.

Of course it might as well be contradicted by evidence to the contrary, e.g. the outlawed missiles which UN weapons inspectors found in Iraq, the traces of WMD they scraped off machines at several industrial sites, etc. An objective argument can be countered by objective arguments, and if not, you know you’re wrong.

An example for a type M argument against the Iraq War would be:

“It was all about oil. George W. Bush and his cronies in the administration got ties to big oil corporations, e.g. Halliburton, and they just went in there to enrich themselves. The United States are exploiting another poor 3rd world country and stripping it off its resources. They accepted the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, and even US soldiers, to achieve their goal …”

Such a subjective line of argumentation, with unproven alleged motivations of key politicians, might be proven wrong by objective argumentation as well – such as the fact that Bush and the other members of the administration didn’t earn a dime

by going to war, ort that the war costs billions of dollars, or that the Iraqi oil is now belong to the Iraqi people, and the US has to buy it if she wants some etc.

But the temptation is high to respond in kind, and hurl similar suspicions and insults at the other party.

So using type M arguments undermines your own credibility, therefore making it impossible to bring your point across, and is at the same time deadly to an open, calm, rational debate.

Why am I writing this all ?

TCS explained it better than I could, anyway ?!

Well, I read the piece of TCS and it gave me pause to think … I am guilty of using type M arguments as well, at least partially.

You know I believe that Sharon’s motivation for coming up with the so-called “disengagement plan” was his bribery scandals, which would have costed him his seat and de facto ended his political carreer, in case he would have been properly tried for it.

That’s why I suspect he came up with a plan, which leftist politicians had long been proposing, to please the leftist judiciary establishment of Israel, and get his trial called off in exchange for implementing said plan.

I still believe that that’s the way it all came about. And I still oppose the deportation plan.

So far, so “type M”-ish … but if you read me correctly, I never made that the center point of my rejection of the deportation plan.

I just mentioned it as an illustration of the plan’s background.

My rejection of it lies grounded on type C arguments, some of which I have presented here in more or less coherent form:

We should always focus on the ends, not the means; and on the implications, not the motivations.

Consequentially, I would support the plan – despite my conviction that it is brought to us by a corrupted politician who’s trying to save his ass – if I saw more positive than negative implications for Israel in it. But that is not the case, compare my detailed post which I linked to above.

Vice versa, let’s suppose Sharon was not corrupted, and any trial would find him to be not guilty of the charges raised against him. Let’s say Sharon’s motivations were pure, and fundamentally good. Let’s say he was convinced that the deportation plan would make Israel more secure, and was a vital step towards peace, that is an end to islamist “palestinian” terror.

There would be nothing wrong with his noble motivations, but still the plan would be dead-wrong, as it would not serve as intended by his motivations. I would still oppose it with hands and feet.

This should teach us all a lesson.

History is full of examples for such lessons, which demonstrate that the best intentions can bring about mayhem and destruction ( just think of Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler shortly before WWII and the Holocaust happened – hey, the man wanted peace ! And what he got, or rather brought about through his naivitée was all-out war and genocide), whereas actions taken out of sinister motives turned out to be beneficial to mankind.

Motivations are irrelevant, worthless, often misleading and counter-productive, as are the words expressing them.

What matters is definite policies, the actions resulting from them and the practical implications of these actions – the ends, in a word. By these implications we should judge any policies and actions to be taken … incl. the deportation plan. That doesn't change the fact that Sharon ( or insert politician here ) may have a most despicable character, but our evaluation of what he proposes should not be influenced by that.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Well, Ariel Sharon, the dictator of Israel

Ariel Sharon have sent 12 year old kids to Jail for protesting against him.
Where in the Modern World there's such a thing?!

Well, I don't agree parents send their kids there, but if you arrest some, arrest the Parents. Apparently also the Media goes with Ariel Sharon, at the Site Walla! they wrote that we should bulley the Settlers.
Well, Ariel Sharon, as many Generals that came to political power, you've became a Dictator.

You bastard, you dare arresting 12 year old kids and making propaganda of go kill the settlers?

How dare you?
I can't believe that Israel - my homeland will become a tyranny. If we'll have a civill war I promise I'll go against you.
How dare you treat the this way?

Isn't the expelling them is hard enough?

I can't believe that's on you, you who've saved Israel from Egytpt, became such a man. Well, as my Grandfather say: " A General should never be a politician... '' and untill today I didn't realize how right he was. You were a chief General at the IDF, and now you do this to your nation?

As I said, if we'll have a civill war I'll go against you!

Kol mi lehadonay Elay!

Avi Beiber, Israeli Hero

There can be no doubt whatsoever that 56 days in a military prison in Israel is no pleasure.

However, there can be no doubt either that what Cpl. Avi Beiber did was heroic. Many more will certainly follow in his path, and that will make his jail time worthwhile to him.

There was a time when the laws of Israel were wholly compatible with a Jewish conscience. That was a time when military heroes were praised, when the IDF looked at the result rather than at the rules, and when terrorists were not "partners" for what is now called "peace".

That time is long gone, and with it went the self-esteem and self-respect of a whole generation of Israeli heroes, from Yitzhak Rabin to... well... to General Ariel Sharon. He is probably the greatest living general alive, bar none, and yet he is taking the country to the brink and, quite possibly, beyond it, having learned absolutely nothing from the actions of his predecessor.

There was also a time when Jews had to break the laws of the rulers of Israel to make the Zionist dream come true. A time when our enemies were as hateful, as deluded, as determined, and as inhumane as today. A time when, despite the mortal danger to their livelihood in their home countries, Jews could not legally enter Eretz Israel.

And yet they did, and History knows that some things are more important than laws.

When a people's destiny is at stake, the limitations of any legal framework should be overcome.

And so it is today.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

IDF Soldiers Refusing Orders to expell Jews - justified ?

Here's what I wrote in response to my fellow co-blogger Eran, who said:

>I'm against refusing, in the army, an order is an order, the
>refusing was said by fanatics. Besides, most "settlers" say that they'll only
>use their abilty to convince as a "weapon", no violence.

OK, think about it - what would happen if someone succeeded to convince a soldier that expelling Jews was wrong ?

Right, the soldier would refuse his orders to deport them.

There is a certain principle in most if not all armies of the Western World, which permits individual soldiers to refuse orders on grounds of their personal conscience.

I'm sure Israel's IDF respect that custom as well.

It's the distinguishing mark of free nation's armies from those of tyrannies, and came into broader practice after WWII, I guess, as many German soldiers ( well, less the common soldiers, I mean those of the special units like SS, Waffen-SS, etc. ) "excused" their shooting, beating, gassing of Jews with the mere remark "It was ordered ! - Not my fault ! An order is an order !" ...
These thugs thought they could escape personal responsibility by clinging to that order-is-order principle. Sadly, many actually did ... but that's another story.

The essence is that in "enlightened" armies of today, each soldier bears the responsibility for what he does. Whatever he does, he may be held accountable for it one day ... whether it was ordered from above or not. That does not mean that the commander who gives the order was freed of his guilt, to the contrary. Both the giver and the receiver of an order may be held accountable for what they commit in terms of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

So every single soldier has the responsibility to weigh his orders carefully, if they appear to him not kosher in any way. That doesn't mean that a soldier got the right to refuse anything, or start a debate in combat wether to fire upon a suspicious vehicle or not, or whether it was a good idea to throw a hand-grenade into a window before storming a house occupied by enemy fighters -- it applies to grave problematics only, issues of conscience, not tactics. Admittedly, sometimes the line may be hard to draw ...

