Friday, June 30, 2006

Into Hamastan

Here is an op-ed with an interesting look at the middle east conflict and middle east problems as a whole, with a suggestion that neither Iraq nor Palestine can be solved without dealing with all the regional players:

France Sides With Terrorists - Again

France is calling for Israel to release the arrested Hamas officials, fearing an escalation of the conflict:

"" Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said France fears that the situation will "feed an escalation and strengthen the most extreme elements, which is doubtless not Israel's objective."

France does not want the situation to lead to "the weakening and, even less so, the disappearance of the Palestinian Authority," Mattei said.

"The Israelis must be very vigilant about the consequences of their actions," the spokesman said during a regular press briefing, adding that Israeli restraint in the situation "is desirable." "A de-escalation must be started," Mattei said.

Referring to the eight Palestinian ministers and 56 other Hamas officials captured by Israel, he added, "We await the liberation of these political officials."

Freeing Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit would also clearly favor a de-escalation, he said. ""

Notice how they only mention the freeing of Shalit as almost a footnote? This is indicative of world opinion about this current crisis: almost no one mentions the kidnapped soldier, and how Hamas ALONE started this escalation.

Instead, they blame Israel for seeking to defend itself, use its strength, and get its soldier back. Nobody cares about Israelis, they only care about the Palestinians, who root for America to be destroyed and salute Osama Bin Laden. Don't get me wrong, I deplore the conditions that Palestinians are forced to live in, but its the fault of their leaders and their culture and their surrounding arab nations, NOT Israel's actions.

In a nutshell, it seems to me that, in the eyes of the world, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit is pretty much condoned, while any reaction by Israel is condemned. The world somehow sees it as perfectly ok to demand Israel negotiate with terrorists to release its soldier, when negotiations have always always always favored the Palestinians. To the world, the life of a Jewish soldier isn't as important as the price of oil tomorrow.

To Israel and Jews around the world, to save the life of one person is to save the world. There is no negotiation. That is what Israel is fighting for, and I pray that she wins.

Hamas PM Throws Tantrum, Says Israel Doesn't Play Fair

The latest developments in the IDF offensive to obtain the return of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit are that Israel has arrested over 60 Hamas officials, and bombed the Hamas Interior Ministry.

These measures are aimed at putting pressure on the Palestinian Authority to release the soldier, to hem in the kidnappers so they can't escape, and to hopefully find Galid and get him back through force. Like America, Israel does not negotiate with terrorists. It just doesn't pay.

The Prime Minister of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, has made his first public speech since the beginning of this offensive, and he claims Israel is using force so they don't have to negotiate.

Haniyeh: "When they kidnapped the ministers they meant to hijack the government's position, but we say no positions will be hijacked, no governments will fall," he said.

Another official of Hamas makes another statement:

"Mohammed Nazal, a Damascus-based member of the Hamas politburo, told The Associated Press on Friday that Israel is not serious about negotiating Shalit's release.
"Israel is negotiating by fire," he said. "They're buying time until they can locate the soldier through intelligence and then try to free him." "

(Both quotes can be found at

I'd like to resond in kind.

First of all, Israel did not "kidnap" anyone, Mr. Prime Minister of terror. Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier through the use of a pre-meditated tunnel that took two months to dig. Israel, in turn, arrested the officials of your government which is responsible for this crime and act of war. Those ministers that were arrested are not to be used as bargaining chips - they have been arrested as party to a crime. However, Israel is pretty damned lenient, and if the soldier is returned unharmed, then those ministers will be releases as well, since the crime would have been solved.

Second of all, Mohammaed Nazel, Israel has every right and moral obligation to do whatever is necessary to secure the release of Galid Shalit. In no way, shape, or form should Israel sit back and "negotiate" for the release of their soldier. That is not an option!

Let me put it in a nutshell. Because Hamas kidnapped this soldier, it proves one of two things:

1) Hamas is a terrorist Government, which means they are not to be negotiated with
2) Hamas has committed an act of war, which precludes negotiation (which would be seen as appeasement), and the only option is a use of force in return.

