Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Battle for the Israeli Right



Bibi announces Likud candidacy

"Sharon abandoned the principles of the Likud," he told the gathering of supporters and members of the press, "and decided to go another way, the way of the left. He is threatening to destroy the party that he built with his own hands. We must defend our home because we have no other."





Prime Minister Sharon's office was quick to respond to Netanyahu's press conference. "Netanyahu continues to spread lies and fantasies and to change history," the message read.

To Netanyahu's claim that he was a successful and strong prime minister, the statement from Sharon's camp replied, "He forgot to mention that he received a strong party [in 1996] and gave back a party with only 19 mandates. It was Sharon who brought it back up to 40 mandates and brought the Likud to power.

"His lies," the message concluded, "bring up bitter memories from the past."



Let battle commence?

Monday, August 29, 2005

Conservatives for Gaza Withdrawal?

There are a few arguments hovering around from pro-Israeli conservatives suggesting that Gaza Withdrawal was the correct decision to make. I’d like to address a few here.

Pro-War and Pro-Israel Conservative (who writes one of my favourite blogs) David Frum wrote an article entitled The Secrets of Gaza, in which he tried to answer the question “Why is Ariel Sharon evacuating Gaza?”. He first acknowledges:

It is not because he believes that a decent Palestinian state will emerge after the Israelis withdraw. Nobody believes that. The almost universal consensus among experts on the region is that post-occupation Gaza will become a Mediterranean Somalia: an unstable failed state in which gangs compete for power and extremist Islam finds a sanctuary.

So why? Well, he tries a theory:

Could it be that Sharon is calling the bluff of Western governments and the Arab states? By creating the very Palestinian state that those governments and those states pretend to want but actually dread--Sharon is forcing them to end their pretense and acknowledge the truth:

The Palestinian leadership is incapable of creating a state that can live at peace with anyone, not Israel, not the other Arab states, not Europe, not the world. Somebody else must govern the restless and violent Arab-majority territories west of the Jordan River. Israel has suffered four decades of condemnation for doing the job. Sharon is now resigning the task to anybody else who would like to step in and take over the job. Nobody wants to. But Egypt and Jordan may soon realize that they have no choice. If there is a secret behind Sharon’s plan--that is it.

But is it? I remain unconvinced. Why? Well, I have two reasons. Firstly, Mr. Frum seems to be under the impression, totally unfounded in recent history, that Western governmenst and Arab states are even capable of “end[ing] their pretense and acknowledg[ing] the truth”. The desire for a Palestinian state is largely not based in logic but in emotion - and when emotion drives what your newsrooms produce and what your leaders say, there is little if anything that can be done to convince one otherwise. To me, the very notion that Western or Arab government policy is determined by the rational and commonsense reality on the ground is wholly naïve, thus I cannot accept the premise that whatever hellhole is produced in Gaza will change their minds.

Secondly, even if everything I just said was false, Sharon would still be engaging in Machivelian-style power politics, with his decisions and policies being concerned more with getting “one up on” outsiders rather than actually doing what is best for Israel and her people. Are Israeli citizens more likely to be in danger with this withdrawal -and if so, is that not the only consideration that should cross a prime ministers mind? Maybe its my turn to be naïve on this, but I suspect the answer to this question would be yes.

But David Frum was not alone. Even today, the greatest historian known to man (quite some praise) Victor Davis Hanson has a piece on his “Private Papers” website entitled
Right Strategy Again. In this, he cites reasons on a security standpoint which I find much more believable, but still am unsure over:

The Israeli military is crafting defensible borders, not unlike the old Roman decision to stay on its own side of the Rhine and Danube rivers. In Sharon's thinking, it no longer made any sense to periodically send in thousands of soldiers in Gaza to protect less than 10,000 Israeli civilians abroad, when a demographic time bomb of too few Jews was ticking inside Israel proper.

But Gaza itself is only a tessera in a far larger strategic mosaic. The Israelis also press on with the border fence that will in large part end suicide bombings. The barrier will grant the Palestinians what they clamor for, but perhaps also fear — their own isolated state that they must now govern or let the world watch devolve into something like the Afghanistan of the Taliban.Once Israel is out of Gaza and has fenced off slivers of the West Bank near Jerusalem deemed vital for its security, Sharon can bide his time until a responsible Palestinian government emerges as a serious interlocutor.


From my position of knowing very little on military strategy, and his position of being a famous military historian, I do not feel qualified to debunk this. However, I would like to question why this commonsense has only just come to people now, and not 10 to 15 years ago. Why the apparent change of heart, especially when Sharon said he would not withdraw in the last election? Plus, how can an area left alone and merely watched by the IDF on the sidelines be of less dangerous than an area in which the IDF enters into on a (relatively) regular basis?