Killing a bunch of civilians on purpose e.g. is definitely illegal, and any soldier has the moral duty to refuse it ( not to be confused with casualties, which are sometimes unavoidable ). In Germany, refusing illegal orders will not even trigger a trial of the soldier who refused to carry the order out - it is expected, and encouraged, to refuse any clearly illegal orders. Expelling people from their land would be legal grounds for a refusal of orders too, I think. It is both illegal ( ) and immoral.
The soldiers who refuse such an order on grounds of conscience will most likely still face a trial, though, where they'll have to detail their cases, and may face punishment still.

So it's still a difficult decision for a soldier to refuse an order.
It takes some serious guts for sure.

But, as they say, freedom is never free.
Some men will always have to sacrifice their lives* to keep it real ...

( * in Western armies, the most severe punishment for refusing orders is getting thrown out of the army, I guess ... perhaps some jail-time, but no more than a couple months, usually only a degradation or fine. Definitely nobody is hanged anymore, or locked away for more than a year afaik )

And hundreds of IDF soldiers have already proclaimed publicly that they will refuse the orders to expell Jews.

God bless them.
We need strong personalities like them, standing up against all odds.

They joined the army to defend Israel, to deter the enemy and, if necessary, die in combat for the preservation of the Jewish homeland.

They did not join to drag Jewish families, men, women and children, out of their homes and deport them ... only to give the land on which they dwelled to islamist terrorists who seek to destroy Israel.

It's a justifiable refusal of an order on grounds of consciential objection.
Not in their weirdest nightmares could they have dreamed about such a "duty" being assigned onto them. They have every reason to object to such an order.

And I hope many more will join them ...

Well, we've taken back exactly what ours!

An article by Meir Ben Dov, I don't think I should say more:

With the renewing of the Jewish settling of Israel in the end of the last century, and more in our days, we use the expression " after 2000 years ". What stands behind it? If we understand it as it is, before 2000 years, we the Jews exiled from our land. It was with the fall of the second temple, in the end of the rebellion against the Romans, actualy 1900 years ago in the year 70AD. Behind this expression stands the meaning that the Jewish citizens were leaving the land, and then the Jewish population ended, except small population here and there that was unimportant monirity in the land. But, is it so? The one who knows our traditions knows it's not this way. The Mishne and Talmud says about Strong communities with strength and heavily populated, who live in large parts of the land hundreds of centuries after the fall of Jerusalem. Even historical resources tell about large communities who live in the land and take a large part in the events. And, an evidence that can be seen, the amount of Archeological remains of Synagogues especially in certain places: Go to the Golan Heights, and meet them at Katzrin, Ein Nashot, Hirbat Dicha, Dvorah and other places. Go to the Sea Of Galilea and here they're: in Capernaum, Tiberias, Hamat Gader, Kurazin and Arbel. Go to Beit Shean valley and you've found those in Beit Shean , Rehob, Kokhv Hayarden, Maoz Haim, Cfar Dana and others. In the upper Galilea you'll find them in Baram, Gush Halav, Meiron, Hirbat Shma, until Yafia near Nazrat in the lower Galilea. Even in the south you'll find it, Jericho, Naaran, Ein Gedi and Susia, Eshtamoa and Kishur. Most of the remains are here, because it'll take long for the whole list, and there are more than 120 places. The Archeological research divided and found that there are ancient from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, and therte are late untill the 10th century AD. The late researches tell, that instead of what they used to think, the late are the greatest, and most were fro the late period, the 7th and 8th century AD. The map of those ancient Synagogues shows of large and dense Jewish population in those regions, a picture that suits what we know of these times. The Jewish farmer - differnt We say, in the 6th and 7th centuries, five hundred and six hundred years after the end of the Temple. The land of Israel was still largely popul;ated with big and strong Jewish population, that was a respectfull consideration in the land. Still, most were farmers, but there were cities whose most citizens were Jews, and they have done small trading. The Jewish Farmer was other then the other farmers who were far from education, at least one of his fammily members was educated, and that was shown in what they grew. Can we estimate the number of the Jewish citizens in the land? The Pro. Michael Ben Yona estimated the number of Jews in the 7th century in 250000. That was by what a monk said,that tells that during the wars with the Persians there were 25000 Jewish soldiers from the Galilea who took part in the siege of Tyre. By Ben Yona, a population can gather one tenth of her population, so we can estimate the number of the Galilean Jews in 25000. But, that estimation that was done 50 years agostill thought that there were Jews only in the Galilea, and the south was mostly non Jewish. And the researches teach us that there were many Jews in other parts of the land, so if only 25000 came to the aid of the Persians, how do we know that that all the Galilean Jews could recruit? Probably not everyone who could've recruit actually done it, so we must estimate the population in more than 250000, and we must add the numbers of the rest who weren't in the Galilea. There's a possibilty to understand the size of the Jewish population in that time, and the quantity of Jews toward Christians. The Christians were the Nochrim in the land, who were descendants to the Canaanites, Philistines, Pheonicians, and to the armies who conquered the land, especially Greece and Rome. To their side, there were descendants of Jews who accepted Christianity either by will or force. The task of the Byzantine rule was to gather the biggest amount of believers under Christianity, as the task of the State's Religion. That matched the Christian Ideaology and the tasks of the non religous rules. The Christian community had Churches, that were excavated as Synagugues. We can have demographical conclusions by it. And the number of the Churches that were excavated is more than 230. It mean, double than the Synagogues. Does it mean the Christian community is bigger than the Jewish? Not necessarily, and that's of few reasons, not all Churches has to do something with a settelment, they came as a monument. From that reason, we reach the conclusions that if the number of Churches is doubled, it doesn't mean the number of Christians was higher. To that we must add the other parameter, the Samaritans, who are not Jews, but they reject Christianity either this way or the other. In their places, at Samaria mountain and near, they were of the only ethnic group of the population. 1200 years not 2000 [b] So what was the number of all the citizens in the land of Israel, and what was the part of the Jews during the 6th and 7th centuries? By Archeological remains, ruins, etc who are from that time we can estimate the population in 3000000. So, it was one of the times the land was densely populated. What we must remember, that most of the population was in villages, except some big cities as Jerusalem, Caesarea, Tiberias, Banias, and Ashkelon, there weren't many dense population areas. Most of those three million were living in towns and villages. If we remember that that's close to the number of the citizens in the land today, and todays large settlements weren't something avilable those times, we'll understand that most of the agricultural sites were densely populated. Between those three million, the Christians were the majority, 1250000. The number of the Jews was 750000, the number of Samaritans was 250000, and the same number for the Nabatean tribes who accepted Christianity. That Jewish public, who was majority in his places, was certainly a respectable thing in the population of the land, what that most of it were farmers, were sitting in towns and villages, and was a respectable thing and a majority were he was. Here we see, we can see the existence of large Jewish population in the land even 500 and 600 years after the fall of the second Temple. The expression after 2000 years we need to exchange with after 1200 years, " 1st marriages on mount Meiron " truth, but not after 2000 years, but after " 1200 years ". Because until that time, that region was densely populated with Jews, and maybe the Jews were even the majority in the land (?). The remaining question is, how did this dense community disappeared? Where are those 750000 Jews? And the question sharpens itself when we meet the Jewish population in the 9th and 10th centuries AD, we find in the resources small public, that's being noticed, that most of it are Burgoise, and no more farmers and villagers. What made it? The 1st strike in the Jewish community was in the end of the 6th and 7th centuries AD. The heavy wars between the Byzantine Empire and Persia, that were in our region, hurted the citizens. The armies who passed in the region and fought on their land brought destruction. The Jews were hurt as the rest of the citizens. To that we must add the spiritual crisis that attacked the Jews when Heraclius the Byzantine Emperor defeated the Persians in 628 AD. The 1st victory in this war was the Persian, that defeated the Byzantines and took from them the land of Israel, including Jerusalem. The Jews helped the Persians, that agreed to give them something for their aid. The Jews compared the Persian Emperor then, Chusro the 2nd, to Cyrus The Great. The Jewish public saw the early come of the Massiach. The nation of Israel felt the renewing of his religous and national independence, that her highest thing was rebuilding the Temple. Those were days of raising moral and the strength of the belief in the existence of Israel and his fate. But, not a lot of time passed, and the Byzantines defeated the Persians. The Emperor Heraclius, who have taken the place again, was smart. He didn't kill the Jews, he didn't start convincing them that they should become Christians. But the big crisis of faith, that attacked the Jews of Israel, helped Christianizing them. Rabbi Benjamin for exmple, who was the head of the community of Tiberias, was the 1st to convert to Christianity. So if that what the head of the community have done, we can understand what other ten thousands of Jews have done. But still, many of the Jews remained in the villages, even though those strikes. How and where did those Jews disappeared? What brought to the desertion of Synagogues? Where did the Jews of the villages went? [b]Islam or death The Byzantines didn't mange to rest a little from their war, and a new conquerer came to Israel, the Arab tribes came as storm to the heart of Israel and Syria, that in their hands the new flag of their faith - Islam. Both Empires who were weak by their wars, fell to the Arabs very very quick. Not many years passed, and almost all of the land that was in their rule passed to Arab rule. Those wanted to enlarge the numbers of believers, and didn't want to controll empty lands. So they started a violent campaign to Islamization. The 1st policy the conquerers used was " Islam or death! ". When after that many became Muslims, but many others especially Christians and Jews refused to, the Muslims seeked another way to make them Muslims, that won't empty the land of Farmers andwill destroy the trade and administration, both had a large Christian dominance. So the Muslims passed a law,, that by him they gave speciall place for " the nations of the book " - the religions who believe in books who are accepted by Islam and were befre the Quran, for paynig a randsom ( Gizia ). The randsom was high, , and especially hard for the farmers. many didn't stand it and left Judaism for Islam. So many Jewish farmers became Muslim. Even today, many Arabic Words used by the Arab Farmers are originated in Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages the Jews knew at that time. Many of the places in Israel kept their Hebrew name, but thr Arabization made the name to sound Arab. There were also many Jews who didn't leave their religion. A new door was opened to them, but she led to leaving the land, and to leave agriculture. Between Christian Europe and the Islamic land a hate was created on one hand, and necessity to trade on the other.Both sides had interests to pass trades that only the other side has, but the hate, that even brought to wars, stopped straight contacts. On that situation the Jews could pass all the trade, both sides didn't like them, but they were less hated than the other sides. As merchants, the Jews used Hebrew, that was a communication language, the basis of trade. Every Jew knew Hebrew, because of her being the words pray and Torah. The defence of trial was less important. There was no international law, and every merchant was defenceless in foreign land. But the Jew could sue his trade mate from the other land to Torah law, and so the Jewish Halacha and the Laws of Judaism to the tools of international trade. Those advances, next to the basic knowledge of the Jewish farner, were the tool for making him a merchant. That way he was able to keep his religion, to escape from the randsom paying world, and to enjoy from the developing International trading world. In few tens of years, the land became empty of Jews, especially of her Jewish farmers. From those who became Muslims, and from those who've left their villages and went to Europe. Between those who continued working in agriculture, were in Spain, that was the border between Christianity and Islam. By the way, the Jewish agriculture helped the Spanish agriculture. Spanish trditions speak of it untill today. The pass of the Israeli Jews to Spain in large numbers and high quality, made one of the greatest Jewish communities in our times, " the exiled of Jeeusalem in Spain ". That's the background and the reason to the great Jewish creation in Spain, that her roots are at the land of Israel. The wish to the land, that we can see out of the literature of the Spanis Jews, that came to the land of her exile. Here we see, we exiled from our land 1200 years ago, because of Historical Events that happened in the land of Israel in the 7th and 8th centuries AD - and not 2000 years ago....