So, Hamas officials, your whining about how Israel isn't playing fair just doesn't cut it. You made the bed, now you have to sleep in it. Don't complain to us that it happens to be made of shrapnel, tank artillery fire, and jet fuel. You get what you paid for.

Also, President Mubarak of Egypt has publicly stated that Hamas has agreed to release the kidnapped soldier, but Israel has not accepted their conditions yet. This was stated yesterday, and as of this morning, Israel still says that have not heard anything about this.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Tie A Blue Ribbon For Gilad Shalit

Tie a blue ribbon anywhere, on your finger, on a tree, on your shirt, so that people will ask what it is, and you can tell them.

(Hat Tip To Free Thoughts:

Pop Quiz - Can You Answer Correctly?

The following post was one posted by Steven Plaut on, to be found at It stated my own beliefs so coherently that I had to share it. Author info at the bottom.

"Quick, take a fast current events quiz:1. Since the start of the Palestinian intifada, how many innocent Palestinian civilians have been intentionally murdered by Israel?

2. Since the start of the Palestinian intifada, how many innocent Israeli civilians have been intentionally murdered by the PLO, the Hamas and their affiliates?

Now, if you have been relying on the mainstream media, you will be forgiven for not knowing the correct answers to those two questions. The correct answer to the first question is: "Zero"; and the correct answer to the second question is: "All of them."

That's right. Not a single innocent Palestinian has been intentionally killed by Israel during the past two decades of intifada violence. But every single one of the hundreds of Jewish civilians killed was an intentional act of Palestinian murder.

Sure, plenty of guilty Palestinians have been killed, and these include murderers, leaders in terror organizations, rank-and-file terrorists, and people setting up rocket launchers to fire at Jewish civilians. And sure, there have also been innocent Palestinian civilians who were killed or injured when the Jews shot back. These are people who were killed in the same Israeli anti-terror operations necessitated by Palestinian terrorist aggression and atrocities.

There is a fundamental difference, however, between Palestinian civilians getting killed in anti-terror operations and reprisals by Israel, and Israeli civilians who are killed by Palestinian Islamofascists. The Palestinian dead are unintended collateral damage from operations aimed at stopping rocket attacks and other terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

True, Israeli anti-terror operations are not so "surgically exact" that only guilty terrorists get killed in them. I am quite sure that if and when such a precise military technology is invented, for killing only guilty terrorists when they hide among innocent civilians, Israel will be the first country on earth to adopt it. However, until then, when Palestinians intentionally target and murder Jewish civilians, innocent Palestinian civilians may suffer the consequences of Arab terror.Jewish civilians, however, are always the target of Palestinian terror.

Israeli soldiers hurt by the terrorists are generally the unintended collateral damage.Israel suffers from a fundamental strategic problem, which damages its ability to defend itself; namely, the fact that modern Hebrew does not have a linguistic equivalent to the American slang expression, "Tough!" True, it has some words for "what a shame," but they do not quite convey the same meaning. As a result, Israeli politicians generally fail to respond to whines from the world about Palestinian civilians getting hurt in counter-terror operations by saying, "Tough!"

There has never been a war in which only soldiers get killed, and there does not exist a weapons technology that allows military strikes to take place in an exact manner where no civilians near military targets ever get hurt. Such surgical precision is all the more impossible when terrorists intentionally hide within and behind civilian populations. International law recognizes the rights of countries at war to attack terrorists and even soldiers when they are hiding among civilians, even when such attacks produce civilian deaths.

International law assigns blame for those deaths to the belligerents who use the civilians as their "human shields". When Palestinian civilians are killed by an Israeli shell, then the moral responsibility for those deaths rests squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinian terrorists who necessitate Israeli return fire.

These are the same terrorists who have fired thousands of rockets and mortar shells into Israeli civilian areas, even after Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip. These are the murdering Islamofascists who have turned the Negev town of Sderot, well inside Israel's pre-1967 borders, into the Israeli equivalent of Guernica, under daily bombardment. Sderot's low-income civilians live in bunkers, afraid for their lives.Don't want Palestinian civilians killed when Israel shoots back? Simple. Stop the rocket attacks on Sderot.

