JAWA Report
Arutz Sheva is reporting that ALL rapes in Norway in 2010 were committed by Muslims or asylum seekers from Islamic countries.
Defenders of Islam call it a "religion of peace" but many Norwegian women are learning that Islam is the religion of rape. According to an amazing police report released there this month, every single solved case of assault-rape in the country in 2010 was carried out by a Muslim immigrant.
The report was cited by an official Norwegian television station, which interviewed a victim who said that her rapist explained to her that his religion permits him to rape her. Kitman TV posts this news report at Youtube:So much for Islam’s claim of honoring and respecting women. All those additional "rights" - the right not to be raped, kidnapped or beaten without cause - Muhammad supposedly gave women only apply to Muslim women, and even they are subjected to abuse and brutality if their male owner is not happy with them.
UPDATE by SH: Howie posted this video a few days ago. It certainly pertains to DMartyr's post. Thanks to Garduneh Mehr for reminding me about this video, we certainly have missed you GM!
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Israel’s Strategic Standpoint: Mid-2011 and Mid-“Arab Spring”
Barry Rubin
There are two types of strategic perspectives in Israel today. They aren’t contradictory but they have different priorities. These can be called the “northern” and the “southern” views.
The “northern” approach is the more traditional one, focusing on the situation in that direction. The key longer-term concern is over Iran and its drive for nuclear weapons. More closely, there are both concerns and hopes regarding Lebanon and Syria. Regarding Iran, the new feature is the assumption that Israel will not attack Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. This means that Israel will be constructing a multi-level defensive system that includes long-range attack planes, a capability of subverting Iran’s nuclear force through covert operations, possibly submarine platforms, and several types of anti-missile missiles and defenses.
The goal here is four-fold:
--To delay as long as possible Iran getting nuclear weapons and to minimize the size and effectiveness of its arsenal through sanctions, international pressure, sabotage, and other means.
--To have the maximum ability to deter Iran from launching a nuclear attack on Iran and showing the ability to stop Iranian missiles. The aim is to discourage Iran from launching such an attack given a near-certainty that it can be stopped and Iran will suffer very heavy damage as a result.
--Of course, ordinary deterrence is not a sufficient safeguard against Iran given the Islamic regime’s ideological extremism and passionate hatred of Israel, the recklessness of some key elements there, and the rulers’ shortcomings in accurately assessing reality. Consequently, Israel must put a high priority on stopping any Iranian attack from happening at all or succeeding if it does happen.
--To be able, if Israel ever determines there is a real danger of an Iranian attack, to launch a first strike to inflict maximum damage on Iran’s nuclear strike force. In other words, an Israeli attack would be premised not on Iran getting nuclear weapons but on Iran being likely to use nuclear weapons.
U.S. deterrence, early-warning, and anti-missile efforts would supplement this system but this strategy is not premised on any dependence on the U.S. government.
But Israel also knows that an equal or even greater danger is the spread of Iranian influence, taking over Arab countries or turning them into clients that can be used against Israel. Here, the northern focus is on Syria and Lebanon.
On the surface, the news from these two countries is potentially bad. Lebanon is now ruled by a government controlled by Hizballah and other Syrian or Syrian-Iranian clients. Hizballah thus can use Lebanon as a virtual fiefdom for building its military power and attacking Israel. This is much worse than the 2006 Hizballah-Israel war when Lebanon as a government and army had a separate identity.
Syria itself is faced with a serious internal upheaval that seems increasingly likely to bring down the dictatorship of President Hafiz al-Asad. Here the “glass half-empty” analysis is that Asad might be replaced by an Islamist or radical regime even more hostile to Israel.
There is also, though, a “glass half full” analysis. As long as Syria is in such turmoil, it cannot so effectively threaten Israel. And if Asad is overthrown a government might take power that is more preoccupied by internal affairs, perhaps less eager to be in conflict with Israel.
Iraq offers a good model here. Between the interests of the Kurds, the internal conflict, a greater focus on domestic development, and other factors, Iraq has dropped out of the conflict with Israel.
Hizballah also suffers from this turmoil. Since it has sided with the Asad regime, Hizballah has gone from wildly popular to widely hated by the Syrian people. Hamas, which has sided against the Syrian regime and in favor of its Muslim Brotherhood comrades, has lost Syrian patronage. Finally, Syria’s aggressive behavior has opened up a rift between that country and Turkey’s government, which has been increasingly acting like an ally of the Iranian and Turkish regimes.
Consequently, while this is no ideal or wonderful situation, Israel can be considered to have benefitted from this aspect of the “Arab Spring.”
From Israel’s standpoint, the relative stability in Jordan and Saudi Arabia is a plus since these countries are unlikely to be transformed into radical Islamist states under a government linked to al-Qaida, Iran, or the Muslim Brotherhood. The turmoil in Bahrain, Yemen, and Tunisia is of relatively little strategic significance to Israel.
Generally, there can be a hope that democracy and domestic development will become a higher priority than fighting Israel, thus easing the pressure on Israel, or at least preoccupying Arabs and Muslims for a while. Clearly, merely calling dissidents Zionist agents and trying to unite the people around an anti-Israel political platform no longer works for incumbent nationalist governments.
In time, this strategy might work for replacement, Islamist governments but that hasn’t happened yet. Moreover, American weakness and the Obama Administration’s cooler view toward Israel is worrisome. So is the possibility that things might be moving in a way to strengthen Iran.
If one looks at the southern front, though, it is harder to find some possible silver lining. Egypt is likely to elect a radical government more hostile than anything Israel has faced there since about 1974. The future of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is gloomy. Peace between Israel and the Arab world’s most populous country cannot be taken for granted.
There is also the problem of the Egypt-Hamas relationship. Egypt is likely to see itself as Hamas’s ally and patron. In a future Israel-Hamas conflict begun by an attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip any time Hamas so wishes, Egypt could actively take the side of the Palestinian Islamists and will certainly help them. The long-quiet southern front now has to be treated as a very possible zone of armed conflict.
This is the basic way things look for Israeli strategists. One can stress better- or worse-case scenarios and different parts of the challenge but there is a general consensus on the fundamental challenges—and on the fact that they will be met successfully.
Please be subscriber 24,417 (daily reader 42,016). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Barry Rubin, director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center; editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal; and featured columnist http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/
There are two types of strategic perspectives in Israel today. They aren’t contradictory but they have different priorities. These can be called the “northern” and the “southern” views.
The “northern” approach is the more traditional one, focusing on the situation in that direction. The key longer-term concern is over Iran and its drive for nuclear weapons. More closely, there are both concerns and hopes regarding Lebanon and Syria. Regarding Iran, the new feature is the assumption that Israel will not attack Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. This means that Israel will be constructing a multi-level defensive system that includes long-range attack planes, a capability of subverting Iran’s nuclear force through covert operations, possibly submarine platforms, and several types of anti-missile missiles and defenses.
The goal here is four-fold:
--To delay as long as possible Iran getting nuclear weapons and to minimize the size and effectiveness of its arsenal through sanctions, international pressure, sabotage, and other means.
--To have the maximum ability to deter Iran from launching a nuclear attack on Iran and showing the ability to stop Iranian missiles. The aim is to discourage Iran from launching such an attack given a near-certainty that it can be stopped and Iran will suffer very heavy damage as a result.
--Of course, ordinary deterrence is not a sufficient safeguard against Iran given the Islamic regime’s ideological extremism and passionate hatred of Israel, the recklessness of some key elements there, and the rulers’ shortcomings in accurately assessing reality. Consequently, Israel must put a high priority on stopping any Iranian attack from happening at all or succeeding if it does happen.
--To be able, if Israel ever determines there is a real danger of an Iranian attack, to launch a first strike to inflict maximum damage on Iran’s nuclear strike force. In other words, an Israeli attack would be premised not on Iran getting nuclear weapons but on Iran being likely to use nuclear weapons.
U.S. deterrence, early-warning, and anti-missile efforts would supplement this system but this strategy is not premised on any dependence on the U.S. government.
But Israel also knows that an equal or even greater danger is the spread of Iranian influence, taking over Arab countries or turning them into clients that can be used against Israel. Here, the northern focus is on Syria and Lebanon.
On the surface, the news from these two countries is potentially bad. Lebanon is now ruled by a government controlled by Hizballah and other Syrian or Syrian-Iranian clients. Hizballah thus can use Lebanon as a virtual fiefdom for building its military power and attacking Israel. This is much worse than the 2006 Hizballah-Israel war when Lebanon as a government and army had a separate identity.
Syria itself is faced with a serious internal upheaval that seems increasingly likely to bring down the dictatorship of President Hafiz al-Asad. Here the “glass half-empty” analysis is that Asad might be replaced by an Islamist or radical regime even more hostile to Israel.
There is also, though, a “glass half full” analysis. As long as Syria is in such turmoil, it cannot so effectively threaten Israel. And if Asad is overthrown a government might take power that is more preoccupied by internal affairs, perhaps less eager to be in conflict with Israel.
Iraq offers a good model here. Between the interests of the Kurds, the internal conflict, a greater focus on domestic development, and other factors, Iraq has dropped out of the conflict with Israel.
Hizballah also suffers from this turmoil. Since it has sided with the Asad regime, Hizballah has gone from wildly popular to widely hated by the Syrian people. Hamas, which has sided against the Syrian regime and in favor of its Muslim Brotherhood comrades, has lost Syrian patronage. Finally, Syria’s aggressive behavior has opened up a rift between that country and Turkey’s government, which has been increasingly acting like an ally of the Iranian and Turkish regimes.
Consequently, while this is no ideal or wonderful situation, Israel can be considered to have benefitted from this aspect of the “Arab Spring.”
From Israel’s standpoint, the relative stability in Jordan and Saudi Arabia is a plus since these countries are unlikely to be transformed into radical Islamist states under a government linked to al-Qaida, Iran, or the Muslim Brotherhood. The turmoil in Bahrain, Yemen, and Tunisia is of relatively little strategic significance to Israel.
Generally, there can be a hope that democracy and domestic development will become a higher priority than fighting Israel, thus easing the pressure on Israel, or at least preoccupying Arabs and Muslims for a while. Clearly, merely calling dissidents Zionist agents and trying to unite the people around an anti-Israel political platform no longer works for incumbent nationalist governments.
In time, this strategy might work for replacement, Islamist governments but that hasn’t happened yet. Moreover, American weakness and the Obama Administration’s cooler view toward Israel is worrisome. So is the possibility that things might be moving in a way to strengthen Iran.
If one looks at the southern front, though, it is harder to find some possible silver lining. Egypt is likely to elect a radical government more hostile than anything Israel has faced there since about 1974. The future of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is gloomy. Peace between Israel and the Arab world’s most populous country cannot be taken for granted.
There is also the problem of the Egypt-Hamas relationship. Egypt is likely to see itself as Hamas’s ally and patron. In a future Israel-Hamas conflict begun by an attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip any time Hamas so wishes, Egypt could actively take the side of the Palestinian Islamists and will certainly help them. The long-quiet southern front now has to be treated as a very possible zone of armed conflict.
This is the basic way things look for Israeli strategists. One can stress better- or worse-case scenarios and different parts of the challenge but there is a general consensus on the fundamental challenges—and on the fact that they will be met successfully.
Please be subscriber 24,417 (daily reader 42,016). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Barry Rubin, director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center; editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal; and featured columnist http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/
Ya'alon: Flotilla participants will try to harm soldiers
JPOST.COM STAFF
06/29/2011
Strategic affairs minister is convinced there are "violent elements" in the flotilla, participants plan to attack IDF solders.
Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon said reports from army sources that participants in the flotilla to Gaza plan on attacking IDF soldiers with lethal force are accurate, according to an interview Wednesday with Israel Radio.
Ya'alon said that he is convinced that participants are planning to attack IDF soldiers that will try to stop the boats The minister had no doubt the evidence was reliable, saying "we received the information in the last few days, and according to this intel there are elements that will be violent. The IDF should be aware of this possibility."