Why the disengagement is WRONG

Well, the Disengagement plan that'll go in few weeks, will be a wrong move for Israel. If we disengage, we'll give the Palestinians wgat they want - Israeli Defeat. Don't see me wrong, I don't support the fanatics who've sent children to riot, or fortified in a Hotel, but when I look on the plan, I see many mistakes.

1st - That's a victory to terror, and they'll just shut more on Israelis, they won't stop.
2nd - We give Egypt the rule on Tsir Philadelphy, and through there they give weapon to the Palestinians, and they won't stop giving to them, it's like giving the cat the rule over the milk.
3rd - Well, if we have a war with Egypt, they can invade straight into the heart of Israel and to cut the Negeb.

Well, that's why I disagree with that. The problem is that Ariel Sharon doesn't understand that he doesn't deal with ordinary people, he deals with fanatics, who are thirsty to Jewish blood, they don't want peace, and every time we've tried to make peace, they've lied to us, and not only Arafat. Why should we always try?
Why won't they lift a finger for it?

"Palestinian" Schools: Places of Indoctrination

We wished that the Arabs would treat their Jewish neighbours with respect instead of stones, bullets and rat-poisoned explosives.
We wished that Jews could live as freely, securely and comfortably in Arab countries, as Arabs can live in the Jewish nation of Israel.
We all wished that there was peace and understanding in and around Israel , between the Jews and the Arabs.

Maybe that longing for peace, which is good in itself, has deluded many people to set their hopes for a better future in wordy treaties and shallow talks like Oslo, 1993, and all that followed up to Camp David/Taba 2001.

But, as John F. Kennedy correctly noted,

"Peace does not lie in charters and covenants alone,
It lies in the hearts and minds of the people."

I would even go further, and say that peace lies exclusively in the hearts and minds of people -- and all kinds of treaties and documents can only express their will to get along with one another peacefully.

And that's precisely where the "peace process" failed:

The international community tried to turn the natural way of things on its head with a "peace from above", a peace that was rejected by the "palestinian" Arab leaders and large parts of the "palestinian" Arab society. While Israel made concession after concession ( establishing the PA, arming it with Israeli rifles and technology, flying Arafat from his Tunisian exile back to the newly created PA, appointing him as chairman of said PA, etc. ... ), as the Israelis were ready and willing to compromise for peace, the other side ignored the requirements and duties bestowd upon them by the Oslo Accords and the following treaties, which all went along the lines of "Israel will give the "palestinian" people this and this and that, and get peace in return."