Don't like Israeli reprisals? Simple. Stop the terror atrocities committed by Palestinians against Jews.You want Palestinians to move about freely without being searched at checkpoints? Simple. Stop the campaign of bombings, suicide mass murders and atrocities by the Palestinians. When the Palestinians stop murdering Jews, no one will have to check their cars. When Palestinian ambulances no longer carry explosives and murderers, no one will stop them for inspection.You want the Palestinians to earn decent wages, have a comfortable life? Simple. Suppress Palestinian terrorism.

Stop Palestinian rocket aggression. Then, they can even hold day jobs in Israel if they want. They are welcome to shop in Israel and get Israeli medical treatment. But as long as the terror continues, don't expect Israel to respond by turning the other cheek and abandoning self-defense. Don't like it? Tough! Don't like civilians getting hurt in wars? Then don't start wars of terror and aggression against Israel.

The Bash-Israel lobby keeps coming up with new forms of political aggression against the Jewish state. The newest goes something like this: Until Israel is technologically capable of killing terrorists hiding in the middle of cities full of civilians without a single Palestinian civilian being injured as "collateral damage", then Israel should be coerced into adopting a policy of Quaker pacifism, under which it does not respond or retaliate at all to terror atrocities.

In other words, by demanding that Israel only implement 100% pure military tactics, which no other army on earth has ever adopted, the Bash-Israel lobby is, in effect, really insisting that Israel stop defending its own civilians altogether, that Israel should become the first nation on earth to adopt such pacifism as its military strategy. Israel must be disarmed, while terrorism must be rewarded. And if Israel dares to shoot back, then it becomes the aggressor. By the same logic, Britain and the US were the real aggressors against Germany in 1944.

Such disingenuous demands for utopian purity in military operations, even when they come from Israel's own Leftists, are little more than a demand for unconditional Israeli capitulation to terror. Indeed, the only permissible defensive strategy such people are willing to allow Israel to follow is such capitulation.Let us stop with the rhetorical pretenses and affectations. People who are "only" outraged when Palestinian civilians are unintentionally hurt by Israel, but have nothing to say against the mass rocket attacks on Sderot, are naked anti-Semites.

They consider Jewish children legitimate targets of Arab aggression and Islamofascist terror because they hate Jews. In reality, they do not care a fig about Palestinian civilian casualties. Such casualties are merely delightful propaganda tools that can be exploited to demonize the Jews.There is only one effective way to prevent Palestinian civilian casualties, and that is to stop Palestinian terrorist aggression against Israel. But that is the one solution to the problem that the modern day pogromchiki, including academic Brownshirts, will never support."

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Act Of War

The recent killing of two soldiers and the kidnapping of a third by Hamas operatives is a blatant act of war from government to another.

Hamas is now the democratically elected leadership of the Palestinians, even though they have not achieved nation-state status. (Which leads us to ponder, why haven't they achieved that status yet, when they've had the world on their side for 25 years? Oh yes, its because they'd rather destroy Israel than have a state of their own. Actions speak louder than words.)

So, as the democratically elected government, they now have official status. Which means they can't play at their terrorist atrocities anymore. They can either declare war against Israel, or decide they don't want to fight anymore, and sign a peace treaty.

We don't live in a world of black or white, but in this situation we are. It is beyond obvious that Palestinian militants seek a state of war with Israel. There have been no peaceful moves on their part beyond a cease fire to rebuild their ranks and ammunition, but plenty of attacks on civilians and soldiers. How can you possibly justify kidnapping an 18-year old hitch hiker? What purpose could that possibly serve?

The purpose it serves is as a wakeup call to Israel and the world. And elected leaders Hamas now has a responsibility to its constituents, who voted for them. If by seeking a war they think they are serving those interests, so be it.

I have been surfing the web and viewing comments on this story and these developments. By and large, on neutral non-Israeli sites, I have seen much hatred towards Israel and their invasion. Yet these naysayers don't comment on the kidnapping, the constant state of fear of all Israelis, or how unfair it is to be this small tough country that everyone is always picking on. It's always, "Big Israel picking on little Palestine."

Well, I'd like to ask you naysayers something. Which I haven't seen an answer to yet. What would you suggest Israel do? In general, and in this instance? How would you "make peace" with the palestinians, who have never asked for anything but for you to die?