Hanson also adds:

Palestine as a sovereign state rather than a perpetually "occupied" territory also inherits the responsibility of all mature nations to police its own. So when Hamas and co. press on with their killing - most likely through rocket attacks over the fence - they do so as representatives of a new Palestinian nation

Again, this makes perfect sense… to a conservative, who bothers to watch the region. Even when Hamas kill Jews as representatives of a Palestinian state, the Left would surely do their utmost to pretend these people are both part of a lunatic fringe and are reacting to Israeli wrongs against them, even if these wrong were in the past. Hanson is right of course, and it would be foolish of me to say that all western governments are inseparable from the Left in one sweeping stereotype - but still, from what they say and how they act you’d be easily forgiven for thinking that it is the case in most.

Hanson concludes:

The pullout from Gaza is bringing long-needed moral clarity to a fuzzy crisis. Heretofore the Palestinians have counted on foreign support through fear of terrorism, influence with oil producers, unspoken anti-Semitism and carefully crafted victim status accorded savvy anti-Western zealots. But now they are increasingly on their own, and what transpires may soon end their romance of the perpetually oppressed.

Indeed, it will be interesting to see what happens when the Palestinians loose “their romance of the perpetually oppressed”, and how people react - and whether they will change their minds. (Its already happening, leftist Christopher Hitchens just wrote a piece calling Iraq "A War to be proud of"). So I can stay hopeful.

But however much the two great minds of Frum and Hanson believe Disengagment to have been the right decision, from what I am seeing I simply cannot agree. Perhaps they will be proved right, and me wrong - and I wish for Israeli sake that that be the case. But with Hamas militants acting increasingly confident around the area, and with Palestinian children in brainwashing centres they call “schools” being taught how the Zionist enemy surrendered to terror, and with the move made in such blatant disregard to religious Jews in a blind belief that their sacrifice will aid peace, I cannot be optimistic.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Thanks for withdrawing, now die



Seen through a smashed bus window, Israeli members of the Zaka organization look for human remains at the scene where a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in the central bus station in the southern Israeli city of Beersheva. A Palestinian blew himself up while trying to board a bus in southern Israel in the first suicide attack since the evacuation of settlers from Gaza, puncturing hopes that the historic pullout would break the cycle of violence.


(AFP/Gali Tibbon)

puncturing hopes of peace - What world do AP live in?

Saturday, August 27, 2005

New Look

The Blog's had a little touch up - it has a new header courtesy of a friend, a new blue colour scheme and not that werid pink, plus I tidied up the sidebar. Hope people like it :)

Friday, August 26, 2005

Islam and Racism



Well, I as a grandson to a Holocaust survivor, quite dislike to use the term Nazi or Fascist unless where it deserves it. But, during the Sabbath Night today, I've talked with him about Islam and something I've heard the Hitler had connection to that.
Wgat I was told amazed me. During the Arab uprise in the Colony of Palestine, there was a leader from the Huseiny familly. And when the British stopped the uprise this Huseiny fled to Germany and he was welcomed by Hitler!
Here's a picture of the honorary order Hitler gave to him for being Anti Jew ( on the right ).
And there's a quote of Hitler saying that too bad that the Arabs didn't made it to conquer Europe because than the Germans would've been an Islamic Empire. And he even said after talking to this Huseiny that the Islam match his theory!

Well, I think it does proves itself. Enough of being Politicly Correct. That's the bare truth. And after reading the Quran, I got to say that the Islam is racist. Verses that say kill all those who refuse to recognize Islam, attack the Jews, don't allow any non Muslim to be alive. And not mentioning the a Non Muslim Black is bad..
Racist. Awfull. Satanic.
Salman Rushdie - Go Forward!



PA PM: "Today Gaza, tomorrow Jerusalem"

jnewswire

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia Wednesday said Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip would eventually lead to its surrender of the Jews' ancient capital – Jerusalem.

“We are telling the entire world, today Gaza and tomorrow Jerusalem. Today Gaza and tomorrow and independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital,” Qureia said while reviewing PA security forces in Gaza.

He insisted the Palestinian Arabs would never agree to end their hostility towards the Jews until the holy city was relinquished to their control.

“Without Jerusalem there will be no peace,” said Qureia a day earlier, amid reports Israel planned to build a new Jewish housing structure in the so-called “Muslim Quarter” of Jerusalem's Old City.

Israeli leaders from both the right and left of the political spectrum have for decades stated Israel would never agree to re-divide its “eternal capital.”


Great, if only someone could have predicted Gaza Withdrawal would not satisfy the Palestinians.............................

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Iraqi Constitution

The new Iraqi Constitution seems periously close to completion, and a Draft Constitution has now been released. However, the issue of what role Islam will play in the new Iraq is still a cause of concern for pro-war conservatives.