He dismissed the flotilla organizer's claims that participants were peaceful, saying "before the last flotilla they presented themselves as pensioners and innocents, but our forces encountered fundamentalist Muslim extremists."
On the situation in Gaza he added "there is no crisis in Gaza, their economy is flourishing and this month alone two new hotels are scheduled to be opened, with a shopping center set to open next week. The markets are full and no one is dying of thirst or hunger."
He also reiterated Israel's offer to let goods and aid through Ashdod port.
Minority Report
By establishing a Jewish majority in Palestine, Israel distinguished itself from other Middle East minority groups, which suffer physical fear and intellectual confusion, even if they hold power
By Lee Smith | Jun 29, 2011
At a recent event in Dearborn, Mich., a crowd welcomed Syria’s ambassador to Washington, Imad Mustapha, who led a rally on behalf of his country’s President Bashar al-Assad. The scene was outrageous for a number of reasons, including that these were American citizens gathered in support of a regime responsible for the murder of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. But perhaps even more notable was the tragedy at the heart of the scene: These Syrian-Americans—Christians and members of Muslim minority sects like the Alawites, Druze, and Ismailis—are still writhing from their emotional experience as Middle Eastern minorities. No matter how far they get from the region, they are plagued with a vulnerability that leaves them terrified, angry, and often crazy. And what they throw into sharp relief is a larger lesson: Among all the minorities of the Middle East, only the Jews have escaped this unhealthy condition, thanks to the fact that for over 60 years now they have had their own state and can defend themselves against their adversaries. Theodor Herzl asserted that Israel would allow the Jews to live like normal people, and as it turns out—contrary to what nearly all Arabs, most Europeans, and many Israelis believe—he has largely been proven right.
But to understand why he was right, we have to put aside Herzl and Europe and look at Israel in a Middle Eastern context, as a refuge for a religious minority: the Jews of the Middle East. Many people, including many Jews, still see Israel as the end product of a European ideological movement that found an awful but undeniable justification in the Holocaust. Yet, as many Arabs argue, that narrative is unconnected to the Middle East. No matter how many Arab ideologues collaborated with the Nazis or adopted Nazi ideas about Jews, there is no reason that the Palestinians should have to pay for a European crime. It makes more sense, then, to look at minorities in the Middle East generally, the Jews specifically, and to evaluate the success or failure of Zionism by the standards of the region.
***
Anyone who previously wrote off as a right-wing Zionist myth the idea that Middle Eastern minorities are oppressed by the regional Sunni majority needs only consider the situation of Coptic Christians in Egypt over the last few months. Even many observers who did acknowledge the reality in Egypt are surprised now in the aftermath of the Egyptian revolution to note the uptick in violence against Christians—the kidnappings of Coptic girls and the burning of churches, among other incidents. After all, it was commonly believed before the revolution that sectarian violence was the fault of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who, in this view, had empowered the Islamist movement and thus animosity against non-Muslim communities. But Egypt’s Muslim-Christian divide was not about Mubarak, any more than the United States was responsible for the murder of Christians in Iraq or Israel is responsible for the flight of Christians from Bethlehem and other towns in the West Bank.
Nor did sectarianism begin, as many believe it did, with the age of European colonialism, or with the Ottomans. While the French, the British, and the Ottomans hardly played constructive roles in taming the region’s sectarian furies, the problem goes back much further, at least to the Arab conquest of what we have come to call the Arabic-speaking Middle East.
The pact of Omar, named for Omar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph after Muhammad, stipulated the various laws and restrictions under which non-Muslims would be allowed to conduct their affairs. Their relative freedom, or burden, depended on the disposition of the particular caliph or the local authorities, but their legal status was never equal to that of Muslims. They were protected people, known as dhimmis.
Some regional minorities, by dint of their temperament and accidents of geography, were able to defend themselves with some success. Lebanon’s Maronite and Druze communities, for instance, made their strongholds in the mountains where they could cut intruders to ribbons. It is well known that the Druze community tends to align itself with the local power regardless of whether they’re based in Lebanon, Syria, or Israel. Historically the Maronites are somewhat more stubborn, and perhaps one of the great tragedies of the Lebanese civil war is that in its aftermath large parts of this proud community under the leadership of Gen. Michel Aoun have aligned themselves with the country’s Shia militia, Hezbollah. Part of the reason for that is the Maronites’ historical fear and hatred of the Sunnis and the wish, as Aoun has explained, to be protected against them by the Shia. This is the same reason why those Syrian-Americans in Michigan rallied in support of Assad: They feared what the Sunnis might do to their relatives.
The price of being a dhimmi is not just physical fear but intellectual confusion and moral corruption. Arab nationalism is largely the work of ideologues drawn from Middle Eastern minorities like the Syrian theorist of Baathism Michel ’Aflaq, who was Greek Orthodox. Arab identity, at least in its earliest iterations, was largely a product of the minorities’ desire to hide their sectarian identities from the Sunni majority. The minorities believed they had a better chance of blending in as part of one massive super-tribe, the Arabs, when as Christians or members of heterodox Shia sects like Alawites they were vulnerable. Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father and Syria’s former president, embraced Arab nationalism in order to legitimize his rule over Syria’s Sunni majority and protect his Alawite community. The present uprising in Syria shows that the thread is starting to become undone—sectarianism is starting to rear its head, and the minorities are terrified of the mostly Sunni opposition in the streets of Syrian cities.
It is hard not to sympathize with the regional minorities and their fear. However, it is also difficult not to be appalled by their support for a regime that is slaughtering children. One picture from the Dearborn event shows three Christian clergymen in the front row, all of them evidently supporters of Bashar al-Assad, which is unfortunately a common position among Syria’s Christian clergy, Catholics, and the Orthodox. “Definitely the Christians in Syria support Bashar al-Assad,” Yohana Ibrahim, the Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo told Reuters last month. “They hope that this storm will not spread.” The rather inconvenient fact for the archbishop is that Assad is trying to quell that storm by torturing and murdering people. The question is: What can be the point of preserving a Christian community if its values have been so thoroughly perverted? Or how many Sunni corpses is a church worth?
It’s not just Christians and Muslim minority sects who are afflicted with this moral sickness, but Jews as well. Jack Avital, head of the Sephardic National Alliance and a leader of the Syrian-Jewish community of North America, has been in touch with Syrian officials in Damascus and in the United States and seems to think Assad is an “honest guy” who is “protecting the minute Jewish community still in place in Damascus.” Avital thinks a regime that buries its opponents in mass graves is OK because in Syria “the Jewish community is doing well.” Compare this repugnant calculation to the position of all of Israel’s senior officials, from the prime minister and president to the defense and foreign ministers, who have condemned Assad’s massacre.
How did the Middle East’s Jewish minority escape this sickness? The state of Israel. Of all the Middle Eastern states carved up in the aftermath of World War I, Israel is the sole success story—politically, economically, socially, and technologically. Moreover, it has safeguarded the lives of a regional minority with minimal oppression of and maximum participation by other groups who are also citizens of the state. By establishing a Jewish majority in Palestine, Israel distinguished itself from other regional minority groups that succeeded in gaining control of a state while remaining minorities, like the Alawites in Syria, whose record has been one of stagnation, oppression, and plunder.
So, when it comes to the Holocaust, maybe the Arabs are right: The crimes of Europe need not justify the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. There is plenty of justification to be found in the Middle East. Without Israel, the region would lose its one success story—and the Jews of the Middle East would be yet another group of fearful, oppressed, and vulnerable dhimmis.
Five Ways Obama Is Circumventing the Legislative Branch
Lachlan Markay
Heritage Foundation
June 29, 2011
For all of candidate Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric promising to respect Congress’s authority to draft the nation’s laws, President Obama has demonstrated a persistent pattern of circumventing the legislative branch via administrative fiat whenever his agenda stalls. And though one of the Obama campaign’s legal advisers cautioned against a President who would “take the law into his own hands and shred it when it’s convenient,” Obama has done just that time and time again.
The Obama Administration generally employs one of two strategies to legislate without—and often in spite of—congressional action: (1) administrative decree establishing a new federal rule, or (2) a refusal to enforce existing federal law. In five separate policy areas, the President and the federal agencies under his command have spurned congressional authority to achieve Obama’s objectives. 1. Environmental Regulation: President Obama has made it his mission to impose economy-killing environmental regulations on America in spite of clear congressional opposition. Take the White House–backed cap-and-trade bill, which would have created a market for “carbon credits” that businesses would have to trade in order to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.
The measure passed the House in 2009 but was defeated in the Senate. Undeterred, the Obama Administration sought to ram its agenda into law without congressional approval. It managed to classify carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, thereby granting the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate its emission—despite warnings even from Members of Congress who wanted to regulate carbon emissions but recognized the problematic nature of doing so without congressional approval.
2. Labor Law: Expanding powerful labor unions is another Obama Administration objective. On June 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced plans to dramatically reduce the time to conduct unionization elections.
But in 2009, the Senate moved in the opposite direction. It removed the “card check” provision from the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” effectively sinking a measure that could have dramatically increased union membership by rescinding workers’ rights to a secret ballot election for union representation.
The NLRB’s new rule will reduce the length of elections from about six weeks to 10–21 days, thereby limiting employers’ abilities to present their own cases against unionization to workers—and making the formation of a union far more likely. Increased unionization was always card check’s purpose. The NLRB is now attempting to achieve the same goal without Congress’s approval.
3. Immigration Law: On immigration policy, the Obama Administration has not even waited for congressional action before charting its own legislative course. In May, Democrats reintroduced the DREAM Act—which would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the United States before they were 16—after the lame-duck Congress failed to pass it late last year.
But rather than waiting for Congress to act, officials at Obama’s Department of Homeland Security have instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and attorneys to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” for illegal immigrants who have attended school in the United States, meaning far fewer such illegal immigrants will be prosecuted and deported. The agency cited a shortage of resources, but the decision amounts to a de facto implementation of the DREAM Act.
4. Selective Enforcement of Federal Law: Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, Obama’s Justice Department decided in 2009 that it would simply stop enforcing those laws. Proposals to legalize marijuana at the federal level consistently fail to win congressional approval, but the Obama Administration decided to implement its agenda in spite of that lack of legislative support.
The Justice Department again employed this tactic in February when it announced that it would no longer enforce another federal law: the Defense of Marriage Act. The Administration did not agree with the law, so rather than attempting to repeal it via the standard legislative channels, it decided to ignore it.
5. Regulating the Internet: Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided late last year to assume authority over Internet regulation despite a ruling by a federal appeals court explicitly denying the commission that authority. In contradiction of the court’s ruling, the FCC voted 3–2 in December to pass the first-ever federal regulations on Internet traffic. The House has voted to block those regulations, but Obama has pledged to veto any such legislation.
More Bureaucratic Legislating Ahead: All of these examples demonstrate a striking lack of respect for the role of the legislative branch in American government. Despite paying lip service to Congress’s constitutional role as the sole source of the nation’s laws, the Obama Administration has ignored Congress wherever the people’s representatives have declined to codify his agenda.
Nor is there any sign of this trend abating. Even now, the President is considering a number of proposals that would advance his legislative agenda without congressional consideration or approval, including re-regulation of campaign finance laws to circumvent a Supreme Court decision and waivers of the No Child Left Behind law in the face of congressional inaction.
Following the November elections, when President Obama’s party lost control of the House, Obama told America that where he can’t legislate, he will regulate. And that seems to be this Administration’s modus operandi: If Congress refuses to abide by Obama’s agenda, the President’s bureaucratic machine will make its own laws.
Quick Hits:
At least 11 are dead from a Taliban attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Afghanistan’s capital Kabul on Tuesday. U.S. forces aided in the response.
Amid violent protests, Greece is poised to pass $40 billion of tax increases and spending cuts in order to secure $17 billion in emergency loans from the International Monetary Fund.
Bank of America will pay $8.5 billion to settle a dispute with 22 investors who lost money on mortgage-backed securities they purchased from the bank.
California’s legislature passed a budget last night that includes a series of spending cuts to address the state’s deficit. Critics say the plan doesn’t tackle unfunded pension liabilities.