But as of right now, Israel is on the brink of war for innumerable provocations. This was the straw that broke the camels back.

For more on this, visit

More Blatant Bias Towards Israel

After coming home from work, I flipped on the internet, and the first thing I saw on was a picture of a powerplant at flames, against a backdrop of a night sky.

I thought, "Oh no", and I was right. I scrolled down to read the text, and it declared that Israel had invaded Gaza only a few hours before, to find the missing soldier and to pressure his release with the threat and action of military force.

So I immediately turn to the news channels, to see what was going on. Like the Iraq war, I felt an immense physical need to be in the middle of the action, to catch the play by play.

So I was more than a little dissapointed to hardly be able to find anything on the TV about it. There was a banner scrolling across CNN that said Israel had invaded Gaza, and that was it. No reports, no live interviews, no men on the ground.

Later in the evening, I checked the news channels again. I don't remember which one it was, but I found one with a british-accent having male newscaster who was doing a live interview with the spokeswoman for the IDF, or Israeli Defense Forces.

I found the interview to be a microcosm of the world opinion of Israel. The broadcaster, rather than being concerned with the welfare of the missing soldier, or the lives of the other invading soldiers, or the missing soldier's family, instead focused on what the IDF was actually doing, and literally ignored all of the other information and circumstances to try and catch the spokesperson in a sophmoric logical fallacy.

Basically, the spokesperson was saying that Israel had invaded Gaza to get the soldier back.

So the broadcaster asks, "So, you know exactly where the soldier is?"

Spokesperson: "You know I can't give that kind of operational intelligence right now."

Broadcaster: "So you don't know where he is, and this military action is meant to pressure Hamas and the Palestinians to give him up."

"Spokesperson: "Let me remind you, we have tried every diplomatic channel possible to get him back, and nothing has worked, so this is our only option."

Broadcaster: "You didn't answer my question. Do you, or do you not know where the missing soldier is?"

Spokesperson: "As I said before, I can't release that information."

Broadcaster: "Well, what I'm trying to figure out is, is the intention of the invasion to use specific intelligence of the soldier's exact whereabouts to extract him, or is this meant to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to give him up?"

Spokesperson: "Ummm, we are doing all that we can to go in there and get him out, while at the same time exerting pressure on the PA to help get him released."

Broadcaster: "I seem to be repeating myself. I'm trying to establish whether you have exact intelligence as to his whereabouts, or whether this military action is only meant to exert pressure on the PA. Which is it?"

At this point, the conversation devolves into the spokesperson saying the same thing over and over again, defending the operation, while the broadcaster continually makes light of her statements, trying to get her to say they know exactly where the soldier was, or they don't know where he was and this was just meant to pressure the PA.

Do you see what I mean? There's this whole WAR going on, Hamas blatantly makes an attack and kidnaps a soldier, IDF responds, and this broadcaster only cares to ask about intelligence the IDF obviously can't give! It was a shameless display of open hatred towards Israel, and sympathy for the attackers. Not once was any blame laid on Hamas for the instigation of this by the kidnapping of the soldier.

I report, you decide.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Kidnapping of a Hostage And Rice's Response

I'm sure by now most everyone knows that Hamas has kidnapped an Israeli soldier recently.

I personally call for his release and hope that no additional harm comes to him. At least this is one clear line that can be drawn between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian "militants": Israeli's do not capture Palestinians unless there is evidence they have committed a crime, and when they do, they go to jails, have trials, and have access to lawyers. As opposed to Hamas, who kidnaps soldiers and uses them as bargaining chips, which is among the oldest contemporary examples of TERRORISM (which Arab nations still refuse to define.)

Moving on, you can see from the below linked story that Hamas is pretty much mobilizing for an invasion from Israel. They have lined the streets with roadside bombs, set up sniper positions, and sent out thousands of guys with guns into the streets.

For what? To protect against a massed Israeli force on their border, which is only there because of the kidnapping. Which kind of looks like - Hamas kidnapped the soldier in order to provoke an Israeli incursion.