So I provide this, Article 2 of the draft constitution. While it does not allay all my fears, it does help to put things into perspective and to put aside any ridiculous notion that Iraq will become a new Islamic theocracy like Iran, or Afghanistan before liberation:

Article (2):
1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.
2nd - This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices.


So firstly, the Islam that is protected is that which is undisputed, i.e., this does not mean the more extreme elements of Islam, and I am assuming must be areas of Islam in which the secular parties in parliament must also agree with. In this sense, you can be pretty sure that you won't be getting Taliban style measures like banning dancing or singing, as the Koran makes no reference of these things (at least those not made in Afghanistan prior 2001)

Secondly, the Article is also quite clear that the "principles of democracy" and "rights and basic freedoms" also cannot be contradicted. Therefore these principles seem to be guarenteed, and thus the fear that Islam will override these principles is most probably mistaken.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

A Chamberlain Story

The Ghost of Appeasements Past Haunts Israel as Gaza Pullout Wraps Up

As of this writing, the Israeli army (officially known as the Israel Defense Force, or IDF) is in the final stages of removing the last remaining Jewish settlers and protestors from the settlements that Israel has maintained in the Gaza Strip for the last thirty-eight years. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, once the outspoken champion of Israeli settlements in the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, now stands accused of treason by his one-time biggest supporters. As the newspapers and TV screens fill up with pictures of Israeli troops in full riot gear scuffling with brick-wielding settlers and carrying them away from the homes that they've lived in for, in some cases, nearly forty years, one has to wonder why Ariel Sharon (and 75% of the Israeli public) thinks that this latest attempt at appeasement, based on the old Land-for-Peace formula, will have any positive results for Israel. All one must do is pick up an accurate history book to see that not only has every attempt in modern history at appeasement of this type, with an enemy of this magnitude of evil, failed, but it seems that these attempts have, in one way or another, involved the Jews. Israel is continually haunted by these ghosts of appeasements past, while their Arab enemies build on each concession in their ultimate goal of driving the Jews into the sea.

The first such attempt occurred in Britain, nearly two decades before British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain delivered his infamous "peace in our time" speech. In October 1917, the Cabinet of Prime Minister David Lloyd George authorized Lord Arthur Balfour, Britain's foreign minister at the time, to issue what is now known as the Balfour Declaration. Signed by Balfour, Chaim Weitzmann (leader of the international Zionist movement), and Emir Faisal ibn-Hussein (leader of the Arab revolt that marginally helped the British take the Middle East from the Turks in World War I), it called for an independent Jewish state that would be established as soon as Jewish immigration and development was sufficient in the barren wilderness of Palestine. The borders of this Jewish state-to-be included all of Israel, all territories later captured in the Six-Day War, all of modern-day Jordan, and even parts of southern Lebanon. This declaration was codified into international law by the League of Nations in the same 1920 act that created the French and British mandates in the Middle East. Simultaneously, Britain and France granted Arab independence in Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. After being granted nearly all of the Middle East, when they had owned nothing for centuries, Lord Balfour could not imagine that the Arabs would "begrudge this small notch of land" earmarked for the Jews.

Lord Balfour's assumption held true for about one year. In 1921, Abdullah, the brother of Faisal ibn-Hussein, who was also the leader of the Hashemite tribe, demanded that Britain give him Transjordan, the area set aside for Israel east of the Jordan River, to be his own kingdom. The Hashemites had just been driven from Mecca and Medina by the House of Saud and Abdullah argued that Britain had reneged on its promises to give him land based on T.E. Lawrence's mostly-fictional account of Abdullah's role in the Arab revolt of World War I. After a costly campaign in Iraq, Britain was weary of becoming involved in further conflicts with the Arabs. This resulted in the British Foreign Office giving nearly 75% of the land mandated to become a Jewish state to Abdullah, a clear violation of the League of Nations mandate upon which British authority in the region was based. This was the beginning of the appeasement idea which would later come to be known as "Land-for-Peace." Unfortunately, this would not be the last time that Jewish land would be given away in hopes of placating an implacable enemy.

Shortly after World War II, Britain's own failed attempt at appeasement, the international sympathy generated by the discovery of Hitler's death camps led to a serious UN effort (one of the few in their history) to re-establish the Jewish homeland along the 25% of the old League of Nations mandate that remained intact. However, the objections of Arab member states caused the UN to further whittle away about half of this land in a region where Arabs already controlled 98% of the land. This second attempt at appeasement failed spectacularly when Israel, in an area about 10% of its original mandated size, declared independence. The surrounding Arab countries, still unwilling to accept a Jewish state, no matter how small, invaded immediately, intending to drive the Jews into the sea. Fortunately, for Israel, the fledgling state was able to drive back her invaders and expand the nation to more defensible, albeit still tiny, borders.