What Israel actually got was war, unprecedented terrorism on her soil, committed by the people who had just received magnanimous Israeli donations of all sorts.

It takes two to tango, as they say, and Israel had, and has until today, no partner for peace .

The PA leaders and clerics want war, large parts of the "palestinian" people are indoctrinated enough to follow their leaders unconditionally, and the coming generations of "palestinian" Arabs don't promise a better future, either.
They're being brainwashed by the ruling thugs, and systematically so, starting at the earliest age, in schools and kindergartens, to hate "the Other," that is the West and above all the Jews.

The Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace ( ) explores why the hearts and minds of Arabs appear to be made of stone and wood. They focus on evaluating Arab text-books, and how "the other" ( everything non-Arab, esp. Western and Jewish in the context of Israel ) is being portrayed to the young students, from 1st grade children up to 11th grade adolescents.

Their findings are revealing, and should alarm all those who always blame the lack of progress in the "peace process" on Israel:

In their Oct. 2004 report on "palestinian" Arab text-books ( ), they found out that ... ( I quote almost the entire summary of the study below )

Judaism as a religion is hardly referred to and no adequate
information is given to the Palestinian student about it, except that
the Torah was given by God to Moses.

The Israelite or Jewish past in the Holy Land is ignored, except for
a brief negative description of the attitude of the Jews to Jesus
Christ from an Islamic point of view. A list of historical periods
fails to mention the centuries of their statehood in the country,
leaving a gap between the years 1200-586 BCE. In further
diminution of the Jewish presence in the land, the Palestinian
textbooks “Arabize” the Canaanites and Jebusites and prolong
their presence until the Muslim conquest, while making all other
ethnic elements in the country “transient waves” of foreign
invaders and “an anomalous exception to logic and reality”.

• The Jews are referred to in the context of their wars with Prophet
Muhammad, where they are depicted in an unfavorable light, as
violators of a treaty they had signed with him and as employers of

There are no references to the Jews of modern times in this latest
issue of textbooks, and the trend noted in the earlier reports of not
counting the 5.5 million Jewish citizens of Israel as legitimate
inhabitants of the land continues. They are not included in any of
the figures of the local population.

Zionism – the Jewish national movement – is presented as a
colonialist movement that planned from its very inception to expel
the Palestinians from their land. Zionism is said to endanger the
Arab states and portrayed as an influential factor in the USA,
especially in presidential election campaigns.

• The systematic non-recognition of any Jewish holy place as such in
the Holy Land continues in this latest issue of textbooks. All holy
places in the country that are mentioned in the textbooks are either
Muslim or Christian. Even if some of them are holy to the Jews as
well, they are never mentioned as such.

Israel is not recognized as a sovereign state, except once – in the
context of the Oslo Accord that was signed between Israel and the
PLO. Its name does not appear on any map, save in a series of three
maps in the atlas showing boundaries in the 1937 Partition Plan, on
which it is called “The Jewish Zone”, the 1947 Partition Resolution
and the 1949 armistice lines, on both of which it is named “the
Jewish State”. Palestine, instead, is represented as the sovereign
state in the region, encompassing Israel’s territory in many cases.
Israeli regions, cities and sites are presented as Palestinian and
wherever a reference to Israeli territory is to be made,
circumlocutions such as “the lands of 1948” or “the Green Line”
are used instead.

Israel’s image is wholly negative: It has usurped the land of
Palestine; it is oppressive and aggressive; it occupies Palestine and
inflicts physical and mental harm on the Palestinians; it violates
human rights; it attempts to obliterate the Palestinian national
No objective information is given to the student about

Israel as a neighboring state.
No Israeli is depicted as an ordinary

human being.

The discussion of the conflict is incomplete and biased. It is
described as a confrontation between an oppressive force – Zionism
backed by Imperialism – and its victims – the Palestinians. Nothing
is said in the textbooks about the UN Partition Resolution of 1947
and about the Arabs as the initiators of the war in rejection and
defiance of that resolution. No attempt is made to understand the
motives of the opponent, and it is never depicted as a legitimate
party with its own rights and interests.

• Accordingly, the refugee problem of 1948 is presented as the
outcome of a premeditated plan by Zionism and British Imperialism
to expel the Palestinians from their land. The contribution of the
Arab side to the emergence of this problem is never discussed. No
solution to the problem is suggested or contemplated other than the
return of the refugees (or, rather, their descendants) to their former
homes inside today’s Israel. The objective difficulty in the
implementation of such a solution is ignored.

Jerusalem (that is, historical Jerusalem within the walls) is
presented as an Arab city from time immemorial. Its Jebusite
founders are Arabized and the Israelite or Jewish historical ties to
this city, both national and religious, are not mentioned. The only
connection that the Jews have to it, according to the PA textbooks,
is as foreign occupiers, from whom it should be liberated. Though
said to be holy to the monotheistic religions, the Jewish holy places
in the city are never mentioned as such. Nor is the present status of
Jerusalem as Israel's capital mentioned. Instead, it is declared to be
the capital of Palestine.

The Palestinian liberation struggle is perceived as a violent and
bloody operation with a strong religious emphasis on the liberation
of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. [ Note by Axel_Bavaria: That mosque, along with the Dome of the Rock, is already "liberated" in any possible moslem sense, as it and the mount upon which it stands -- the holy Jewish Temple Mount -- is entirely controlled by the Arab Waqf. ] The exact geographical extent of the areas that are to be liberated from Israeli occupation is never clearly

Jihad and martyrdom are still exalted as ideals, though to some
lesser extent than in the earlier books. In line with earlier practice,
terrorist activity against Israel is not openly supported or discussed.
But individuals who were killed or imprisoned as a result of such
activity are defined as martyrs and prisoners-of-war, respectively.

• Unlike the earlier reports, this one includes a chapter about the PA
books’ attitude to the West in modern times, an issue not dealt with
before by the textbooks. Western Imperialism is presented as the
source of major problems encountered by the Arab world today.
Apart from that, no other information is given to the student about
the West in the textbooks of this latest issue.

The summary of the study concludes, that:

All these findings indicate that the school textbooks lately published by the
Palestinian Authority, much like their predecessors, do not conform to the
criteria set by UNESCO and CMIP regarding the proper attitude to the
“other” and to peace." (...)
( End of summary )

No wonder that these "palestinian" kids dream of becoming a "martyr" and kill loads of these evil greedy Jews on their way to the 72 virgins each. All they're told about Jews and the nation of Israel is lies, half-truths, misrepresentations, and propaganda by plain omission - they get a completely warped imagination of the world, with themselves as the eternal victims of malevolent "Others", above all the Jews andf the West, which is said to be controlled by the Jews.

There will be no peace around Isarel as long as Jews are systematically dehumanized in Arab propaganda. The hearts and minds of even the youngest "palestinian" Arabs are corrupted thru this hate-mongering bullshit, and it would take decades of honest education efforts to overcome the damage done.

Monday, June 27, 2005

Why the Deportation of Jews is wrong - some unsorted thoughts

My stance on Sharon’s „disengagement plan“ ( read: forceful deportation plan ) is clear:

I'm opposed to it, as it would be rewarding terror.

And hence it will not bring peace, to the contrary.

The "intifadas" were not started to fight a couple of villages in Samaria or Judea, much less Gaza.