At least that what it looks like to me. And how are you supposed to deal with that? How do you deal with the child that keeps stealing your toys, and then destroys them? How do you make peace with that, when that child has repeatedly said, "I'll take all of your toys until there are none left, and then I will burn your house down. I won't stop until that happens!"

You don't ask him to stop. You send the fucker to Juvy.

Which is why I'm startled to see this quote from Condoleesza Rice, "Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice urged Israel to "give diplomacy a chance."" (same link as above)

Ms. Rice: Isn't the United States of America's policy not to negotiate with terrorists? Isn't negotiation 'diplomacy'? So how can you not only condone, but almost forcibly suggest, that they negotiate with these terrorists instead of striking them (like we did in Iraq?!)

I'm ashamed of you Ms. Rice. This baldly stated contradiction simply shows how thin the veneer of this administration's dedication to Israel's security really is. I have long suspected that Israel has been viewed as no more than a bargaining chip in the middle east, kind of like a dam to hold back the excrement ready to pur forth. This lends credence to that theory.

Well, Israel has enjoyed America's positive attentions for a long time, alongside with some of the negative effects as well. Perhaps it is time to tell our country to put their money where their mouth is. You want to fight terrorism, fight Hamas and Fatah and all those other factions. They are actively targeting our allies, while we not only sit and do nothing - we tell Israel to do nothing too. And so the Israeli war of 1948 continues....

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Why Anti-Israel Rhetoric Can Be Anti-Semitic

Britain's academics are calling for a boycott of Israel's professors, which is dumb and misguided. A Palestinian Professor discusses why he is against it:

'the Palestinian president of Al-Quds University. "If we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we've had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals," Sari Nusseibeh told The Associated Press. "If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach." Nusseibeh acknowledged, however, that his is a minority viewpoint among his colleagues. '

However, this person describes why people are so suspicious of anti-zionist motives:

'"It just reminds people that somehow Israel is always singled out, that we're the case study," David Newman, a professor of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva, said.....

But the latest resolution by the British association, encouraging a boycott of Israeli academics, touched a raw nerve in the Jewish state.

"I wonder why not China, why not Chile, why not Burma, where the human rights issue is far, far worse than here," Newman said.'

Exactly. Why is Israel singled out for something it has almost no control over, whereas countries with open slave trades, rebel militias destroying entire villages, and governments that jail even mild dissidents, aren't even given a slap on the wrist? You tell me.

Monday, June 12, 2006

New York times Goes To Bed With Iran

Well, well, well. It is about TIME that the New York Times finally shed its skin of neutrality and joins up with their true fan. Who'da thunk it would be President Ahmidenejad?

According to the above linked article, the esteemed NYT questioned the technical and linguistic aspects of a phrase recently attributed to President Stinky (of Iran, see related blog topic "Ahmadinejad Is A Stinker", which is that he said he wants to "Wipe Israel off the map."

I cannot describe to what length I have been offended by this article. In essence, the NYT, is, is, apologizing for this megalomaniac. By rehashing his words does the NYT thinks that they're changing his behavior or cognition? It is beyond obvious where Iran leans - he is vehemently and violently anti-West, anti-Bush, anti-America, and most passionately, anti-Israel, and anti-Jews. So what in God's name is the point of trying to retract this statement? At least it portrays him as he really is, instead of having people be unsure about it.

But for the NYT to blur his hatred like this, well, it makes me think that the NYT wants Israel wiped off the map. Ahmadinejad's statement was in no way ambiguous, just like his continued statements and actions towards acheiving nuclear weapons. He has denied the Holocaust, denied Israel's right to exist, and thumbed his nose at our morals and way of life.

Why, exactly, are you apologizing for him, NYT? Or have you no decency?

Israel Is NOT A 4-Star Restaurant

Ok, I have reached the terminal nexus when it comes to how the world views the treatment of Palestinians by Israel.

I'm only going to say this once (and then again, and again, and again, until I have no more breath left in my body): Israel is at war, and has been since its inception in 1948. Not once has it not needed a formidable fighting force/army to enforce its soverignty. Without at least a strong deterrent Israel would be attacked by million of Arabs who have not stopped calling for its destruction.