VIDEO: In an exclusive interview, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) criticized liberals for opposing Social Security reform, warning that they would rather increase taxes on businesses.
Heritage Foundation
June 29, 2011
For all of candidate Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric promising to respect Congress’s authority to draft the nation’s laws, President Obama has demonstrated a persistent pattern of circumventing the legislative branch via administrative fiat whenever his agenda stalls. And though one of the Obama campaign’s legal advisers cautioned against a President who would “take the law into his own hands and shred it when it’s convenient,” Obama has done just that time and time again.
The Obama Administration generally employs one of two strategies to legislate without—and often in spite of—congressional action: (1) administrative decree establishing a new federal rule, or (2) a refusal to enforce existing federal law. In five separate policy areas, the President and the federal agencies under his command have spurned congressional authority to achieve Obama’s objectives. 1. Environmental Regulation: President Obama has made it his mission to impose economy-killing environmental regulations on America in spite of clear congressional opposition. Take the White House–backed cap-and-trade bill, which would have created a market for “carbon credits” that businesses would have to trade in order to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.
The measure passed the House in 2009 but was defeated in the Senate. Undeterred, the Obama Administration sought to ram its agenda into law without congressional approval. It managed to classify carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, thereby granting the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate its emission—despite warnings even from Members of Congress who wanted to regulate carbon emissions but recognized the problematic nature of doing so without congressional approval.
2. Labor Law: Expanding powerful labor unions is another Obama Administration objective. On June 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced plans to dramatically reduce the time to conduct unionization elections.
But in 2009, the Senate moved in the opposite direction. It removed the “card check” provision from the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” effectively sinking a measure that could have dramatically increased union membership by rescinding workers’ rights to a secret ballot election for union representation.
The NLRB’s new rule will reduce the length of elections from about six weeks to 10–21 days, thereby limiting employers’ abilities to present their own cases against unionization to workers—and making the formation of a union far more likely. Increased unionization was always card check’s purpose. The NLRB is now attempting to achieve the same goal without Congress’s approval.
3. Immigration Law: On immigration policy, the Obama Administration has not even waited for congressional action before charting its own legislative course. In May, Democrats reintroduced the DREAM Act—which would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the United States before they were 16—after the lame-duck Congress failed to pass it late last year.
But rather than waiting for Congress to act, officials at Obama’s Department of Homeland Security have instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and attorneys to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” for illegal immigrants who have attended school in the United States, meaning far fewer such illegal immigrants will be prosecuted and deported. The agency cited a shortage of resources, but the decision amounts to a de facto implementation of the DREAM Act.
4. Selective Enforcement of Federal Law: Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, Obama’s Justice Department decided in 2009 that it would simply stop enforcing those laws. Proposals to legalize marijuana at the federal level consistently fail to win congressional approval, but the Obama Administration decided to implement its agenda in spite of that lack of legislative support.
The Justice Department again employed this tactic in February when it announced that it would no longer enforce another federal law: the Defense of Marriage Act. The Administration did not agree with the law, so rather than attempting to repeal it via the standard legislative channels, it decided to ignore it.
5. Regulating the Internet: Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided late last year to assume authority over Internet regulation despite a ruling by a federal appeals court explicitly denying the commission that authority. In contradiction of the court’s ruling, the FCC voted 3–2 in December to pass the first-ever federal regulations on Internet traffic. The House has voted to block those regulations, but Obama has pledged to veto any such legislation.
More Bureaucratic Legislating Ahead: All of these examples demonstrate a striking lack of respect for the role of the legislative branch in American government. Despite paying lip service to Congress’s constitutional role as the sole source of the nation’s laws, the Obama Administration has ignored Congress wherever the people’s representatives have declined to codify his agenda.
Nor is there any sign of this trend abating. Even now, the President is considering a number of proposals that would advance his legislative agenda without congressional consideration or approval, including re-regulation of campaign finance laws to circumvent a Supreme Court decision and waivers of the No Child Left Behind law in the face of congressional inaction.
Following the November elections, when President Obama’s party lost control of the House, Obama told America that where he can’t legislate, he will regulate. And that seems to be this Administration’s modus operandi: If Congress refuses to abide by Obama’s agenda, the President’s bureaucratic machine will make its own laws.
Quick Hits:
At least 11 are dead from a Taliban attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Afghanistan’s capital Kabul on Tuesday. U.S. forces aided in the response.
Amid violent protests, Greece is poised to pass $40 billion of tax increases and spending cuts in order to secure $17 billion in emergency loans from the International Monetary Fund.
Bank of America will pay $8.5 billion to settle a dispute with 22 investors who lost money on mortgage-backed securities they purchased from the bank.
California’s legislature passed a budget last night that includes a series of spending cuts to address the state’s deficit. Critics say the plan doesn’t tackle unfunded pension liabilities.
VIDEO: In an exclusive interview, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) criticized liberals for opposing Social Security reform, warning that they would rather increase taxes on businesses.
Melanie Phillips Quits Britain's Spectator Magazine
American Power
She has two announcements, "Why I left the Spectator," and "My blog's new home."
There's very little written regarding an explanation why, although Phillips writes: "Those interested to learn more can do so in the update on this CiF Watch post, the original quote from which led to this apology." The apology issued was to Alastair Crooke, Director of Conflicts Forum, "an international movement which engages with Islamist movements broadly ..."
Given Mr. Crooke's background, folks probably have an inkling as to what happened: Melanie blogged about Crooke, he got mad, launched legal action, harming the Spectator financially, and Melanie Phillips felt it necessary to resign. That just the line of logic, but let's see if I can piece some of this together. For one thing, reports indicate that Alastair Crooke, a former member of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency, had direct and ongoing contacts with Hamas as part of his official business at the British consulate in East Jerusalem. A 2007 blog post by Israeli Eliyahu m'Tsiyon has the details, including a quotation from Melanie Phillips which is no longer available elsewhere. And London's far-left Guardian reported on this, "UK recalls MI6 link to Palestinian militants." These are some really sinister dealings, and Phillips wrote about them. See Jihad Watch, "Melanie Phillips on Alistair Crooke." And following the links takes us to FrontPage Magazine, "Alistair Crooke's Meeting with Sheikh Yassin." I don't see the exact date of Crooke's departure from MI6, but even left-wing sources report on his deep ties to global terrorism. See Mother Jones, "The Spy Who Loved Hamas. And Hezbollah. And Iran."
Now note that the Spectator published an apology to Alastair Crooke, cited by Roy Greenslade at the Guardian:
A blog by Melanie Phillips posted on Jan 28 2011 reported an allegation that Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, had been expelled from Israel and dismissed for misconduct from Government service or the EU after threatening a journalist whose email he had unlawfully intercepted. We accept that this allegation is completely false and we apologise to Mr Crooke.
Again, I'm piecing things together, but it looks like Spectator issued the apology as part of a legal settlement, which has the New Statesman's Mehdi Hasan jumping for joy:
... was this a voluntary or enforced departure? The blogger Guido Staines beat me to it, but I can't help but notice how the Spectator has had to apologise to Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, on its website this week, after a blogpost by Phillips made "false" allegations about Crooke's past. Phillips's decision to move on might just be a coincidence but a well-connected source tells me that the payout to Crooke cost the Spectator "tens of thousands of pounds" and left Fraser Nelson and Andrew Neil "furious" with her.
So we're now back to Melanie Phillips' blog entry, where she writes, "For legal reasons, I cannot go into the details."
The legal reasons appear to be (further) threats of legal action, but Melanie Phillips has rejected the premise of the apology. And CiF Watch says Phillips made "no such" allegation regarding threats from Alastair Crooke.
Well, we know that Alastair Crooke's collaborating with terrorist organizations, and as Melanie Phillips was writing about it, my sense is that someone made threats, and since this controversy involves people at the highest levels of British power, clearly some pro-jihadists had strong incentive to destroy Melanie Phillips. And what's more fascinating is that so called right-wing outlets are simply crippling under threats and apparent litigation. Indeed, Mehdi Hasan can't contain his glee:
Blinded by their monomaniacal obsession with Islamists under every British bed, members of the UK media's neoconservative faction have been the subject of other (successful) legal complaints and libel actions in recent years.
These legal complaints look sketchy, "successful" or not, given all that we know about Alastair Crooke. Clearly, if Melanie Phillips was speaking truth to power her own health and livelihood became increasingly at risk. And this is something I've been writing about quite a bit, since Scott Eric Kaufman and Carl Salonen launched campaigns of workplace intimidation against me, including libelously false allegations of sexual harassment, with potentially very damaging personal consequences, simply for speaking truth to their evil deeds. And while I'm not an author of such prominence as Melanie Phillips, some allegations against me have gone all the way to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat. So the similarity is to the lengths at which progressives will go to literally destroy those who speak the truth. Remember, for radical leftists and jihad enablers, "truth is the new hate speech." And I want to remind people of my report on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who announced on Canadian television:
The thing is, you don't care about freedom of speech until you've lost it. But I'm here to tell you that I will never, ever give up the fight for freedom of speech.
Neither will I.
Posted by Donald Douglas
She has two announcements, "Why I left the Spectator," and "My blog's new home."
There's very little written regarding an explanation why, although Phillips writes: "Those interested to learn more can do so in the update on this CiF Watch post, the original quote from which led to this apology." The apology issued was to Alastair Crooke, Director of Conflicts Forum, "an international movement which engages with Islamist movements broadly ..."
Given Mr. Crooke's background, folks probably have an inkling as to what happened: Melanie blogged about Crooke, he got mad, launched legal action, harming the Spectator financially, and Melanie Phillips felt it necessary to resign. That just the line of logic, but let's see if I can piece some of this together. For one thing, reports indicate that Alastair Crooke, a former member of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency, had direct and ongoing contacts with Hamas as part of his official business at the British consulate in East Jerusalem. A 2007 blog post by Israeli Eliyahu m'Tsiyon has the details, including a quotation from Melanie Phillips which is no longer available elsewhere. And London's far-left Guardian reported on this, "UK recalls MI6 link to Palestinian militants." These are some really sinister dealings, and Phillips wrote about them. See Jihad Watch, "Melanie Phillips on Alistair Crooke." And following the links takes us to FrontPage Magazine, "Alistair Crooke's Meeting with Sheikh Yassin." I don't see the exact date of Crooke's departure from MI6, but even left-wing sources report on his deep ties to global terrorism. See Mother Jones, "The Spy Who Loved Hamas. And Hezbollah. And Iran."
Now note that the Spectator published an apology to Alastair Crooke, cited by Roy Greenslade at the Guardian:
A blog by Melanie Phillips posted on Jan 28 2011 reported an allegation that Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, had been expelled from Israel and dismissed for misconduct from Government service or the EU after threatening a journalist whose email he had unlawfully intercepted. We accept that this allegation is completely false and we apologise to Mr Crooke.
Again, I'm piecing things together, but it looks like Spectator issued the apology as part of a legal settlement, which has the New Statesman's Mehdi Hasan jumping for joy:
... was this a voluntary or enforced departure? The blogger Guido Staines beat me to it, but I can't help but notice how the Spectator has had to apologise to Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, on its website this week, after a blogpost by Phillips made "false" allegations about Crooke's past. Phillips's decision to move on might just be a coincidence but a well-connected source tells me that the payout to Crooke cost the Spectator "tens of thousands of pounds" and left Fraser Nelson and Andrew Neil "furious" with her.
So we're now back to Melanie Phillips' blog entry, where she writes, "For legal reasons, I cannot go into the details."
The legal reasons appear to be (further) threats of legal action, but Melanie Phillips has rejected the premise of the apology. And CiF Watch says Phillips made "no such" allegation regarding threats from Alastair Crooke.