Now, one would think, having observed first-hand and defeated the effects of appeasement of their Arab neighbors, that Israel would never again be willing to try such a failed measure. However, through widespread international acceptance of Arab revisionist history, Israel would later succumb to the pressure of naively attempting to appease an enemy that seeks to destroy her in hopes that their latest concession would change their minds.

On August 20, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat shook hands in a public display that marked the mutual acceptance of the Norwegian-brokered Declaration of Principles, commonly referred to as the The Oslo Accords. Based on the repeatedly failed Land-for-Peace formula, Israel granted Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, the terrorist group that had been murdering Israeli civilians and attacking Israeli troops for the last quarter-century, governmental control over all Arab population centers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which would be the first step to a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank city of Jericho. In exchange for recognizing these terrorists as the legitimate representatives of the "Palestinian" people and allowing them to control the land that they had been fighting over for the last 25 years, the PLO officially recognized Israel's right to exist, renounced terrorism, and (officially) abandoned its goal of Israel's destruction. On paper, it looked like appeasement of Israel's enemies had, for the first time ever, succeeded. However, like all previous attempts at appeasement, the Oslo Accords were doomed to failure.

The first few years after the signings at Oslo saw the rise of a new Arab terrorist group known as Hamas. This terrorist group, which has repeatedly denounced the Oslo agreements and openly calls for Israel's destruction, killed dozens of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings throughout Israel proper from 1994 through 2000, at the same time that Israel was gradually withdrawing and reducing its presence in the West Bank. Yet, despite this and evidence that Arafat's Palestinian Authority (the Oslo-established descendant of the PLO) was allowing these actions to occur, it seemed that the Oslo Accords might yet have a chance to bring a lasting peace. Amazingly, in the July 2000 Camp David negotiations between Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, Israel offered the Palestinian Authority nearly everything that they had been fighting for all those years. The terms of the proposed agreement called for a Palestinian state comprising all of the Gaza Strip and 97% of the West Bank, excluding largest Jewish settlement in the region, which contiguously bordered Jerusalem. In exchange for the remaining settlement, the new state of Palestine would receive the same amount of Israeli territory. Arafat had been offered everything that his organization claimed to want. The only problem was that this agreement would leave Israel without any pressing security concerns, a condition that the Arab goal to remove Israel from the face of the Earth could not endure. Arafat introduced one last demand, one which would kill any democratic, non-apartheid Jewish state: the right of former Arab residents of Israel and millions of their descendants to return to the cities that they evacuated during the Arab invasion of 1948. The Palestinians knew that such a condition, if accepted, would mean national suicide for Israel. It's obvious that this is exactly what they wanted. Barak, as expected, refused this unacceptable demand and the Camp David Peace Talks, the best chance that the Arabs had of establishing yet another Arab state in Jewish land, found its way into the historical dustbin of failed Middle East peace attempts.

The last remnants of that faint hope from Oslo disappeared in September 2000 when the Palestinians, under the pretext of outrage over a visit by then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount (a site holy to both Muslims and Jews), launched a second insurrection against Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza. Hundreds of Israelis civilians died as suicide bombers attacked civilian centers on an almost-daily basis. However, this time, it was not just Hamas or other groups doing the killing, groups that Arafat could conceivably claim were outside of his control. Most of the deadly attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians were now coming from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a group directly linked to Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction. The Arabs had proven, once again, that peace with Israel was not on their agenda. To deal with this new emergency, the Israeli electorate removed the dovish Ehud Barak as prime minister and replaced him with Ariel Sharon, viewed as someone who had the will to decisively deal with the terrorism that he had been fighting as a soldier and politician for the last sixty years.

Now, it seems that these ghosts of appeasements past haunt Ariel Sharon. Hamas, and most of the Arab world, rightfully regard this as a huge victory for their terrorist campaign. They have publicly stated that attacks on Israelis will continue until "all of Palestine is liberated" (translation: until Israel is destroyed). Sharon has claimed that this evacuation of Gaza will be first step towards peace. In reality, it will only lead to more attacks on southern Israeli towns. He claims that Israeli lives will be saved. In reality, more Israelis will die as energized Arab militants seek to finish the job that resulted in the Gaza withdrawal. One would hope that Ariel Sharon would learn from past attempts at appeasement, as Ebenezer Scrooge did from the ghosts of Christmases past. Now it appears that he will add his own ghost to the list as Israelis suffer for the idea that they can appease an enemy who seeks the annihilation of their race.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Read and laugh

A load of lies written by the PLO's article on Jerusalem's History:
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/article_30.shtml

And now, in order to shut those lies I'll write that:

"Arab Jebusites"
Where did you take that from?
The Jebusites were a semitic nation that was very close to the Hebrews. Actually, the Biblical Hebrew is very close to the Canaanite language and Biblical Hebrew is not Arabic at all. Maybe Aramaic dialect.