They are part of the larger effort to "drive the Jews into the sea" - the Arabs tried it with all the might of their well-funded armies ( of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Saudi-Arabia ) multiple times, only to get a serious ass-whipping from the Israelis every single time – from the War of Independence to the Yom Kippur War.

After all these defeats, and esp. as Israel became a nuclear power, conventional war was no desirable option any more for the Arabs ... they changed their tactics, and started what’s basically a psychological war:

They claimed that the Arabs living in the formerly Egyptian and Jordanian areas of Israel, which were captured in the Six-Days-War in 1967 from said states, were a people of its won, the "palestinians."

By doing so, they changed the whole image of the region’s reality in the minds of the Western World: Israel used to be the David fighting against the Arab Goliath; now the roles were reversed, as the "palestinian" Arabs were a supposedly much smaller force.

Never mind that they are just a part of the 1,2 billion Arabs surrounding Israel, never mind that they are supported by them financially, diplomatically and ideologically, and never mind that these Arab states just use the "palestinian" Arabs to fight Israel by proxy, after their direct actions always resulted in desasters.

There is no "palestinian" people, it is an invention to gain sympathy in the West, and a means of justification for the terror war against Israel:

Would the West support them if they declared openly:

“We're killing the Jews cause we want the 23rd Arab-Moslem state to be created on Israel's soil, and the 54th moslem state ?

Well, perhaps - but the support would be much smaller than with the current line of propaganda:

"We're a people of our own, and we're so damn suppressed by these evil Jews colonialists ! We're just fighting for our freedom !"

There are no "palestinians", just Arabs ( until the mid-1960s, the term “Palestinian” was a synonym for Israelite, Jew ).

They want no "palestinian" state ( they believe in Arab Unity and the resurrection of the Islamic Caliphate ).

What they do want is the destruction of Israel ( this goal is propagated openly by the imams of the “palestinian” mosques, the official PA TV stations and its politicians incl. Mahmoud Abbas and his pre-decessor, Yassir Arafat ).

It's really that simple.

Watch some of the numerous authentic videos of and to verify my claim, and see it with your own eyes … I know the notion of such blatant hatred propaganda is unbelievable in our supposedly “enlightened” times – but the propaganda of the PA is real, and brainwashing the “palestinian” Arabs here and now, as you’re reading this. So watch at least some of these documents. Major newspapers like the British “The Guardian” have checked the translations at MEMRI and PMW for accuracy, only to find them absolutely correct.

Members of the PA, PLO, and other terror gangs have often admitted freely that they want to destroy Israel, nothing else, and that there are no "palestinian" people.

In an interview with a Dutch newspaper, the Amsterdam-based "[ Dagblad de Verdieping ] Trouw" ( comparable in reputation and role in the Netherlands to the TIMES in the UK, or the FAZ in Germany ), on March 31, 1977, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist.

The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel.

Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people. Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem.”

( )

And that is precisely what they do … to the “palestinian” terror leaders -- and that incl. of course Mahmoud Abbas, who’s head of the Fatah, after the Hamas the second-biggest terror gang in the PA – ALL of Israel is an illegal settlement. And ALL of Israel has to be destroyed, and the Jews killed or at least driven off it.

Tel-Aviv, Haifa, Acre are just as “illegal settlements” in their eyes as is Gush Katif. “Palestinian” school-children learn that there is no such thing as the state of Israel, only the “Zionist Entity”, a temporary nuisance of colonialist occupiers, which will soon be disrupted and be rendered history, in favor of a new Arab Moslem state.

The deportation of Jews from Gaza is just a small step on the road to that goal, though it will be perceived as a large ideological victory for terror. Israel will for the first time unilaterally withdraw from her lands - the PA is not involved in the plan ( with Sinai it was different, Egypt at least pretended to be a partner, and signed a peace treaty in exchange for the land. No such thing here ... in fact, the terror gangs have announced that the "cease fire" will be over after the Jews are driven out of Gaza ).


After the Arabs failed to destroy Israel with their armies, they tried it with subversion, historical revisionism, PR propaganda and terror, as I noted above.

The shocking thing about that is, that they were vastly successfull at that, to be sure. All the Western M$M ( with a few notable exceptions ), most of the major political parties of the Western democracies, the whole academia, jet-set and intelligentsia of the West has swallowed the “palestinian” propaganda hook, line and sinker. They only parrot what the PR men and “diplomats” of the PA tell them, and sell it as gospel truth. Examples of that are abundant, one shall suffice here: Remember the “massacre” of Jenin ? “Jeningrad”, as it was called by the M$M and PA officials ? Hundreds of people were supposed to have died in an “illegal IDF incursion” … Day after these news made the head-lines, an investigation team of the UN (!), Israel’s main enemy on the diplomatic floor, went into the site, only to find three-and-a-half dozen adult “palestinian” men, most of them armed terrorists, that had been killed by the IDF … no women, no children, no civilians at that.

That's one major reason why blogs like ours (SSSI) have become necessary, to counter all the unchecked media spin and give the truth a voice.

And though Israel has failed to win the struggle against subversion, propaganda, revisionism -- the struggle of the hearts and minds -- so far ( we’re trying to change that, as much of the antipathy against Israel stems from disinformation, the rest being good old anti-semitism ), the practical war on terror has made great progress just very recently:

In 2001, a bus was blown up every other week in Israel.

Today, they terrorists are lucky if they can bomb a bus every ½ year !

Still too much, but we’ve come a long way … and with the completion of the safety barrier ( the anti-terror fence ), the situation will improve further. Appeasing the terrorists while they're weak as never before (!) makes even less sense than zero, if that's possible. I can understand the urge to appease a mighty, seemingly undefeatable enemy, but one who's lying on the ground already ?!

Of course, rewarding terror should be a taboo as a general rule. We. Must. Not. Reward. Terror. No matter what, cause if we do, we give the terrorists an incentive to carry on, we vindicate their tactics of killing civilians on purpose. We show them, that terror pays. And we’ll get more terror in response. That’s why terror must never be rewarded, ever.

Some other, random thoughts:

+ the Terrorists are fighting to annihilate Israel, not Gush Katif ! And of course they will continue their killing Jews after they danced on the roofs of Gush Katif's Jewish villages !

+ Giving up anything for the sake of "appeasement" - ask Chamberlain how well that works - will only embolden the terrorists and give them access to new recruits, as they can say: "See, our method works ! Killing Jews helps us !" Their support within the "palestinians" will sky-rocket.

+ It is the "settlers" land. They bought it from the Israeli state, they own it. Israel got it thru conquest, in accordance with all laws and customs of warfare. That means: It was Egyptian/Jordanian public-owned land before, then Israel took possession of it. Not a single Arab was deprived of his property. They all were allowed to keep their houses and the land they personally possessed. They possess it still today, and always will. Nobody ( no person, only "states" ) owned the "settlers" land before, it was worthless desert and rocky hill-tops. The settlers came and made it bloom, and reaped the fruits they sowed. Where today green-houses stand, desert was before.

The Jews have not only every legal right to dwell on this land, every historic right additionally, but also every moral right to stay where they are.

The "palestinians" on the other hand have no claim to green-houses they never built, fields that were just sand before the Jews cultivated it skillfully, houses that are not their homes, and land which they never possessed.