Well, we know that Alastair Crooke's collaborating with terrorist organizations, and as Melanie Phillips was writing about it, my sense is that someone made threats, and since this controversy involves people at the highest levels of British power, clearly some pro-jihadists had strong incentive to destroy Melanie Phillips. And what's more fascinating is that so called right-wing outlets are simply crippling under threats and apparent litigation. Indeed, Mehdi Hasan can't contain his glee:
Blinded by their monomaniacal obsession with Islamists under every British bed, members of the UK media's neoconservative faction have been the subject of other (successful) legal complaints and libel actions in recent years.
These legal complaints look sketchy, "successful" or not, given all that we know about Alastair Crooke. Clearly, if Melanie Phillips was speaking truth to power her own health and livelihood became increasingly at risk. And this is something I've been writing about quite a bit, since Scott Eric Kaufman and Carl Salonen launched campaigns of workplace intimidation against me, including libelously false allegations of sexual harassment, with potentially very damaging personal consequences, simply for speaking truth to their evil deeds. And while I'm not an author of such prominence as Melanie Phillips, some allegations against me have gone all the way to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat. So the similarity is to the lengths at which progressives will go to literally destroy those who speak the truth. Remember, for radical leftists and jihad enablers, "truth is the new hate speech." And I want to remind people of my report on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who announced on Canadian television:
The thing is, you don't care about freedom of speech until you've lost it. But I'm here to tell you that I will never, ever give up the fight for freedom of speech.
Neither will I.
Posted by Donald Douglas
War Is in the Air
David Solway, FrontPage
When one surveys the world situation, one cannot react with anything but intense disquiet and apprehension. The premonition of imminent catastrophe cannot be shunted aside as unthinkable or as the capricious imaginings of the congenitally unstable. War is in the air, as it was in 1914 and 1939, before the actual outbreak of hostilities. And the flashpoints are instantly discernible, namely, the Middle East and the South Asian theater. The sequel appears to be pretty much inevitable.
In a certain sense, assigning blame for the coming eruption is a useless enterprise. Al-Qaeda and the Iranian Shi’ite regime are only acting in character; they are the carnivores of the current political world and cannot be expected to begin acting like herbivores. They have openly declared their intentions many times over and have given every indication of being willing to use nuclear weapons once they control or develop them. Those of us who downplay the utter fanaticism of Twelver Shi’a theology or the visceral savagery and determination of al-Qaeda—both Iran and al-Qaeda may be plausibly defined as “non-rational adversaries”—are living in the flimsiest of bubbles. Russia and China have regularly collaborated with the potential “slayers of mankind” as it is in their nature to do. The former is concerned with supply-profit, the latter with energy demands, and both with the purpose of further weakening the United States. Their lack of forethought is endemic and incurable. As for the feeble European democracies, they cannot do other than posture and appease in the face of an approaching firestorm. That is part of their genome.But if responsibility for the gathering storm is to be ascribed, it is to the United States of America, in virtue of its pre-eminent position on the global stage and of its failure, under the most dangerous and politically corrupted president in its history, to address the looming threat. For the U.S. until recently was the only nation in the world that enjoyed the power, the means, the legitimacy and the authority to avert the coming disaster, but has now abdicated that responsibility. Indeed, its conduct in the international arena has been entirely myopic and counter-productive.
Its Libyan intervention is a blatant misadventure, without a clear and sustained strategy and in violation of the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution. Its levying of sanctions against Iran is a mordant joke and has had no effect on deterring the mullahs in their quest for nuclear weapons and the development of a long-range delivery system. Its support of the misnamed Arab Spring has led to the credible prospect of an anti-American and anti-Israeli Muslim Brotherhood regime assuming power in Egypt. Its pressuring Israel to make untenable concessions to the Palestinian Authority has only hardened the latter’s negotiating position and rendered the “peace process” null and void.
The absence of a strong and effective Middle East policy has facilitated the takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah, empowered Hamas in dominating a unity government with Fatah, and permitted Turkey to drift inexorably into the Islamic orbit. And just as the U.S. had little to say about Iran’s crushing of its own people during the popular revolt of 2009, so it remains essentially mute as Syria’s Bashar Assad slaughters his own countrymen with complete impunity. After all, according to a recent statement of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Bashar Assad is a “reformer.” The comedy of terrors is literally mind-boggling.
The result of the American forfeiture of its political will, practical intelligence and moral inheritance, as it grows increasingly to resemble the political caricature that goes by the name of the European Union, is all too predictable. It means that there are only two countries in the world left to meet the Islamic nuclear menace: India, which will have to deal with Pakistan in the event that al-Qaeda gains control of the country’s nuclear capability; and Israel, which at tremendous cost to itself will have little choice but to act against a nuclearizing Iran and its terrorist proxies.
There is no point in deluding ourselves any longer or smugly dismissing apocalyptic scenarios as mere unbridled fear-mongering. War is going to break out in the Middle East, possibly later this year and almost certainly in 2012, and eventually in South Asia. There is a stark likelihood that these may be WMD wars. For if Israel is targeted by Hezbollah’s 40,000-50,000 missiles, some of which are reported to be fitted with chemical and biological payloads and which can reach every corner of the country, it may need to reply in cataclysmic kind in order to survive. Abandoned by its American ally and left to its own resources, it may quite simply have no alternative, unless it agrees to commit national suicide. Despite the promising development of the Arrow anti-ballistic missile program, neither preemption—known in customary international law as “anticipatory self-defense”—nor second-strike reprisal can be ruled out. And if the U.S.-subsidized but unreliable Pakistani regime with its estimated 70-90 nuclear warheads goes rogue, with the finger of al-Qaeda on the nuclear button, India too may have no option but to respond in the same manner.
These two potential war zones are heating up. The Japanese Sankei Shimbun newspaper reveals that North Korea dispatched 160 nuclear experts to Iran in May, and Fars News Agency reports on Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardan’s recent visit Tehran to discuss “a vast range of issues.” We can readily imagine what some of these topics will be. Between Iran and Pakistan falls the shadow.
True, the Korean peninsula is also a potential war zone, but despite the North’s aggressive rheteoric and occasional acts of belligerence, it will be restrained by China for which a peninsular war on its borders is not in its interests. North Korea’s mischief making is mainly confined to the export of its nuclear technology and expertise to Iran and Syria. The Middle East and South Asia remain the epicenters of the approaching upheavals.
There is a slight chance that we may emerge from the present inflammable circumstances if we are providentially given two gifts: more time, and a new, vigorous and wiser American administration. Otherwise, those of us who are not immediately and physically implicated would have only one hope, that the carnage stays localized. But there is no guarantee that this will be the case. And we will then have deserved whatever calamity is inflicted upon us for our blindness, self-deception, anemic leadership and languid inactivity in the face of what might have been prevented.
The writing is on the wall and it does not take a Daniel to interpret it.
Thanks Ted Belman
When one surveys the world situation, one cannot react with anything but intense disquiet and apprehension. The premonition of imminent catastrophe cannot be shunted aside as unthinkable or as the capricious imaginings of the congenitally unstable. War is in the air, as it was in 1914 and 1939, before the actual outbreak of hostilities. And the flashpoints are instantly discernible, namely, the Middle East and the South Asian theater. The sequel appears to be pretty much inevitable.
In a certain sense, assigning blame for the coming eruption is a useless enterprise. Al-Qaeda and the Iranian Shi’ite regime are only acting in character; they are the carnivores of the current political world and cannot be expected to begin acting like herbivores. They have openly declared their intentions many times over and have given every indication of being willing to use nuclear weapons once they control or develop them. Those of us who downplay the utter fanaticism of Twelver Shi’a theology or the visceral savagery and determination of al-Qaeda—both Iran and al-Qaeda may be plausibly defined as “non-rational adversaries”—are living in the flimsiest of bubbles. Russia and China have regularly collaborated with the potential “slayers of mankind” as it is in their nature to do. The former is concerned with supply-profit, the latter with energy demands, and both with the purpose of further weakening the United States. Their lack of forethought is endemic and incurable. As for the feeble European democracies, they cannot do other than posture and appease in the face of an approaching firestorm. That is part of their genome.But if responsibility for the gathering storm is to be ascribed, it is to the United States of America, in virtue of its pre-eminent position on the global stage and of its failure, under the most dangerous and politically corrupted president in its history, to address the looming threat. For the U.S. until recently was the only nation in the world that enjoyed the power, the means, the legitimacy and the authority to avert the coming disaster, but has now abdicated that responsibility. Indeed, its conduct in the international arena has been entirely myopic and counter-productive.
Its Libyan intervention is a blatant misadventure, without a clear and sustained strategy and in violation of the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution. Its levying of sanctions against Iran is a mordant joke and has had no effect on deterring the mullahs in their quest for nuclear weapons and the development of a long-range delivery system. Its support of the misnamed Arab Spring has led to the credible prospect of an anti-American and anti-Israeli Muslim Brotherhood regime assuming power in Egypt. Its pressuring Israel to make untenable concessions to the Palestinian Authority has only hardened the latter’s negotiating position and rendered the “peace process” null and void.
The absence of a strong and effective Middle East policy has facilitated the takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah, empowered Hamas in dominating a unity government with Fatah, and permitted Turkey to drift inexorably into the Islamic orbit. And just as the U.S. had little to say about Iran’s crushing of its own people during the popular revolt of 2009, so it remains essentially mute as Syria’s Bashar Assad slaughters his own countrymen with complete impunity. After all, according to a recent statement of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Bashar Assad is a “reformer.” The comedy of terrors is literally mind-boggling.
The result of the American forfeiture of its political will, practical intelligence and moral inheritance, as it grows increasingly to resemble the political caricature that goes by the name of the European Union, is all too predictable. It means that there are only two countries in the world left to meet the Islamic nuclear menace: India, which will have to deal with Pakistan in the event that al-Qaeda gains control of the country’s nuclear capability; and Israel, which at tremendous cost to itself will have little choice but to act against a nuclearizing Iran and its terrorist proxies.
There is no point in deluding ourselves any longer or smugly dismissing apocalyptic scenarios as mere unbridled fear-mongering. War is going to break out in the Middle East, possibly later this year and almost certainly in 2012, and eventually in South Asia. There is a stark likelihood that these may be WMD wars. For if Israel is targeted by Hezbollah’s 40,000-50,000 missiles, some of which are reported to be fitted with chemical and biological payloads and which can reach every corner of the country, it may need to reply in cataclysmic kind in order to survive. Abandoned by its American ally and left to its own resources, it may quite simply have no alternative, unless it agrees to commit national suicide. Despite the promising development of the Arrow anti-ballistic missile program, neither preemption—known in customary international law as “anticipatory self-defense”—nor second-strike reprisal can be ruled out. And if the U.S.-subsidized but unreliable Pakistani regime with its estimated 70-90 nuclear warheads goes rogue, with the finger of al-Qaeda on the nuclear button, India too may have no option but to respond in the same manner.
These two potential war zones are heating up. The Japanese Sankei Shimbun newspaper reveals that North Korea dispatched 160 nuclear experts to Iran in May, and Fars News Agency reports on Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardan’s recent visit Tehran to discuss “a vast range of issues.” We can readily imagine what some of these topics will be. Between Iran and Pakistan falls the shadow.
True, the Korean peninsula is also a potential war zone, but despite the North’s aggressive rheteoric and occasional acts of belligerence, it will be restrained by China for which a peninsular war on its borders is not in its interests. North Korea’s mischief making is mainly confined to the export of its nuclear technology and expertise to Iran and Syria. The Middle East and South Asia remain the epicenters of the approaching upheavals.
There is a slight chance that we may emerge from the present inflammable circumstances if we are providentially given two gifts: more time, and a new, vigorous and wiser American administration. Otherwise, those of us who are not immediately and physically implicated would have only one hope, that the carnage stays localized. But there is no guarantee that this will be the case. And we will then have deserved whatever calamity is inflicted upon us for our blindness, self-deception, anemic leadership and languid inactivity in the face of what might have been prevented.
The writing is on the wall and it does not take a Daniel to interpret it.
Thanks Ted Belman
Moonbat Dutch reporter can't stomach Flotidiots
Elder of Ziyon
An eye-opening report from a Radio Netherlands reporter who really, really wanted to cover the Dutch contingent of the flotilla, but was turned off by their refusal to share any information.