"...fourth millenium BC and that the existence of the Jebusites had preceded the advent of David or the so-called “Kingdom of Israel”, if it ever existed..... "

Well, the Jebusites were before the Jews ( Canaanites ) but however, there are excavations that proove the Existence Of The Jewish Kingdoms. That's that the Quran says it didn't exist doesn't mean it didn't.

" The Israelis themselves do not deny what their excavations have recently revealed—a Canaanite water system was discovered and up to the present, no traces have ever been found of Solomon, his kingdom, or his temple ''

Maybe because you've destroyed those artifacts and forgot that Jerusalem was sacked and rebuilt many many times so apparently something was lost?
And 2nd of all, the Palace Of The House Of David was found in Jerusalem and so there is the Eastern Wall that the Archeologist Yehoshua Etzyon claims it's a debris of Solomon's Temple. And the Tombs of the Judean Kings were found....
So it had existed.

" That is what Dr. Kafafi has announced in the Jordanian Al-Ra’i daily, indicating that this volume is about to be completed. Section one will explore the land and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the naming of the city, its people and the Arab Jebusites, who existed in Jerusalem long before the so-called Kingdom of Israel, if it ever existed. Section two explores Jerusalem in the old historical sources, especially the Egyptian and Assyrian sources. Section three details the ruins of Jerusalem through the ages, beginning from the fourth millennium BC until the advent of Islam. This section also contains research papers on the methodology of the scientific research regarding the ruins of Jerusalem and a chronological sequence of the history of this city. "

And still, there was in the site of Babylon an inscription that claims that the King Nabuchadnezzar was besieging on the Capital Of Judah. Or is it not a good enough proof?

'' relying on the content of biblical texts "
And You DON'T RELY ON THE QURAN?


" The city of Jerusalem reached the climax of its prosperity during the period of both the eighth and seventh centuries BC "

During the reign of the Kingdom Of Judah....

However, the recoming to Judah from the exile at Babylon isn't remembered in the Article. And that's known to have happen.

" Maccabean revolt, Jerusalem had become an independent city "

For God's sake, where did that come from?
Jerusalem was the Maccabean Capital!

And they don't remind that the Jews rebuilt the Temple neither the sacking of Jerusalem..
They quite hate History, don't they?

" “Bar Kokba Revolt” as attributed to the commander thereof, and had resulted in the Romans eliminating the last existence of Jews in Palestine, particularly after the fall of the Masada fortress, located south-east of the Dead Sea, to the Romans. "

Hilarious. Massada fell at the 1st rebellion, at 73 AD....

" Persians who occupied Jerusalem in the year 614 CE. "

And gave her to the Jews....
And another forgotten fact:
The Emperor Julian allowed the Jews to rebuild the Temple!

" Then, in the year 1033 CE, Jerusalem suffered another earthquake. It is worth mentioning in this context that the Christian buildings had not suffered any destruction by the Muslims but remained intact without any change. The best proof of this fact is the finds in the south-eastern side of the Haram esh-Sharif (Holy Sanctuary). "

What?
How can it be?
If they have collapsed so should've the Wetern Wall....

" On 15 July 1099 CE, the city of Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders; however, after it was liberated, it had become a part of the Ayyoubid Kingdom (1187–1250 CE). Thereafter, it was made part of the Ottoman State (1517–1917 CE), and throughout these periods, Jerusalem maintained a Muslim oriental character. "

Yeah, during the Ottoman period the Jews didn't start to be a majority in Jerusalem...

Cheap Demagughy.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Monsters

Charles Johnson at LGF points out this disgusting display and asks the only relevant question:

How in the world can any thinking, feeling human being look at displays like this and still sympathize with these monsters?


A very good question indeed...

"You can tell a lot about a political or historical event by looking at who's celebrating it."

This is the key message in a very good piece by Michael Freund, taken up by the extraordinary Nissan Ratzlav-Katzat NRO.

May our enemies' celebrations be over soon. Very soon.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

The day has come


Let us at least hope that no one gets injured

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Daniel Pipes on the Gush Katif surrender: "A Democracy killing itself"

Daniel Pipes was one of only a handful of scholars who recognized the danger of militant Islam and of the so-called peace accords negotiated in Oslo from their very beginning. His track record on these matters is far above that of most others - in fact, only Bernard Lewis and Norman Podhoretz come close.

Which means that this piece is a must-read. He shall be proven right again, I fear.

He finishes on an especially chilling note:

Israel's mistakes are not unique for a democracy - French appeasement of Germany in the 1930s or American incrementalism in Vietnam come to mind - but none other jeopardized the very existence of a people.



Bibi, we need you...