+ The will of the people - see the latest polls, they're opposed to disengagement ( as more and more the people of Gush Katif get their message out thru grass-roots efforts: They go out and talk to the people, as the M$M in Israel ( Haaretz, Maariv, Yediot Achronot ) won't give them a fair treatment and present all opposed to disengagement as fanatic zealots ). But as everywhere, the M$M's grip on public opinion is slowly melting down ... :)

+ Equal standards should apply to all people, races, faiths, etc. on this Earth.

Deport the Jews from the PA ?

Fine, but then we should also deport the Arabs from Israel … currently there’s 7,000 Jews living in Gush Katif and other Gaza villages, another 250,000 in Judea and Samaria ( the “West Bank” [ of Jordan ] ) – same standards to all people, remember ?

That’s contrasted by the more than 1,000,000 Israeli Arabs ( with full citizen rights, plus some extra rights, benefits, and affirmative action thru Israel ) living in Israel.

If there was any sense of equality behind the “disengagement plan”, which drives Jews off their land and homes in Gaza ( and soon Samaria and Judea ? ),

these million Israeli Arabs should be driven off their lands and homes in return.

But nobody is even thinking about that … apparently, it is commonly accepted that Arabs can’t be forced to live side-by-side with a couple Jews,

But Jews are expected to live with 20% of Arab population in Israel ( Note: these are the Israeli Arabs, not the “Palestinians” ! ) … a population which is so rapidly growing thatjews will be outnumbered by mid-century in their own Jewish state !

So there you go … either “disengagement” on both sides, or on no side ! Anything else is racist.

+ The will of the people, once more:

The Israelis voted for Sharon, the hard-liner, the pro-settlement acitivist, the no-compromises guy, after they realized the damage of the Labor politicians appeasement policies.

This Sharon is dead now.

What we got now is a Sharon who prefers his own career and security to the future and security of Israel.

( You know Sharon was indicted for severe bribery -- and if found guilty, his career as politician would be over. Sharon struck a deal with the leftist establishment of the Justice system of Israel, which was basically: Disengagement for his personal immunity.

We must not allow Israel being thrown to the dogs for the sake of a criminal like Sharon !

Israel's future is way more important than Sharon's ! He'll be dead and gone in 10 years, Israel - hopefully - not !


There are several other reasons to oppose this evil deportation plan, which I barely mentioned here.

But one thing's for sure:

The “Disengagement Plan” must be stopped. It is dead-wrong, in its concept, justifications and future implications.

It would be absolutely detrimental to a secure Israel.

And that’s we’re fighting for.

Update I: David Singer, contributor for Israel National News, explains why the Deportation Plan is violating international laws and treaties, which Israel has signed:

Note: A couple more links, sources, images and quotes, and possibly paragraphs will be added to this post from time to time ... it shall serve as my ultimate manifesto for the preservation of Jewish lands in Jewish hands, and against rewarding terrorism.

I would appreciate critical comments or constructive input of any kind to develop these thoughts further.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Why did the MSM cover the Iranian "elections"?

BBC News
Iran hardliner sweeps to victory The ultra-conservative mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won a landslide victory in Iran's presidential poll. Mr Ahmadinejad won 62% of votes, defying predictions of a close race, to defeat the more moderate ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. After his win, Mr Ahmadinejad said he planned to create a "modern, advanced and Islamic" role model for the world. His victory means all the organs of the Iranian state are now in the hands of conservative hardliners. Mr Ahmadinejad, 49, who campaigned on a conservative Islamic platform, had surprised observers by beating five other candidates in the first round to reach the run-off. The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says his taped statement, broadcast on state radio after the result was announced, was aimed at easing worries about his conservative views. Some 22 million people voted in this run-off poll - a turnout of 60%, down from 63% in the first round a week ago. Our correspondent says it was Mr Ahmadinejad's appeal to the poor that seems to be the secret to his success. Despite Iran's huge oil wealth the country has high unemployment and a big gap between rich and poor.

There are so many things wrong with this that the media has failed to pick up on that its hard to know where to start. First up, a little background on the "conservative" candidate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the "moderate" candidate Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

(English translation of sermon given by Rafsanjani as "President" in December 2001)
Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

This is what passes for "moderation" in the liberal media - a declaration of nuclear war against Israel.

Also, Rafsanjani was convicted in the Berlin Mykonos trial of conspiring with Supreme Leader Khamenei, ex-foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati and Pasdaran commander Mohsen Rezai in a “special committee” that ordered the murders of Kurdish leaders and exiled Iranians.

And so if this is "moderation", what is "conservatism"?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an ex top commander in the revolutionary guard who was responsible of orchastrating mass killings in the 1980s. He is a ruthless barbarian who even bluntly informed UPI this year that “We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy.”

So, the race was between a jew-hating extremist and a slightly more extreme jew hating democracy hating extremist. So who would people choose?

Which leads to my second point that 60% of people choose the latter. They turned their back on moderisation, freedom, liberty and democracy. Anyone smell a rat? Nope, not MSM. Yes, the vote was heavily rigged. In fact, from accounts of pro-democracy bloggers stationed in Iran, no one actually turned up to vote! The 60% turn out figure cited by the BBC? Probably just made up. In fact, in places such as the Khuzestan Province, turnout was around 3-5%, which is almost certainly a lot nearer the real number than the BBC's number. But whatever the real voter turnout - your guess is as good as anyones - there are other factors to concerning voter turnout:

The one number worth parsing in Friday's election is that of voter participation. Many Iranians had called for a boycott as the only way of showing resistance. Knowing this, the mullahs seem to have taken their usual election manipulations to another level. Intimidation by the Revolutionary Guards and the fact that proof of voting is needed for certain jobs and welfare payments have always pushed up turnout. Still, voter participation has steadily declined in the past few years to barely 50%
Opinion Journal.

Now the real story comes out. And thirdly, and probably most importantly - the winner of the election has no power anyway!

The most astonishing aspect of Friday's presidential vote in Iran is not that the elections will go into a second round but that Tehran managed to convince so many in the West that this is a real demonstration of democracy. All power is held by Supreme Leader Ali Khameni, his Council of Guardians and the small clique of military officers and businessmen around him. The Council disqualified more than 1,000 candidates before the election, vetting only contestants who support the regime's ideological lines. The example of outgoing "reformist" President Mohammad Khatami, who presided over eight years of economic decline and worsening repression, has proven that the President cannot change anything against the Council's will.

Cox and Forkum cartoons sums up the situation pretty well:


So there you have it - my latest "cutting-the-crap-of-the-MSM" edition to crossfire's post library is completed. I leave you with this:

This is not democracy

Off-Topic: Use alternative browsers !

This site - as many others - is best viewed with an "alternative" browser, as I've just found out:
My latest post displays errors with Internet Explorer, but works fine with Mozilla.

Recommendable alternative browsers are the Mozilla 1,7,8 and the newer Firefox, currently available as version 1,0,4, which can be downloaded here:
They're open-source projects, that means countless developpers all over the world use their spare-time to work on these browsers, for the sake of it. And they'll spare you a lot of virus attacks, which are mostly desgned to high-jack the standard browser used by most people, the MS Internet Explorer.

Defintiely check them out.

Another, ad-financed alternative might be the Opera browser, if you can live with a small live-ad window ...