I had been planning for the past three months to sail with the activists and report on their journey. But over the past week that I spent in Greece, I lost all faith in the Dutch Gaza Foundation which is responsible for the Dutch boat.
Things started going wrong from the very beginning. During our first meeting on the Greek island of Corfu, we received the usual latest updates, and then one of the organisers informed us that one of the Dutch journalists had leaked secret information to the most popular Dutch daily about the mission. She was furious: No one is as open as the Free Gaza Foundation, she proclaimed indignantly. But I have worked as a journalist for the past 25 years, and never have I experienced such a closed organisation.
After this welcoming message, she explained the ground rules to us. There were many, many non-negotiables. "If you don't accept this, you can't come along." I wanted to make a video report, filming the two days of obligatory training sessions to convey a sense of how the activists were preparing for the mission. But the organisation declared numerous sessions off-limits. I and the other Dutch journalists present explained that we needed this footage to do our work. But she wouldn't have it. "I have worked with CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC, and no one has been as demanding as you Dutch reporters."
Eventually there was a hand count and the activists voted us out of those sessions. We journalists all felt that a schism had been created for no reason. We also began to lose faith and trust in the organisation, both essential ingredients when undertaking such a risky trip.
I expressed an interest in joining the mission earlier this year when I heard that the Dutch were going to send their own vessel to Gaza for the first time. There would be over 30 participants, including prominent members of Dutch society. An Italian delegation with 20 people would also take part.
I then attended meeting after meeting in various cities in Holland. I had to be screened because - I was told - there were so many people wanting to travel to Gaza. When the organisers called to say I had passed the screening and been chosen as one of the select group of people who would set sail, I felt obliged to express my joy.
Now, back in the Netherlands, over three months later, I feel deceived. There never was a "select group". There were no prominent Dutch figures interested in joining Freedom Flotilla 2. Instead of 32 people from the Netherlands, the organisation managed to assemble just eight activists and four journalists. Yesterday [Monday], two more journalists decided to jump ship before the boat even left the port of Corfu.
Since day one, journalists, including myself, asked questions about the Dutch organisation and the boat, for example about the funding. Even simple questions about the ship's power supply for me to hook up my satellite transmitter. The answer was consistently: "I'll get back to you about that" or "we don't know". I'm still waiting for answers.
Yesterday morning I had a final meeting with the participants. I told the activists that given everything that had happened, they shouldn’t trust the organisation leading this mission. But all of them insisted the cause is too important to abandon. "We are going to break the siege and help the people of Gaza."
Good luck and bon voyage.
From the entire article it can be seen that the reporter was very sympathetic to Gazans and really wanted to help give his anti-Israel spin. But the Free Gaza members in the Netherlands were simply too hard to deal with.
The question is - did CNN, the BBC and other news organizations cave to flotidiot demands?
An eye-opening report from a Radio Netherlands reporter who really, really wanted to cover the Dutch contingent of the flotilla, but was turned off by their refusal to share any information.
I had been planning for the past three months to sail with the activists and report on their journey. But over the past week that I spent in Greece, I lost all faith in the Dutch Gaza Foundation which is responsible for the Dutch boat.
Things started going wrong from the very beginning. During our first meeting on the Greek island of Corfu, we received the usual latest updates, and then one of the organisers informed us that one of the Dutch journalists had leaked secret information to the most popular Dutch daily about the mission. She was furious: No one is as open as the Free Gaza Foundation, she proclaimed indignantly. But I have worked as a journalist for the past 25 years, and never have I experienced such a closed organisation.
After this welcoming message, she explained the ground rules to us. There were many, many non-negotiables. "If you don't accept this, you can't come along." I wanted to make a video report, filming the two days of obligatory training sessions to convey a sense of how the activists were preparing for the mission. But the organisation declared numerous sessions off-limits. I and the other Dutch journalists present explained that we needed this footage to do our work. But she wouldn't have it. "I have worked with CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC, and no one has been as demanding as you Dutch reporters."
Eventually there was a hand count and the activists voted us out of those sessions. We journalists all felt that a schism had been created for no reason. We also began to lose faith and trust in the organisation, both essential ingredients when undertaking such a risky trip.
I expressed an interest in joining the mission earlier this year when I heard that the Dutch were going to send their own vessel to Gaza for the first time. There would be over 30 participants, including prominent members of Dutch society. An Italian delegation with 20 people would also take part.
I then attended meeting after meeting in various cities in Holland. I had to be screened because - I was told - there were so many people wanting to travel to Gaza. When the organisers called to say I had passed the screening and been chosen as one of the select group of people who would set sail, I felt obliged to express my joy.
Now, back in the Netherlands, over three months later, I feel deceived. There never was a "select group". There were no prominent Dutch figures interested in joining Freedom Flotilla 2. Instead of 32 people from the Netherlands, the organisation managed to assemble just eight activists and four journalists. Yesterday [Monday], two more journalists decided to jump ship before the boat even left the port of Corfu.
Since day one, journalists, including myself, asked questions about the Dutch organisation and the boat, for example about the funding. Even simple questions about the ship's power supply for me to hook up my satellite transmitter. The answer was consistently: "I'll get back to you about that" or "we don't know". I'm still waiting for answers.
Yesterday morning I had a final meeting with the participants. I told the activists that given everything that had happened, they shouldn’t trust the organisation leading this mission. But all of them insisted the cause is too important to abandon. "We are going to break the siege and help the people of Gaza."
Good luck and bon voyage.
From the entire article it can be seen that the reporter was very sympathetic to Gazans and really wanted to help give his anti-Israel spin. But the Free Gaza members in the Netherlands were simply too hard to deal with.
The question is - did CNN, the BBC and other news organizations cave to flotidiot demands?
Mad Media and Jewish Dogs
Daniel Greenfield
Last week the BBC reported that a Jewish court in Jerusalem had ordered a dog be stoned to death. Shortly thereafter they modified the story slightly to say that the court had actually called animal control to have it taken away to the pound. As stories go, this is obviously a dog of another color. There is no word on whether the dog was sent off to keep company with the GPS Shark, that Egyptian media claimed had been trained by Israel to attack swimmers. But it wouldn't surprise me at all. Those Zionists are capable of anything.
There is a religion that has it out for dogs. Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam, ordered the killing of dogs because in his theology, an angel will not enter a house with a dog in it. Apparently they also prevent angels from entering taxis, because Muslim cabbies are leaving blind passengers stranded by their refusal to carry seeing eye dogs. It's a pity that so many angels are in need of a ride, that in London and Minneapolis, the blind are having trouble getting a cab.But then the Islamic religion is such an elevated thing that its sanctity is so easily broken. As Old Mo is quoted as saying in a Hadith, "When one of you prays...a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer... if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw". Those of us who happen to be Jews, women or amateur Magians can take comfort in knowing that the next time a suicide bomber cries "Allah Akbar", we can cut off his transmission to his deity by the simple expedient of stepping in front of him.
Not that the media will touch the subject. There are dogs you stone and dogs you carefully avoid. Jewish dogs get stoned. Muslim dogs get a wide berth from the press.
In the New York Times, the repulsive Ethan Bronner finally got around to conceding that conditions in Gaza may be slightly better than previously advertised. Naturally the Times ran the piece, which begins with the construction of two luxury hotels, thousands of homes and a second shopping mall, under the headline, 'Building Boom in Gaza’s Ruins Belies Misery That Remains'.
For optimists the glass is half-full. For the New York Times, the glass is half-empty and it's Israel's fault. Sure luxury hotels may be going up and shopping malls may be playing Islamic approved elevator music-- but somewhere in Mudville, Gaza, there's bound to be misery, and count on Bronner and the New York Times to find it and bring it to you.
Sure entire Libyan dealerships worth of looted cars have been shipped to Gaza, by way of the new Egyptian democracy, and there are BMW's riding down the street, but the Times sadly quotes, “For the vast majority in Gaza, things are not improving."
Sadly this time around the Times was not able to find this vast majority. Perhaps they're off hanging out with the vast majority of Muslim moderates who abhor terrorism, approve of feminism and want to live in peace with the rest of the world. Or maybe they're trapped incommunicado in Gitmo. You never know.
Still the Times concludes, “Most people in Gaza remain forgotten.” How they can possibly be forgotten when every newspaper in the civilized world won't stop reporting on them? The Sudanese are forgotten. The West Paupans suffering under the brutal occupation of Obama's favorite Muslim democracy are forgotten. So are the Greek Cypriots. But then those groups are meant to be forgotten. The Gazans suffering with their BMW's and luxury malls are never out of sight long enough to be forgotten.
We are meant to forget the victims of Muslim terror, but a Muslim who gets a hangnail can expect a nationwide media profile and then a chance to testify in congress about Islamophobic nail clippers.
And the Gazans with their second story homes and luxury sedans who elected a terrorist regime with a theology so backward it makes voodoo look progressive, are the beneficiaries of so much international aid it would choke a camel. And on top of that they can expect a flotilla of Western leftists to steam to their aid with their thong sandals and fierce devotion to the right of oppressed Islamists to kill people they find religiously offensive without suffering any consequences for it.
The Terroristinian Muslim gangs who call themselves Palestinians are the unwanted houseguest on the couch of the world. They came, they crashed, then they refused to leave. With an entire UN agency dedicated to their welfare, billions in aid money and a media presence rivaling most rock stars-- the 50,000th Times article on them warns us once again that they remain forgotten.
Good Lord! Forgotten? How they can ever be forgotten when they never go away. When they never stop begging for handouts and killing people at the same time. When they suck in money and blood in equal proportions, and then invite photographers down to see the babies that they killed and then dug up for the cameras. Witness our suffering, but try not to take any pictures of us driving away in our BMW's to our newest hotel, La Plaza De Fraude.
Now the media is outraged because Israel has threatened reporters who hitch a ride on the flotilla to beautiful Hamastan with a ten year ban from covering the country. The Foreign Press Associated took a pinch of snuff, screwed in its best monocle and huffed that this, "sends a chilling message to the international media and raises serious questions about Israel's commitment to freedom of the press." As if being allowed to collaborate with terrorists, incite riots, fake photographs and lie, lie and then lie some more-- did not conclusively prove Israel's commitment to freedom of the press.
"Journalists covering a legitimate news event should be allowed to do their jobs without threats and intimidation," says the FPA. But it's only a news event because they're covering it. If they didn't cover it, it wouldn't even be taking place. The media creates news events through its coverage and then demands the right to cover the stories they manufacture. The flotilla is a step up from paying Muslim kids to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, another 'legitimate news event", but it's not much of a step up.
Should reporters be allowed to try and illegally enter a country to aid terrorists under the guise of news coverage? Why not try and do it to Turkey. Because the Turks wouldn't just threaten a ten year ban. They would hand out a ten year jail sentence. So would the Russians, the Chinese or the Iranians. All of whom get better coverage than Israel does.
If Israel had any sense, it would have given Ethan Bronner, Karl Vick and the rest of the gang the boot, and let them compose their hate-filled scrawls from a hotel on Fifth Avenue. It wouldn't have made any difference in their writing. Seymour Hersh has been writing as a fictional novelist for the New Yorker for some time, while David Remnick pretends not to notice. And that portion of the reading public which still listens to NPR, finds New Yorker cartoons funny, and thinks CNN is too Pro-Israel could enjoy the latest Jewish Court Bites Dog story at half price.
Meanwhile the world's diplomats scurry around looking for a solution. At least in 1942, it was only one European country desperately seeking a solution to the Jewish problem. Now all of them are. With a worldwide economic crisis, revolutions tearing apart the Arab Muslim world like tissue paper, and two dozen pop stars headed to rehab in a convoy at the same time-- the top issue on the agenda is how to go about creating a Palestinian state.
My suggestion is that a Palestinian state should be created the same way the Palestinian people were. By simply pretending it exists and then doing nothing to prove it. If it worked for manufacturing a Palestinian nationality, why not a state. Why not a planet or a galaxy. No one is using Mars are they? Or Europe. The EU has been generous enough to create a Pakistanian state in London, a Morrocanian state in Paris and a Turkistanian state in Berlin, why not share it with the Palestinians?