Monday, August 15, 2005

The 9th of Av

Dear friends of Israel,

the last days, weeks and months saw a huge effort by those people of Israel, who have their hearts on the right spot, to turn the tide and prevent the scheduled deportation of Jews from their homes.
Israel witnessed the biggest demonstrations ever, some attracting a quarter-million people - and that in a land of only 5 million Jews ! Yet the government was less than impressed, as it showed no reaction to the polls of the past weeks, which showed a majority of Israelis as opposed to the deportation plan. Sharon knew exacctly why he wouldn't permit a national referendum over the issue.

The political left has always proposed a similar retreat from the disputed territories, and hence is enthusiastical about Sharon's plan, and the establishment of the supposedly right-wing Likud Party has become the spinelessly silent accomplice of Sharon in the persecution of his plan. Only a couple of days ago, Binyamin Netanyahu resigned in protest of this government's idiocy, but that move came by far too late, and its political effect has been too little to change the course of events. It doesn't even serve his face in my opinion, and much less the Jews of Gaza.

So, unless a miracle occurs, the enemies of the Jews will have their way, and get their terror prize delivered on a silver tablet by a corrupted Jewish government.

Since yesterday, the ninth of Av, the residents of Gaza have been rendered "illegals" on their own land, in their own houses and country, and by their own government.

The 9th of Av has always been a tragic date in Jewish history:

The fast of the Ninth of Av commemorates the destruction of the two Temples in Jerusalem: The First Temple, built by King Solomon, was destroyed by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE, and on the same day, more than six centuries later , the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

Other calamities recorded as having occurred on Ninth Av include:

* The issue of the decree forbidding the generation of Israelites who left Egypt to enter the Land of Israel.
* The capture of Betar, the last stronghold of the leaders of the The Bar Kochba Revolt, in 135 BCE.
* The establishment of a heathen temple on the site of the Temple, one year later, by the Roman emperor Hadrian. He rebuilt Jerusalem as a pagan city - renamed Aelia Capitolina - which was forbidden to Jews.
* The mass suicide of the Jews of York during the anti-Jewish riots in the year 1190.
* The expulsion of Jews from Spain, after centuries of Jewish cultural and spiritual growth.
* 1290, King Edward I signed an edict to have all the Jews expelled from England.
* 1492, the Jews were expelled from Spain. (Columbus set sail that same day.)
* 1555, Pope Paul IV forced the Jews in Rome into a ghetto.
* 1648, The Chielminicki Massacre began, in which Cossacks killed over a quarter million Polish and Ukrainian Jews.
* 1914, World War I started when Russia declared War on Germany. GermanyⳠlosses in the war set the stage for WWII and the Holocaust.
* 1941, "The Final Solution" to exterminate the Jews was put into effect under SS general Reinhard Heydrich.
* The initiation of the deportation of the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto to the Treblinka extermination camp.


These events, which happened all on the very same day, the 9th of Av, all signified disastrous events, the beginning of years of suffering and the breakdown of Jewish independence.

A coincidence ?
Let us hope, and pray, that it is one ...

Let's hope and pray that no Jews will be hurt in the deportation process, that the IDF will not lose its good reputation, and cause a nation-wide schisma, by applying violence against Jews, that the houses will be destroyed properly and not fall prey to the terrorists.

Let's hope and pray that Israel will - against all logic - not be endangered in its existence thru the surrender of Gaza, which could set the stage for even more threatening "concessions" such as giving up Samaria, Judea and Jerusalem, and ultimately the destruction of the Jewish state.

Israel will need some divine intervention, as these hopes are against all odds.
As an agnostic I'm not quick to call for it,
but praying for a good outcome of this madness is all we can do at this point in time.

A miracle to prevent the deportation would be too much to ask, though -- after all, the Jews brought this upon themselves, sort of. And they'll have to see it thru, and perhaps learn one thing or another thru it.

Here we go

The disengagement begins this morning. And the Hamas isn't quiet neither the rest Islamist Organizationd. We can mark this day as a black day to Israel, the day we gave in to terrorism and to Islam. The day when our decline will start.