The simple truth of the matter is that Palestine has been imbued with the hate that all arab countries seem to feel en masse towards Israel. They have been indoctrinated with the belief that Israel is evil, Jews are evil, and both should be destroyed. And the Palestinian people have never been fairly represented or given a shot at being real citizens of this world. They have been kept in squalor by their arab neighbors so they can be used as a chess piece against Israel.

In effect, Israel is at war with Palestine. Have been especially since the start of the "2nd intafada" of 2000, which Arafat started. There is no way out. Nothing Israel can do will end this war while remaining in existence. I'll say that again. There is nothing Israel can do, no one for Israel to bargain with, that will end this war with Israel still existing.

So how is Israel supposed to treat Palestinians? How is Israel supposed to be fair and balanced to people dedicated to killing it? How can it be vilified for treating Palestinians like crap when everyone of them is a threat?

Israel is not a waiter at an upscale restaurant that has to treat its customers well in order to recieve good tips (and not worldwide boycotts.) Israel is a legal nation state built with the blood, sweat, and tears of good people, and it is under attack by bigots and fascists who try to portray it as a country that is racist like South Africa. Give Israel and its people one, simple, chance at a life of peace with its neighbors, and see what happens. Until that does happen, it is at war, and its actions are appropriate. You wouldn't hug the person trying to kill you, would you?

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Ann Coulter Is An Opportunist Vampire

This will be my only post about Ann, because I don't want to give her any attention she doesn't deserve.

One of her latest ploys was to lambast women who lost their husbands on 9/11 as "witches" and "harpies".

Thats funny, because it falls into the school of thought many governments and thought leaders are using today, which is: label someone else what you actually are. Like Palestinian terrorists calling Israeli's murderers. Like Iran calling the U.S. a demonic power. Like islamo-fascists saying the West is fighting to kill Islam.

In short, Coulter is a witch/harpy herself and is, in psychological terms, projecting.

However, my main problem with Coulter isn't actually what she says, because it is all hot air. My problem with her is that she has made a living saying the things that are despicable. (I'm having a hard time deciding just how I want to illustrate how I feel about her.)

Let me clarify. If she were to take to the airwaves saying we should cure AIDS by screwing the Catholic Church and offering people rewards for using condoms, push the palestinians into Jordan, kill all islamo fascist leaders, castrate Bush, lobotomize Cheney, take over Russia, implant chips into the brains of terrorists so we can understand how they think, etc., that would be different. She would be saying things that SHOULD BE SAID, but nobody wants to because they don't want to become a target.

Instead, she disparages everyone she can. Everyone who seems to be the enemy of her conservative base receives scorn that ranges from outlandish to downright stupid and mean.

9/11 widows are trying as hard as they can to get someone to accept responsibility for the attacks and to learn more about them, using their widow status to spearhead their campaign.

Ann Coulter is trying as hard as she can to use THEIR plight and THEIR cause to get HERSELF some publicity. Just like she does every time she lances someone and their beliefs.

And that is about the long and the short of it. Ann Coulter is despicable because she is a loud mouthed sociopathic bigot who uses the beliefs of others as ammo for her stardom. Get a life Ann.


I wrote a response to a blog and its comments I read after posting the above today, this is at

' To #7 and all defenders of Ann labeling 9/11 widows as “bitches” and “harpies”.
You are completely wrong. A person, ESPECIALLY a citizen of the United States of America, has EVERY right to push forward their agenda, whether it is widows asking for answers, or whether it is a conservative lambasting them for doing so.

What exactly have these widows done except try and throw some light into murky waters your warrior president has clouded?

And to say that these people are “using victimhood to silence debate” (#7) is completely bogus. They are not trying to silence debate for Heaven’s sake, they are trying to crack the debate open in the middle! They want answers! They want a memorial! They want accountability!

Finally, a personal loss or experience is all we have in this world as a driving force (unless you count using religion as a shield for your unwarrented convictions.) Natan Sharansky’s wife used his imprisonment as an impetus to get him released and fight oppression in Russa. That was not wrong, and neither are the widows who you and your fellows are so shamelessly slandering.

Is it so impossible for you to imagine yourself in their shoes? How would you feel if you lost your husband/wife like that? How would you react? Answer that, and then insult them again.