"A Palestinian state? Certainly it exists. Somewhere around Tower Hamlets I believe, or is it Foggy Bottom? Maybe Strasbourg Saint-Denis? Take your pick and pick your take. Its borders are currently the North Sea and that street in Berlin with all the Halal shops with dirty windows."
And if that won't do, why not the New York Times building? At a spacious 52 stories and 80,000 square feet, there's room enough for a Palestinian state. And what about the BBC's Broadcasting House, or the Reuters Buildings or the New Yorker headquarters conveniently adjacent to Ground Zero. The media business isn't what it used to be, and it would probably be cheaper for the UNRWA to rent out floors for a Palestinian state in the skyscrapers of media companies.
This solution would give both sides what they want most. The media would be directly in touch with the key suppliers of 90 percent of their international coverage. "No need to send Allan or Laura on a jet to Israel to pick up a quote on Israeli oppression. Just take an elevator downstairs to Hamas HQ and try not to get stoned on the way back." And the Muslim terrorist gangs would get access to skyscrapers made out of glass, and also the aid agencies and media that keep their homicidal cause alive and rolling in money.
So why wait, when creating a Palestinian state is so easy. Raise up the red, black, green and white over the Times Building, sing Fidai at dusk and let the UN ratify the new merger of the New York Times and the Palestinian Authority. The media would be eligible for international aid and Hamas could finally win a much deserved Pulitzer.
Egyptian school curriculum: Jews and Christians are infidels
Shiny red sports cars, construction boom and crowded cafes. New York Times reporter Ethan Bronner visits Gaza Strip, discovers that despite Hamas rule, people still live in relative freedom
Moshe Ronen
Published: 06.29.2011
When New York Times' Ethan Bronner came through the Erez crossing into the Gaza Strip this week, he expected something completely different.
This was not his first visit to the Strip. During the past three and a half years, Bronner, who heads the newspaper's Jerusalem bureau, visited the Palestinian enclave on several occasions.
During Operation Cast Lead he stayed in Gaza for two weeks and his visits usually last more than a day, as the border crossing closes at 3 pm. Like other journalists who do not carry Israeli passports – Bronner, who received the Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for a series of investigative reports about terrorist organization al-Qaeda – has no trouble getting into the Strip. The Erez Crossing is open six days a week and no one gave him a hard time.
With the spotlight diverted from Gaza in recent months, Bronner found himself travelling to other destinations. He spent a long time in Egypt and went to Bahrain to cover the uprisings in the Arab world.
When he arrived in Gaza this week, Bronner wrote, he was surprised to discover that on the eve of the second Gaza-bound aid flotilla – conditions in the Strip were much better than he had expected.
Shortage in four-wheel drive cars
The first thing that caught Bronner's attention were the "thousands of new cars plying the roads." Israel allows the import of a 20 cars a week, but according to the New York Times reporter, "That does not meet the need.
"Hundreds of BMWs, pickup trucks and other vehicles have arrived in recent months from Libya, driven through Egypt and sold via the unmonitored tunnels," he said.
Gaza resident Yossef Nazal noted that "even red sports cars can be seen roaming around the Strip, not to mention motorcycles, especially three-wheeled motorcycles, which have become the latest fashion."
It turns out that unlike three or four years ago, when people speak about shortage, they don’t mean herbs, but rather four-wheel vehicles – one of the few items Israel does not allow into the Strip.
But cars are not the only indicator that things are better than they used to be. In his article, Bronner noted that "two luxury hotels are opening in Gaza this month," one of which is owned by Palestinian billionaire Munib al Masri.
"A second shopping mall — with escalators imported from Israel — will open next month," he writes, adding that "Hundreds of homes and two dozen schools" are also scheduled to be built in the upcoming year, in addition to a three-story wedding hall.
Omar Ghraib, a blogger from Gaza, writes that in order to comprehend the change that has been taking place in the Strip, it's enough to look at the butcher stalls in the market.
Local Gazans can buy Egyptian poultry, which is smuggled through the tunnels, for $1 per kilo, but most of them fear diseases and therefore opt for Israeli chickens, which are sold for $1-$2 per kilo or the more prestigious home-grown poultry, which are sold for $2-$3 per kilo.
In his article, Bronner confirms that most consumer goods still originate in Israel, and that “the siege on goods is now 60% to 70% over.”
Some 350 trucks are allowed to pass through the Kerem Shalom Crossing, which has become the main transit hub for goods originating from Israel. However in practice, the number only reaches 250 because of one simple, yet surprising reason – there isn’t enough demand.
Import-export business
As part of the rise in living standards, Gaza merchants focus on importing more luxury goods such as tropical fish, bicycles, camping gear and plasma TVs, which come straight from Israel.
Once a week, some 70 Gaza traders travel to Israel to look for potential merchandise to import.
Even the export market, albeit still in small quantities, has boomed recently with strawberries, flowers, potatoes and cherry tomatoes being sold to Jordan and the Persian Gulf states. Gaza tradesmen now plan to resume exports of Furniture and textiles to the West Bank, as was done four years ago.
Despite the encouraging picture, Bronner notes that Israel still bans cement, steel and other construction material from entering the Strip "because they are worried that such supplies can be used by Hamas for bunkers and bombs.
"So in recent months, tunnels under the southern border that were used to bring in consumer goods have become almost fully devoted to smuggling in building materials," Bronner explains.
"Sacks of cement and piles of gravel, Turkish in origin and bought legally in Egypt, are smuggled through the hundreds of tunnels in double shifts, day and night, totaling some 3,000 tons a day. Since the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian security authorities no longer stop the smugglers. Streets are being paved and buildings constructed," he notes.
"What we don’t get from Israel, we get through the tunnels, says Daud Harb, a merchant from the Strip, adding that the only thing currently missing in Gaza is freedom.
'Relative freedom if Hamas not provoked'
The Gazan summer is in full swing and the beaches, just like in Tel Aviv, are swarming with bathers. Families with children and hijab-clad women dip into the cool waters of the Mediterranean Sea.
On the warm evenings, people sit at coffee shops and internet cafes that are becoming abundant. One hand grasps the water-pipe while the other is typing status updates on Facebook. In the background, large screens are broadcasting live soccer matches from the English and Spanish Leagues.
The summer is also the official wedding season in Gaza, but young couples will have to wait another two weeks due to a ban imposed by Hamas, in order to prevent noise during high school matriculation exams.
For the same reason motorcyclists are not allowed to roam through the streets past 10 pm.
After all, Gaza 2011 is Hamas-ruled. The society has become more conservative, mosques have increased in number, Islamic education is fervently applied to daily life both formally and informally, and almost all media outlets have an Islamic nature.
"Sure, we have some crazy laws, like women can't drive motorcycles, sing provocative songs, giggle on the beach or smoke water pipes in public areas," says Ahmed Nazal, a resident of Rimal neighborhood, the Gazan equivalent of Ramat Aviv.
"But if you don’t provoke Hamas, you can live here pretty freely," he adds.
Bronner also notes that "Hamas’s control of Gaza appears firmer than ever, and the looser tunnel patrols in Egypt mean greater access to weapons as well. But opinion surveys show that its more secular rival, Fatah, is more popular."
This, the Jerusalem bureau chief notes, "may explain why an attempt at political unity with Fatah is moving slowly: Hamas leaders here are likely to lose their jobs."
Despite the improved image, Gaza is a far cry from being the Manhattan of the Middle East. While the economy did report a 15.2$ growth according to the International Monetary Fund, Ghraib notes that thousands of houses that were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead have yet to be rebuilt.
Frequent blackouts are also not an unusual phenomenon, some of them lasting between 6 and 8 hours daily.
Bronner finds it difficult to assess the condition of the 1.6 million people living in the Gaza Strip.
"There are issues of where to draw the baseline and — often — what motivates the discussion. It has never been among the world’s poorest places. There is near universal literacy and relatively low infant mortality, and health conditions remain better than across much of the developing world," he notes.
Either way, the low emigration rates from Gaza indicate that despite the hardships, the congestion and the feeling of living under a siege, the locals still love Gaza and are willing to struggle in order to stay there.
Moshe Ronen
Published: 06.29.2011
When New York Times' Ethan Bronner came through the Erez crossing into the Gaza Strip this week, he expected something completely different.
This was not his first visit to the Strip. During the past three and a half years, Bronner, who heads the newspaper's Jerusalem bureau, visited the Palestinian enclave on several occasions.
During Operation Cast Lead he stayed in Gaza for two weeks and his visits usually last more than a day, as the border crossing closes at 3 pm. Like other journalists who do not carry Israeli passports – Bronner, who received the Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for a series of investigative reports about terrorist organization al-Qaeda – has no trouble getting into the Strip. The Erez Crossing is open six days a week and no one gave him a hard time.
With the spotlight diverted from Gaza in recent months, Bronner found himself travelling to other destinations. He spent a long time in Egypt and went to Bahrain to cover the uprisings in the Arab world.
When he arrived in Gaza this week, Bronner wrote, he was surprised to discover that on the eve of the second Gaza-bound aid flotilla – conditions in the Strip were much better than he had expected.
Shortage in four-wheel drive cars
The first thing that caught Bronner's attention were the "thousands of new cars plying the roads." Israel allows the import of a 20 cars a week, but according to the New York Times reporter, "That does not meet the need.
"Hundreds of BMWs, pickup trucks and other vehicles have arrived in recent months from Libya, driven through Egypt and sold via the unmonitored tunnels," he said.
Gaza resident Yossef Nazal noted that "even red sports cars can be seen roaming around the Strip, not to mention motorcycles, especially three-wheeled motorcycles, which have become the latest fashion."
It turns out that unlike three or four years ago, when people speak about shortage, they don’t mean herbs, but rather four-wheel vehicles – one of the few items Israel does not allow into the Strip.
But cars are not the only indicator that things are better than they used to be. In his article, Bronner noted that "two luxury hotels are opening in Gaza this month," one of which is owned by Palestinian billionaire Munib al Masri.
"A second shopping mall — with escalators imported from Israel — will open next month," he writes, adding that "Hundreds of homes and two dozen schools" are also scheduled to be built in the upcoming year, in addition to a three-story wedding hall.
Omar Ghraib, a blogger from Gaza, writes that in order to comprehend the change that has been taking place in the Strip, it's enough to look at the butcher stalls in the market.
Local Gazans can buy Egyptian poultry, which is smuggled through the tunnels, for $1 per kilo, but most of them fear diseases and therefore opt for Israeli chickens, which are sold for $1-$2 per kilo or the more prestigious home-grown poultry, which are sold for $2-$3 per kilo.
In his article, Bronner confirms that most consumer goods still originate in Israel, and that “the siege on goods is now 60% to 70% over.”
Some 350 trucks are allowed to pass through the Kerem Shalom Crossing, which has become the main transit hub for goods originating from Israel. However in practice, the number only reaches 250 because of one simple, yet surprising reason – there isn’t enough demand.
Import-export business
As part of the rise in living standards, Gaza merchants focus on importing more luxury goods such as tropical fish, bicycles, camping gear and plasma TVs, which come straight from Israel.
Once a week, some 70 Gaza traders travel to Israel to look for potential merchandise to import.
Even the export market, albeit still in small quantities, has boomed recently with strawberries, flowers, potatoes and cherry tomatoes being sold to Jordan and the Persian Gulf states. Gaza tradesmen now plan to resume exports of Furniture and textiles to the West Bank, as was done four years ago.
Despite the encouraging picture, Bronner notes that Israel still bans cement, steel and other construction material from entering the Strip "because they are worried that such supplies can be used by Hamas for bunkers and bombs.
"So in recent months, tunnels under the southern border that were used to bring in consumer goods have become almost fully devoted to smuggling in building materials," Bronner explains.