Friday, August 12, 2005

The Islam and the Sword, Israel and World War III

Well, in the last few years our world is suffering from a terror strike, but not a small scale terror, a worldwide one.A worldwide terror, who´s source is the Islam. Well, I won´t be here politecly correct, because it´ll be a lie about the Islam if I´ll be.I have been reading the Quran in the last few days, and I got to say that I´m shocked of the amount of racism, especially toward Jews and Pagans. Every 5 pages you can find Anti Jewish propaganda, as the old Jews turned into pigs and the youngs to monkeys. Not mentioning Suras that say that Muslims should kill all the non Muslims where ever they can find them. Those are things that with all due to respect I´d have been expecting to find in a somekind of Nazi ideaology. And that´s only the tip of the Iceberg. By what I understood, their hatred to the Jews begins because " the Jews have hidden chapters in the Bible that talk about how good Prophet Muhammad is ". Amm, and another thing I´ve almost forgotten: It´s the duty of a Muslim to make the Jew inferior to him in anyway possible when the best way is taking Jizye tax from the Jew in order to enrich the Muslim out of the Jew. And Pagans, they´re the woest infidels in Islam. When Christians and Jews can someway believe what they want, Pagans are to be forced to convert. And if they leave Islam they must be executed. And the treatment to women is also very " moderate ". If she has got an unagreement with the husband, it´s the husband´s duty to beat her. Yes. Well, that´s the so called, " religion of peace ".I´ll call it Din Alharb, the religion of war, as they call to the non Muslim World - Dar Alharb - world of war that must be submitted to Islam. The Religion Of War. No wonder that there are terrorists attacks. It´s not a misunderstanding of the Islam - it´s the Islam himself. Well, now I´ll go to Islamic terror. By the books " Jihad Aganist McWorld " by Benjamin Barber and the book " Clash Inside The Islam " by Imanuel Sivan, it´s claimed that the Muslims go to fundamentalist terror because they fear of loosing their Religous Identity. Well, I strongly disagree and agree with that. When we see that most Islamic Terrorists are graduaters of the Madrasas, I´d say that they just do what they´re told by the Islam. It´s somekind of Fundanmentalism, but not fear. If many Muslims think that if they unite under Islam they can defeat anyone, I think that they´re blind but not fearfull. They don´t fear of loosing their Religous Identity, they think that they´re the strongest force in the world and that they can defeat the whole world if they just wish. That´s can´t be fear, just blindness. Not fear.So Terror is Islam, yes, the one is the represent the other. Yes, Salman Rushdie is right, those are indeed the Satanic Verses.As an Israeli, I´ll focus on the Middle East. The Palestinians are trying to slaughter all the Israeli Jews and to replace them with Palestinian refugees. The Jews protect themselves, and they´re blamed by the world left and even by the Israeli left for doing crimes against humanity to the Palestinians. They claim that the Rightwing is Nazi and the enemy of the peace. It can be said as the opposite, that the Leftwing is Communist and the enemy of Israel. For being a Rightist in a school who´s mostly leftist I was often accused for being Fascist for not wanting to give Jerusalem. However, the Israeli left´s policy toward the Palestinians is that we should bew the people to give up for them because we are the more intelligent of the two. Both racist and stupid ( excuse me for the expession ), because it´s based on giving in with lame excuses for terror. Most people know that giving in to terror even in the slightest thing is victory to terror. So is the disengagement. It´s giving in to the Islasmic Terror. For all the leftists, this terror isn´t based on Nationalism at all, it´s based on Islam. But however, it´s ok to bomb Israeli Jews because they occupy the Palestinian Lands in order to protect themselves. So they´re not allowed to protect themselves?Why?Because they´re stronger than the Palestinians?So they´re automaticaly wrong?Of course, after the disengagement there won´t be an end to terror. There won´t be. They´ll keep sending Suicide Bombers into Israel. With the aid of Egypt. As usual, the Egyptian support the Palestinian terror behind our back but we don´t try to stop them from doing so. But, as Golda Meir said about the Palestinians: " We´ll have peace with the Arabs when they´ll love their children more than they hate us ". She´s right. As long as they won´t like living more than Bomb themselves there won´t be peace. There will be peace only when the Muslims will agree to a Jewish state in the Middle East. But now to another place in the Middle East - Iran. Iran is about to get Nuclear Weapon, some say that she´ll get them between 2006 - 2007. Somewhere between. Nuclear Iran is the biggest danger to the World. Even though she´s not the only Islamic country with Nuclear Weapons ( Pakistan ), she is willing and capable with Nuclear Bombs to destroy Israel, and everything non Muslim. If Iran will just try to send a Nuclear Bomb on Israel, Israel will answer with a Nuclear Bomb back wether Iran will succeed with it or not. If Iran succeeds, it´s the end of Israel as we know it. If she won´t a Nuclear War will start and that´s means a World War, or in the best case only the Islamic Countries against Israel. In the worst case, the whole western world against the Islamic World. If you ask me, such a war in inevitable. As long as Muslim Terrorists are not being stopped, there´s no chance to avoid it. Unless we stop all the Muslim countries that suppost terror, especially Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinians. They´re those who inspire and fund the terror throught the world.But the war had already started. In September 11th. That´s was an Islamic declarence of war upon the whole world. Upon all of it. The whole free world must join forces and unite against the Islam that seeks to destroy him and to subdue it to the Islam.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

No peace, no recognition, no negotiations

In the irreplaceable Jerusalem Post, Evelyn Gordon argues that the surrender of Gush Katif will not only make us less safe - it has already done so:

THUS FAR from reducing Palestinian violence, the impending disengagement appears to be fueling it – which is precisely what pullout opponents have always predicted. Opponents argued that Palestinians would view a unilateral withdrawal, with no Palestinian quid pro quo, as a retreat forced upon Israel by their five-year-old terrorist war – which in fact, according to polls, is precisely how almost three-quarters of them do view it. As a result, the disengagement would convince the Palestinians that violence works, and therefore encourage them to do more of it.