The Psychological Factor

As my fellow co-blogger and latest member to SSSI, Franklin D. Rosenfeld, observed correctly in his first post ( ) on this blog, psychology plays a major role in the Jewish-Islamist* conflict (* aka Israeli-Arab conflict, but that term is problematic in my opinion, since only a minority of Arabs are islamists, and 1/5 of the Israelis are Arabs ).

I think it is important to hinder the hate-mongering terror gangs on the "palestinian" Arab side in all of their actions as best as possible, for two reasons:
1. the very practical aspect of obstructing the physical spread of propaganda
and, more important still: 2. to show who's boss in the house.
Israel should make life very difficult for these racist islamists, according to the motto:

No tolerance for the intolerant !

The cancelling of that demonstration is a microscopic success ... achieved thru a simple declaration of strength.

Now, being unable to march in lockstep in the open with their weaponry and banners, these terrorists feel weak, and appear weak to their "palestinian" Arab peers as well. It's an Israel-induced nose-dive in their carefully constructed reputation. And at the same time, Israel will, ironically enough, rise in their estimation thru her proposal to use force against her self-declared enemies.

Sadly force - or the proposal of the use thereof - is the only language these thugs understand.

We have to keep in mind that islam, and esp. its perverted form, islamism, is an extreme macho-culture: It's all about men and manlyhood, and manly honor - or at least the pretense thereof, as I dunno what's manly or honorable about murdering defenseless civilians, even school kids and babies in public places, busses, and even their homes.

The islamists, like predators, back off from a "victim" which appears strong and is ready, able and willing to defend itself.

And they attack every victim which appears weak ... the terror record shows that the jihadis preferrably target civilians, and amongst civilians especially women and children ( ), as the least resistence, and the maximum, morally most devastating impact upon the Israeli society is expected to come from slaughtering these "soft targets".

If Israel would really go hard after the terrorists, or would have done so ten years ago, terror would soon cease or already have ceased - almost. There would be two, three or four attacks per year, still ... instead of hundreds.

But Israel is continually sending signals of "weakness," which encourage the terrorists and their leaders and tell them that they're on the right track to achieving their goals ...
The IDF doesn't go after the terrorists aggressively enough ( it takes dozens of individual terror attacks, to trigger a single IDF anti-terror mission in response ), the Hamas and Co. are allowed to stage huge demonstrations in the open, with hundreds of terrorists, each of them armed to the teeth, and it's no secret that the Hamas controls Gaza, and Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah and Islamic Jihad are part of the PA government and body.

This must end.

The rats have to be driven back into the holes they emerged from decades ago ... I doubt that this incident foreshadows a coming practice, esp. under the Sharon admin., but let's hope so.

A strong and proud Israel would be in the interest of all sides involved in the ongoing conflict, not least the "palestinian" Arabs themselves, who would be freed from the iron grip of the terror gangs onto their society, and finally be able to live a life free of oppression by a terrorist government, systematic intimidation and theft by gangs of terrorist thugs and the constant brainwashing indoctrination applied by both to them. And it would be a major step towards the independence which they pretend to seek - with the end of terror, IDF-conducted anti-terror missions on PA soil would no longer be necessary. It's up to the "palestinian" Arabs to control their terrorist elements, and gain independence from Israel as a reward. The thugs currently ruling the PA, led by Mahmoud Abbas, however, are not willing to take any such steps ... ( ).

To bring peace to Israel, the "palestinian" Arabs have to be freed first from these malicious elements, who have high-jacked their society with the help of the former colonial power Great Britain and, yes, even thru the help of the Adolf Hitler ( ).

As George W. Bush remarked in one of his brighter moments ( I really sometimes wonder whether the leftists are correct, when they say he's a moron ), the best - and only - guarantee for the survival of existing democracies is the spread of the democratic culture, worldwide.

Unless the Arab states surrounding Israel become democratic and open societies, there will be no peace in the Middle East. It takes two to tango, as they say ... and the PA of today is simply not interested in peace.

A cease-fire where fire never ceases

No one will be surprised by today's sad news: a 17 year-old Israeli was murdered near Hebron. Why, just why, is the IDF unwilling or unable to secure a vital part of Yesha and to let the terrorists roam around at will?

But I know the answer to this question, as to all others: they need their own state! Right now!

Friday, June 24, 2005

Oderint dum metuant

For all those who thought or, more to the point, feared that Israel had lost her resolve and had returned to the post-1993 fantasy land - and I know we all hoped that the election of Gen. Sharon would mark a return to reality, only to see our worst nightmares come true - here is a small but much-needed piece of good news:

Jihad chiefs avoid rally after Israel death threat

I hate to be mean, but isn't this it a sign that even the most deluded so-called pacifist should understand? Or how would they explain their "Palestinian" friends' behavior :

"The enemy is flying dozens of drones in our skies. Certainly we must be more careful. God has ordered us to take care against the plans of the Zionist enemy."

That's a start (though why any Arab terrorist should be able to speak to the press is beyond me - AH-64D, anyone?).

Now if someone would please mention those 500 bunker busters and the Mad Mullahs in one sentence...

Will the Church of England divest from Israel?

Tomorrow, the Church of England will debate whether they should plunge into the moral abyss and divest from the state of Israel. To even consider such a thing shows that they already have one foot in the hole.
Melanie Phillips explores the moral disinvestment of the Church of England.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

"Palestinian" Gratitude

"Palestinian" Gratitude

Bombing of Israeli Hospital by "palestinian" Arab patient thwarted

A 21-year old Arab woman from Gaza, who had been treated in an Israeli hospital for massive burns she received as a result of a gas tank explosion, was apprehended yesterday at the Erez Crossing wearing "explosive pants." She said she had been directed to carry out her suicide attack inside the crowded Israeli hospital.

The woman, Wafaa Samir Ibrahim Bass, had been given permission to cross the Gaza lines yesterday for admission to Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva for continued medical treatment for her facial scars. "The terrorist infrastructure took advantage of her medical condition," read an IDF statement, "in order to carry out a major suicide bombing attack inside Israel."

The resident of Jabaliya aroused the suspicion of the IDF soldiers at the crossing, who placed her in a side room for further checking via camera. During her security check, when she realized that the soldiers had discovered the explosive belt on her body, she attempted unsuccessfully to detonate it.
( )

So what did the evil Jews do to her to make her so angry at them ? You know, there's got to be something ! Didn't the nurses at the hospital treat her nicely enough ? Maybe it's because she wasn't paid to get her life saved by the Jews, she just got the medical treatment for free - or better: At the expense of the Israeli taxpayers, some of whom she tried to murder soon afterwards. Or what else could have angered her so much, as to make her want to blow up Jews ?

There is nothing. Israel is once again showing her incredible sense for humanity and compassion for even those who want to destroy her. Medical passes which permit "palestinian" Arabs to cross freely into Israel and be treated there at the expense of the Israeli taxpayers are being issued by the hundreds every day. The hospital bomber is just one out of numerous other "palestinian" Arabs who benefit daily from Israeli medical care, for free.