"Sacks of cement and piles of gravel, Turkish in origin and bought legally in Egypt, are smuggled through the hundreds of tunnels in double shifts, day and night, totaling some 3,000 tons a day. Since the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian security authorities no longer stop the smugglers. Streets are being paved and buildings constructed," he notes.
"What we don’t get from Israel, we get through the tunnels, says Daud Harb, a merchant from the Strip, adding that the only thing currently missing in Gaza is freedom.
'Relative freedom if Hamas not provoked'
The Gazan summer is in full swing and the beaches, just like in Tel Aviv, are swarming with bathers. Families with children and hijab-clad women dip into the cool waters of the Mediterranean Sea.
On the warm evenings, people sit at coffee shops and internet cafes that are becoming abundant. One hand grasps the water-pipe while the other is typing status updates on Facebook. In the background, large screens are broadcasting live soccer matches from the English and Spanish Leagues.
The summer is also the official wedding season in Gaza, but young couples will have to wait another two weeks due to a ban imposed by Hamas, in order to prevent noise during high school matriculation exams.
For the same reason motorcyclists are not allowed to roam through the streets past 10 pm.
After all, Gaza 2011 is Hamas-ruled. The society has become more conservative, mosques have increased in number, Islamic education is fervently applied to daily life both formally and informally, and almost all media outlets have an Islamic nature.
"Sure, we have some crazy laws, like women can't drive motorcycles, sing provocative songs, giggle on the beach or smoke water pipes in public areas," says Ahmed Nazal, a resident of Rimal neighborhood, the Gazan equivalent of Ramat Aviv.
"But if you don’t provoke Hamas, you can live here pretty freely," he adds.
Bronner also notes that "Hamas’s control of Gaza appears firmer than ever, and the looser tunnel patrols in Egypt mean greater access to weapons as well. But opinion surveys show that its more secular rival, Fatah, is more popular."
This, the Jerusalem bureau chief notes, "may explain why an attempt at political unity with Fatah is moving slowly: Hamas leaders here are likely to lose their jobs."
Despite the improved image, Gaza is a far cry from being the Manhattan of the Middle East. While the economy did report a 15.2$ growth according to the International Monetary Fund, Ghraib notes that thousands of houses that were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead have yet to be rebuilt.
Frequent blackouts are also not an unusual phenomenon, some of them lasting between 6 and 8 hours daily.
Bronner finds it difficult to assess the condition of the 1.6 million people living in the Gaza Strip.
"There are issues of where to draw the baseline and — often — what motivates the discussion. It has never been among the world’s poorest places. There is near universal literacy and relatively low infant mortality, and health conditions remain better than across much of the developing world," he notes.
Either way, the low emigration rates from Gaza indicate that despite the hardships, the congestion and the feeling of living under a siege, the locals still love Gaza and are willing to struggle in order to stay there.
Islam equals hypocrisy par excellence
Jihad Watch
Muslims here in Malaysia and elsewhere love to prattle on about how warlike the 'infidels' are, especially America or anyone that can be portrayed as one of America's friends. When former British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Malaysia in 2010, a op-ed in a Malaysian government-controlled newspaper, The Star, excoriated him, stating in this piece that "Malaysia must not allow this mass murderer to be immune from justice." So said the author of this piece, one "Professor" Shad Saleem Farudi. OK, I get it -- America is evil and so is anyone that cooperates with America. Meanwhile, Muslims who are actually engaged in ongoing mass murder of the worse sort imaginable -- bombings and shootings of Muslims praying at mosques, bombings of Muslims in hospitals who are being patched back together from said bombings, bombings of Muslims who are attending funerals of other bombing/shooting victims -- this merits, at most, only a passing mention in the the Muslim media. Actually, such barbarisms are usually not mentioned at all, not in what passes as the 'Malaysian media'. Not even a hint of condemnation is to be heard.
The Taliban monsters, unnoticed and uncondemned by any Muslim or Muslim group, continue to outdo themselves in sheer depravity. Yesterday came the news that the jihadists tricked an 8 year-old girl to be a suicide bomber. Well, 'War is deceit', as Islam's 'prophet' is alleged to have said. And 'War is hell' as one American general once said. But how many Malaysians are going to get themselves worked up over this, like they get worked up over cartoons or Israeli operations against Hamas? What a silly question to ask.
As for Tony Blair, he stands accused by many Muslims and Muslim groups as being a 'war criminal' and for committing 'crimes against humanity', while Saddam Hussein (may he rot in hell) is never similarly accused in the Muslim media, despite the millions of Muslims he killed, tortured, gassed, and murdered. Yes, Saddam is mercifully dead, thanks to the efforts of alleged 'war criminal' Tony Blair and others, but the authors of the real war crimes described above, the Taliban, are quite alive and well. And still, their enormous crimes are at best ignored, and perhaps tacitly accepted, by Malaysians of all stripes, both inside and outside the government and media.
Malaysia and its people studiously do nothing to fight against those who wantonly murder civilians, including women and children, in schools, mosques, or hospitals. Malaysia cares not a whit if Muslims use 8-year olds for suicide attacks. And why? Because this means Malaysia would be openly seen to be helping Americans fight Muslims, you see. Meanwhile, the aforementioned self-righteous 'Professor' Shad Saleem Farudi of course cannot even be bothered to write a perfunctory letter to the editor to speak ill of his fellow co-religionists, the Taliban, or of their many real war crimes. Only infidels commit crimes against humanity, never Muslims. Never mind the facts. And when reality gets in the way, well, you just invent your own reality, like Mr. Farudi and his fellow Mohammedans have done.
All of this has made one thing loud and clear to me. To be a Muslim means to be a hypocrite par excellence.
Muslims here in Malaysia and elsewhere love to prattle on about how warlike the 'infidels' are, especially America or anyone that can be portrayed as one of America's friends. When former British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Malaysia in 2010, a op-ed in a Malaysian government-controlled newspaper, The Star, excoriated him, stating in this piece that "Malaysia must not allow this mass murderer to be immune from justice." So said the author of this piece, one "Professor" Shad Saleem Farudi. OK, I get it -- America is evil and so is anyone that cooperates with America. Meanwhile, Muslims who are actually engaged in ongoing mass murder of the worse sort imaginable -- bombings and shootings of Muslims praying at mosques, bombings of Muslims in hospitals who are being patched back together from said bombings, bombings of Muslims who are attending funerals of other bombing/shooting victims -- this merits, at most, only a passing mention in the the Muslim media. Actually, such barbarisms are usually not mentioned at all, not in what passes as the 'Malaysian media'. Not even a hint of condemnation is to be heard.
The Taliban monsters, unnoticed and uncondemned by any Muslim or Muslim group, continue to outdo themselves in sheer depravity. Yesterday came the news that the jihadists tricked an 8 year-old girl to be a suicide bomber. Well, 'War is deceit', as Islam's 'prophet' is alleged to have said. And 'War is hell' as one American general once said. But how many Malaysians are going to get themselves worked up over this, like they get worked up over cartoons or Israeli operations against Hamas? What a silly question to ask.
As for Tony Blair, he stands accused by many Muslims and Muslim groups as being a 'war criminal' and for committing 'crimes against humanity', while Saddam Hussein (may he rot in hell) is never similarly accused in the Muslim media, despite the millions of Muslims he killed, tortured, gassed, and murdered. Yes, Saddam is mercifully dead, thanks to the efforts of alleged 'war criminal' Tony Blair and others, but the authors of the real war crimes described above, the Taliban, are quite alive and well. And still, their enormous crimes are at best ignored, and perhaps tacitly accepted, by Malaysians of all stripes, both inside and outside the government and media.
Malaysia and its people studiously do nothing to fight against those who wantonly murder civilians, including women and children, in schools, mosques, or hospitals. Malaysia cares not a whit if Muslims use 8-year olds for suicide attacks. And why? Because this means Malaysia would be openly seen to be helping Americans fight Muslims, you see. Meanwhile, the aforementioned self-righteous 'Professor' Shad Saleem Farudi of course cannot even be bothered to write a perfunctory letter to the editor to speak ill of his fellow co-religionists, the Taliban, or of their many real war crimes. Only infidels commit crimes against humanity, never Muslims. Never mind the facts. And when reality gets in the way, well, you just invent your own reality, like Mr. Farudi and his fellow Mohammedans have done.
All of this has made one thing loud and clear to me. To be a Muslim means to be a hypocrite par excellence.
Iran denounces upcoming BBC2 documentary on Muhammad as attempt to "ruin Muslims' sanctity"
Jihad Watch
There may be a language barrier evident in the wording, but the supremacism and sense of entitlement come through loud and clear. The documentary's makers have already made a major effort not to offend, avoiding any visual depiction of Muhammad, but they are assured of offending someone nonetheless. In particular, in this case, if they lean too Sunni, they will offend Shi'ites; if they lean too Shi'ite, they will offend Sunnis. And if they lapse for a moment in hagiography or leave room for a shadow of doubt about Muhammad's prophetic credentials, they will offend still other viewers. James Thurber's observation applies: "You might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backward." "Iran attacks BBC for documentary series on life of prophet Muhammad," by Saeed Kamali Dehghan for the Guardian, June 28:
Iran's minister of cultural and Islamic guidance has attacked an upcoming BBC2 documentary series on the life of the founder of Islam, the prophet Muhammad, saying the "enemy" was attempting to "ruin Muslims' sanctity".
At least they left "prophet" lowercase, and not with the honorific capitalization so casually used by other news organizations.
The three-part series, The Life of Muhammad, presented by Rageh Omaar, a Somali-born British Middle East correspondent for Al Jazeera English, is scheduled to be broadcast on BBC2 in mid-July and has been drawing increasing criticism from senior figures in Iran.
The documentary makers say it seeks to "retrace the actual footsteps of the prophet" from his birthplace in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, his struggles with his prophetic role and divine revelations, his migration to Medina and establishment of the first Islamic constitution before his final return to Mecca following armed conflicts.
But the Iranian culture minister, Mohammad Hosseini, who has not seen the programme, said in an interview on Monday that he was worried about the BBC film.
Speaking to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency, he said: "The BBC's decision to make a documentary on the life of [the] prophet Muhammad seems dubious and if our suspicions are proved to be correct, we will certainly take serious action."
Hosseini added: "What the enemy is trying to do in ruining the Muslims' sanctity is definitely much more than causing us to react and unfortunately, some Islamic countries are not taking this issue seriously. One way to show objections is to express condemnation of the West over their despicable actions." [...]
The BBC has stressed that its films are "a presenter-led documentary series" which "draw on the expertise and comments from the world's leading academics and commentators on Islam."
Tariq Ramadan of St Anthony's College, Oxford, Ziauddin Sardar, a London-based scholar, Tom Holland, a historian and Princess Badiya El Hassan of the Jordanian royal family are among those who appear in the documentary, which was filmed in various locations including Saudi Arabia, Jerusalem, Syria and Jordan.
The BBC has also made clear that its series is "in line with Islamic tradition" and "it does not depict any images of the face of Muhammad, or feature dramatic reconstructions of Muhammad's life".
There may be a language barrier evident in the wording, but the supremacism and sense of entitlement come through loud and clear. The documentary's makers have already made a major effort not to offend, avoiding any visual depiction of Muhammad, but they are assured of offending someone nonetheless. In particular, in this case, if they lean too Sunni, they will offend Shi'ites; if they lean too Shi'ite, they will offend Sunnis. And if they lapse for a moment in hagiography or leave room for a shadow of doubt about Muhammad's prophetic credentials, they will offend still other viewers. James Thurber's observation applies: "You might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backward." "Iran attacks BBC for documentary series on life of prophet Muhammad," by Saeed Kamali Dehghan for the Guardian, June 28:
Iran's minister of cultural and Islamic guidance has attacked an upcoming BBC2 documentary series on the life of the founder of Islam, the prophet Muhammad, saying the "enemy" was attempting to "ruin Muslims' sanctity".
At least they left "prophet" lowercase, and not with the honorific capitalization so casually used by other news organizations.