Under this theory, one would expect the violence to rise as the withdrawal neared. The initial announcement would have little impact, since most Palestinians did not believe that Sharon was serious. But the more convinced they became that the plan was real, the more convinced they would become that their violence had indeed borne fruit. And the fact that this is indeed what has happened bodes ill for Israel's security in the post-disengagement era.


Read it all, for it is good.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

More on Netanyahu

In this piece in National Review, Joel C. Rosenberg feels that Netanyahu was right to resign and that the Gaza withdrawal is an act of surrender by Israel:

In the end, it is far from clear that Netanyahu has helped himself
politically. Indeed, many in Israel believe he may have just scuttled his
political career by alienating so many powerful political and financial
interests who support Sharon and his plan. Which made his move all the more surprising to those who know how much he would like to be prime minister once again.

But regardless of his timing, his decision to oppose Ariel Sharon on this vital national-security issue was correct. Indeed, the one who should be stepping down from government service is not Netanyahu or Sharansky but Ariel Sharon himself.

Sharon has served Israeli national security well in the past, but that is no longer the case. Today, he is signaling surrender to those he has spent his life fighting. Perhaps worse, he is badly dividing his country just at the moment a far larger strategic threat is emerging: a nuclearized Iran.


However, David Frum disagrees:

[Netanyahu] timed his resignation not to make a difference, and torpedo the plan, but to make the maximum splash – and to best position himself to try again for Israel’s prime ministership. This is the second time he has attempted this trick. In the 1990s for example he won office by opposing Oslo – and then in office continued to follow the Oslo policy. Only he did it in the worst possible way: never daring to withdraw from Oslo but instead carrying the policy out so haltingly and grudgingly as to earn Israel all the blame for Oslo’s failure – without any of the putative benefits of actual escape from Oslo.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Bibi, we love you

In another brilliant piece, Caroline B. Glick makes it clear that Bibi is one of a kind, and one of us.

Netanyahu's willingness to risk his political career rather than share ministerial responsibility for a policy that will wreak strategic disaster on Israel shows a strength of character and a moral backbone that are rare in politics generally and in Israeli politics specifically.



And so it is. Makes me proud to have something in common with him, even if it's only our favorite watch brand.

It should be noted, however, that I really believe that he, too, should wear his on the right, as he is so obviously right-minded.

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Friends of Democracy

Here at SSSI, we believe that the best way - and ultimately the only way - to achieve a secure Israel is for its neighbours in the Arab World to become democratic. Thus, we all support the movements for freedom, justice and liberty in Israel's neighbours because, after all, everyone deserves to be free.

Here are a list of Friends & Allies - which includes individual's Blogs and grass-roots movements - of various Middle Eastern countries. These links are provided below, and are also provided now on the sidebar for future reference.

IRAN

  • Regime Change Iran
  • Blog Iran

    IRAQ
  • Iraq The Model
  • Healing Iraq
  • Messopotamian
  • Hammorabi

    EGYPT
  • Egyptian Sandmonkey
  • Big Pharoah

    LEBANON
  • Lebonese Political Journal
  • Pulse of Freedom
  • Lebanon Heart Blogs

    SYRIA
  • Amarji
  • Syria Exposed

    BAHRAIN
  • Mahmood
  • Silly Bahrain Girl

    SAUDI ARABIA
  • Saudi Jeans

    KURDISTAN (Iraq)
  • Kurdo

    JORDAN
  • Natasha Tynes

  • Netanyahu resigns



    From FOX News:

    JERUSALEM — Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resigned from his post Sunday to protest next week's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank, a ministry spokesman said.
    Netanyahu, seen as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's biggest political rival within the Likud Party, submitted a letter of resignation during the weekly Cabinet meeting Sunday, said the Finance Ministry spokesman, Eli Yosef. The resignation will take effect within 48 hours.


    After Netanyahu submitted his resignation, the Cabinet gave its final approval to the first stage of the Gaza pullout — the dismantling of the isolated Netzarim, Kfar Darom and Morag settlements.

    Reading In The Quran

    Well, I've been reading in the Quran to verify the statement that the Islam is a religion peace. Well, who invented that lie?
    On the 1st Suras I find Anti Semitism. The hatred toward Jews is unbelievable. Absoloutly, I think it can be compared to racist mass. As in Sura 9:5 the Muslims should kill all those who aren't Muslims, and especially the Jews. What peace, yeah right. Peace when the world turns Muslim.