And she's not the first patient to repay the love and care she received from Jews with hatred and death:

Hamed A-Karim Hamed Abu Lihiya of Jabaliya was arrested on December 20, 2004 by Israeli security forces. He was allowed through the Erez Crossing by virtue of forged documents claiming that he was a cancer patient in need of medical treatment from an Israeli hospital. He confessed in his questioning that he had been smuggled through Erez as a "sleeper" agent of the Hamas terror organization four months before. Abu Lihiya He was to have been joined by an additional terrorist, after which the two would receive weaponry and carry out the attack with the help of terrorist aides inside Israel.

In another incident, Hassan Ahmed Ali Tom of the Gaza-based El Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization was arrested by security forces six months ago. He crossed into Egypt through the Rafiah crossing after presenting medical documents which allowed him entry, and was later caught by Israeli forces after he attempted to infiltrate into the Negev. He admitted during his interrogation that he had intended to murder an Israeli citizen and bury his body, as well as to sabotage the train rails near Netanya using an explosive device which he was to receive from Fatah elements.
( )

Israel would not need to issue any such permits - the "palestinian" Arabs in Gaza and Samaria and Judea got their own hospitals. Only their quality standards are worse than those of the Israeli hospitals - which is exclusively the PA's fault. You would think that with the massive subsidies and donations they get every year from the USA ( biggest donator worldwide to the PA ), Europe, and Israel amongst many other nations it should be possible to set up a functioning medical infrastructure. But apparently, the money is being spent otherwise ( Arafat diverted US$900 million in public money to special account - article from AP, a full copy here: )


How do the media treat this story, which contradicts everything they are used to tell their readers and listeners ?
They do what's easiest, they simply chose to ignore it, as former undersecretary to US President Ronald Reagan and candidate for Republican Presidential nominee, Gary Bauer, correctly observes:

”Ignoring the story meant not having to cover comments the female-terrorist made in a rare army supervised press conference in which she revealed what her mission was and who sent her. "I believe in death," she said on Israeli TV. "All my life I have been preparing to be a martyr. Mother, please forgive me for failing in [my] mission." Sentiments not exactly consistent with the line long peddled by the liberal media, and more recently even by the Bush administration, that Israel is the obstacle to "peace."

And those who do report the story, like AP, try to spin it in a desperate attempt to put the blame on the Israeli side, or at least to make the evil "palestinian" Arab woman appear somewhat more humane:

In its article ( ), AP quotes her as saying: "Forgive me, mother." Now compare that to the boldened, complete quote six lines above: "All my life I have been preparing to be a martyr. Mother, please forgive me for failing in [my] mission." The AP falsification of her actual words suggests to Westerners that she begs her mother for forgiveness for her attempted murder of innocent humans, while from the actual quote it is unmistakeably clear that she meant: "Forgive me for failing to kill these damn Jews !" - Just the opposite of what's implied.

After describing her sobbing and raving in a press conference arranged by the IDF extensively -- AP desperately tries to show off the "human side" of the wannabe-Jew-mass-murderess --, the article continues:

In a separate interview with foreign reporters, she asserted that she had undergone treatment at a Gaza hospital for her burns, where someone apparently planted the explosives on her body without her knowledge.

"I did not intend to carry out an attack," she said, at which point Israeli security officials told reporters she was lying.

But as is stated in the very same article, she carried 22 pounds ( or 11kg ) of explosives hidden on her body !
Not even Manhattan's McDonald's darling, mass-burger-killer Mickey Moore ( ) would fail to notice 22 pounds of added weights in his pants. And how come she tried to detonate the explosives after they were discovered by the IDF ? After all, she didn't know they were there, according to her pretense ?

To top it all off, she then tried another line of defense

"I didn't kill anyone. Do you think they will forgive me? Do you think they will give me any mercy?" she asked. "I hope they show me mercy. I didn't kill anyone."

Yeah right. You didn't kill anyone, but it evidently wasn't for lack of trying. FOXnews, as the only broadcaster in the world, aired the video tape of the surveillance camera at the check-point, which clearly shows her pushing the detonator, when her explosives are uncovered. And she would have done that in the midst of a crowded hospital if given the chance, killing doznes of civilians. Only the professionalism of the IDF, and the failure of her detonator prevented any carnage.

But don't worry, dear bomber, you'll get your second chance at blowing up Jews real soon, I'm afraid:

Israel got the bad habit of releasing hundreds of terrorists from Israeli prisons at once, and that happens every few months, as a "gesture of good-will" ... as happened barely three weeks ago, when almost 400 ( four hundred ! ) convicted terrorists were released at once, to resume their fight against the evil Jews and their "Zionist Entity" ( )

A woman terrorist will be among the first to be released the next time ... besides, there's prominent Israeli (!) support for her, coming from the Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights (PHR):

[It] has issued a mild statement in response to yesterday's thwarted Palestinian terror attack inside a crowded Israeli hospital.

PHR is a left-wing organization which states that it "has and will continue to work against the occupation." The organization stated yesterday that it "calls upon the Palestinian society and its leaders to strongly condemn the use of patients for violent purposes." The statement was issued "in response to the reports in the media that a patient used her travel permit which was issued to her for medical reasons, in order to attempt to attack an Israeli hospital, in a place full of people."

So killing Jews [ "to end the occupation" - which was brought about in the first place by a united Arab attempt to kill the Jews - ] is alright with the Israeli PHR, but please, let us work in our hospitals without such annoying intrusions. Leave our existing patients alone and rather bring us new patients !
Yeah, come to think about it, it's natural for physicians to support those who guarantee paid work for them. Would the terror cease, how many of them would be possibly laid off ? A catastrophe ! Thank Allah we got our brothers from the various "martyrs brigades" making sure we're needed.
I doubt that would have been in the sense of Hippokrates.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005


What the concerned observers have long suspected ( compare my post "The enemy within" - ), is being confirmed by new evidence:



In a new book, Boomerang, published in Hebrew last week, left-wing (!) commentators Raviv Drucker and Ofer Shelach provide an insider's narrative account of how Sharon came to make the decision to withdraw from Gaza and Northern Samaria. Their findings are devastating.


According to the two writers, Sharon's basic impetus for adopting the radical left-wing plan — that had been overwhelmingly rejected by voters in the January 2003 elections — was his desire to avoid indictment for his role in corruption scandals for which he and his sons Gilad and Omri were under police investigation.

They write: "In private conversations [Sharon] said he was convinced that [state attorney Edna] Arbel would try to bring about his indictment and his resignation from the premiership." Sharon's aides, first and foremost among them his personal attorney and chief of staff Dov Weisglass, told Sharon that to avert indictment he had to take a bold initiative "to change the public agenda away from the media's focus on the investigation." And so the disengagement plan was born.


Several months ago, a senior government official who was involved in the government discussions about the withdrawal plan told me, "Sharon placed the legal establishment on the horns of a dilemma. They had to decide what moved them more, their love of the law or their hatred of the settlers. It was an easy decision."


I never thought I'd wish for another Arab attack on Israel, but I would greet it if Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Jordan and Syria would once again decide to invade Israel ... right now.
Maybe that would help to hammer some sense and self-respect into the nation of Israel.

Damn it ... Sharon's ethnic cleansing of Gaza's Jews is scheduled to happen in two months.
Will we be able to stop it yet ?

Otherwise, my list of possible emigration destinations will be one country shorter than it is now - and it never was long in the first place. I don't want to immigrate into another self-hating leftist hellhole, so it seems like Israel was out now.

What remains ? The US ? Chile ? Australia ?