The three-part series, The Life of Muhammad, presented by Rageh Omaar, a Somali-born British Middle East correspondent for Al Jazeera English, is scheduled to be broadcast on BBC2 in mid-July and has been drawing increasing criticism from senior figures in Iran.
The documentary makers say it seeks to "retrace the actual footsteps of the prophet" from his birthplace in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, his struggles with his prophetic role and divine revelations, his migration to Medina and establishment of the first Islamic constitution before his final return to Mecca following armed conflicts.
But the Iranian culture minister, Mohammad Hosseini, who has not seen the programme, said in an interview on Monday that he was worried about the BBC film.
Speaking to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency, he said: "The BBC's decision to make a documentary on the life of [the] prophet Muhammad seems dubious and if our suspicions are proved to be correct, we will certainly take serious action."
Hosseini added: "What the enemy is trying to do in ruining the Muslims' sanctity is definitely much more than causing us to react and unfortunately, some Islamic countries are not taking this issue seriously. One way to show objections is to express condemnation of the West over their despicable actions." [...]
The BBC has stressed that its films are "a presenter-led documentary series" which "draw on the expertise and comments from the world's leading academics and commentators on Islam."
Tariq Ramadan of St Anthony's College, Oxford, Ziauddin Sardar, a London-based scholar, Tom Holland, a historian and Princess Badiya El Hassan of the Jordanian royal family are among those who appear in the documentary, which was filmed in various locations including Saudi Arabia, Jerusalem, Syria and Jordan.
The BBC has also made clear that its series is "in line with Islamic tradition" and "it does not depict any images of the face of Muhammad, or feature dramatic reconstructions of Muhammad's life".
Israeli Defeatism In The Flesh
Yonatan Silverman
On June 24, Yossi Alpher, Colette Avital, Shlomo Gazit, and Mark Heller, published an opinion article in the pages of the New York Times entitled "Buying Into Palestinian Statehood." The instant I saw the title I said to myself that in fact the correct title for this outrageous and uncomprehending opinion article is "Buying Into Israeli Suicide." The uncomprehending and counter intuitive character of the thinking that went into this article are evident from the first paragraph. Here is the article's first sentence:
Instead of wasting time and energy trying to revive a moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the United States and European Union should take another look at the Palestinian initiative to seek U.N. recognition in September.
Why is the Israeli-Palestinian peace process moribund? Not on account of anything Israel has done or didn't do for the last two years. It is moribund because Abu Mazen, the president of the Palestinian Authority killed it in 2009.
Toward the end of 2009 the Palestinian Authority announced:
"A plan to seek unilateral statehood through a UN Security Council vote. Palestinian leaders say the US and Israel leave them with no other option".
The government of Israel rejected this Palestinian gambit. "Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a new Palestinian plan to seek unilateral statehood through a UN Security Council vote."
It seems no one ever asked the Palestinians what they meant by "Israel and the US leaving them with no other option..." But this is obviously just a meaningless pretext, typical of Palestinian diplomatic deceit.
Closing the door on bilateral negotiations and launching an aggressive worldwide diplomatic initiative for Palestinian unilateral statehood recognition in the UN was Abu Mazen's strategic choice two years ago, and the Palestinian effort is poised to bear fruit in September.
But while Alpher, Avital, Gazit and Heller are sanguine about this dramatic Palestinian move, and even see great merit in it, the fact is the Palestinian UN statehood scheme is the most hostile thing the Palestinians can do. It isn't just an absolute betrayal of the Oslo Agreement's provisions for bilateral relations between the Palestinians and Israel. The Palestinian declaration of statehood in the UN is essentially a declaration of war against Israel. It flies in the face of logic and rationality that any Israeli could see the Palestinian unilateral move for statehood in the UN as anything else whatsoever. Yoni Meltzer:
"If the "civilized world" helps bring the Palestinian plan to fruition then a very likely result of such actions will be the outbreak of war. Thus, in a world turned upside down it will be the UN, a body formed to help foster peace throughout the world, which will be directly responsible for bringing the next great Arab-Israeli war to the Middle East."
Abu Mazen deliberately and maliciously closed the door on bilateral negotiations because he decided that the best bet for the Palestinians was statehood recognition in the UN. Regardless of what Israel thinks or what Israel needs in order to resolve the Palestinian Israeli conflict. But this hubris and this betrayal will only backfire on the arrogant and uncomprehending Palestinians.
The day after the Palestinians unilaterally declare statehood in the UN it will be Israel that acts.
Foreign Minister Lieberman recently stated that Israel will void the Oslo Accords, for example. This will have the effect of gelding the brazen Palestinian Authority cold. The tactic of withholding PA tax funds has also come up.
This would have a devastating effect on its ability to function on any plane.
A proposal has also been raised in the Knesset to annex the lands in Judea and Samaria on which Jewish settlements are located. This would effectively eviscerate the Palestinian state.
The authors of Buying Into Palestinian Statehood would be well advised to climb on the bandwagon of logic, rationality and truth (not to mention Israeli patriotism) and tell PA President Mahmoud Abbas to abort the whole malicious UN statehood initiative immediately. Bilateral negotiations are the only path to a permanent settlement.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/israeli_defeatism_in_the_flesh.html at June 29, 2011 - 02:51:00 AM CDT
On June 24, Yossi Alpher, Colette Avital, Shlomo Gazit, and Mark Heller, published an opinion article in the pages of the New York Times entitled "Buying Into Palestinian Statehood." The instant I saw the title I said to myself that in fact the correct title for this outrageous and uncomprehending opinion article is "Buying Into Israeli Suicide." The uncomprehending and counter intuitive character of the thinking that went into this article are evident from the first paragraph. Here is the article's first sentence:
Instead of wasting time and energy trying to revive a moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the United States and European Union should take another look at the Palestinian initiative to seek U.N. recognition in September.
Why is the Israeli-Palestinian peace process moribund? Not on account of anything Israel has done or didn't do for the last two years. It is moribund because Abu Mazen, the president of the Palestinian Authority killed it in 2009.
Toward the end of 2009 the Palestinian Authority announced:
"A plan to seek unilateral statehood through a UN Security Council vote. Palestinian leaders say the US and Israel leave them with no other option".
The government of Israel rejected this Palestinian gambit. "Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a new Palestinian plan to seek unilateral statehood through a UN Security Council vote."
It seems no one ever asked the Palestinians what they meant by "Israel and the US leaving them with no other option..." But this is obviously just a meaningless pretext, typical of Palestinian diplomatic deceit.
Closing the door on bilateral negotiations and launching an aggressive worldwide diplomatic initiative for Palestinian unilateral statehood recognition in the UN was Abu Mazen's strategic choice two years ago, and the Palestinian effort is poised to bear fruit in September.
But while Alpher, Avital, Gazit and Heller are sanguine about this dramatic Palestinian move, and even see great merit in it, the fact is the Palestinian UN statehood scheme is the most hostile thing the Palestinians can do. It isn't just an absolute betrayal of the Oslo Agreement's provisions for bilateral relations between the Palestinians and Israel. The Palestinian declaration of statehood in the UN is essentially a declaration of war against Israel. It flies in the face of logic and rationality that any Israeli could see the Palestinian unilateral move for statehood in the UN as anything else whatsoever. Yoni Meltzer:
"If the "civilized world" helps bring the Palestinian plan to fruition then a very likely result of such actions will be the outbreak of war. Thus, in a world turned upside down it will be the UN, a body formed to help foster peace throughout the world, which will be directly responsible for bringing the next great Arab-Israeli war to the Middle East."
Abu Mazen deliberately and maliciously closed the door on bilateral negotiations because he decided that the best bet for the Palestinians was statehood recognition in the UN. Regardless of what Israel thinks or what Israel needs in order to resolve the Palestinian Israeli conflict. But this hubris and this betrayal will only backfire on the arrogant and uncomprehending Palestinians.
The day after the Palestinians unilaterally declare statehood in the UN it will be Israel that acts.
Foreign Minister Lieberman recently stated that Israel will void the Oslo Accords, for example. This will have the effect of gelding the brazen Palestinian Authority cold. The tactic of withholding PA tax funds has also come up.
This would have a devastating effect on its ability to function on any plane.
A proposal has also been raised in the Knesset to annex the lands in Judea and Samaria on which Jewish settlements are located. This would effectively eviscerate the Palestinian state.
The authors of Buying Into Palestinian Statehood would be well advised to climb on the bandwagon of logic, rationality and truth (not to mention Israeli patriotism) and tell PA President Mahmoud Abbas to abort the whole malicious UN statehood initiative immediately. Bilateral negotiations are the only path to a permanent settlement.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/israeli_defeatism_in_the_flesh.html at June 29, 2011 - 02:51:00 AM CDT
The Invisible Palestinians
Caroline Glick
Check out what's inside the July issue of Townhall Magazine!
Sunday was the first day of Sgt. Gilad Schalit’s sixth year in captivity. Schalit was kidnapped on June 26, 2006 and has been held hostage by Palestinian terrorists affiliated with Hamas in Gaza ever since.
For five years, Schalit has been held incognito. His terrorist captors have permitted him to send but one letter to his family and released but one video of Schalit over this entire period. He has been denied visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross. He was clearly emaciated in the video. Over the past five years, Hamas has engaged in periodic indirect negotiations with Israel through a German mediator and others. While their demands have varied from time to time, essentially they want Israel to release around 1,500 terrorists from its prisons in exchange for Schalit. And they want the terrorists to be released to their homes in Judea and Samaria and Gaza where they can pick up killing Jews where they left off.
And it isn’t only Hamas demanding these things. In an interview with IMRA news agency on May 25, Fatah negotiator Nabil Shaath said that the Fatah supports Hamas’s demands. Shaath explained that once the Fatah-Hamas unity government is formed Schalit will become the responsibility of the unified Palestinian Authority.
The Palestinian Authority will continue to hold Schalit hostage and demand that Israel release thousands of terrorists as ransom for his release. As he put it, “We have 7,000 political prisoners in Israel by design – taken by the Israeli authority. They have to be also freed.”
So the Palestinian leadership from Fatah and Hamas alike are unified in their view that it is perfectly acceptable to hold Schalit captive. As far as they are concerned, it is acceptable to stand in breach of international law and basic standards of humanity in order to extort Israel to free mass murderers from prison. And it is acceptable to the Palestinians for these murderers to return to their work killing as many Jews as they can get their hands on.
It is hard to think of a more despicable comment on the state of Palestinian society than their wall to wall support for the taking and holding of hostages or their desire to see mass murderers released from jail. A person could be forgiven for thinking that on the fifth anniversary of Schalit’s abduction that the media would be full of articles describing in detail the evil that is Hamas and Fatah which celebrate Schalit’s victimization and the suffering of his family.
Check out what's inside the July issue of Townhall Magazine!
Sunday was the first day of Sgt. Gilad Schalit’s sixth year in captivity. Schalit was kidnapped on June 26, 2006 and has been held hostage by Palestinian terrorists affiliated with Hamas in Gaza ever since.
For five years, Schalit has been held incognito. His terrorist captors have permitted him to send but one letter to his family and released but one video of Schalit over this entire period. He has been denied visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross. He was clearly emaciated in the video. Over the past five years, Hamas has engaged in periodic indirect negotiations with Israel through a German mediator and others. While their demands have varied from time to time, essentially they want Israel to release around 1,500 terrorists from its prisons in exchange for Schalit. And they want the terrorists to be released to their homes in Judea and Samaria and Gaza where they can pick up killing Jews where they left off.
And it isn’t only Hamas demanding these things. In an interview with IMRA news agency on May 25, Fatah negotiator Nabil Shaath said that the Fatah supports Hamas’s demands. Shaath explained that once the Fatah-Hamas unity government is formed Schalit will become the responsibility of the unified Palestinian Authority.
The Palestinian Authority will continue to hold Schalit hostage and demand that Israel release thousands of terrorists as ransom for his release. As he put it, “We have 7,000 political prisoners in Israel by design – taken by the Israeli authority. They have to be also freed.”
So the Palestinian leadership from Fatah and Hamas alike are unified in their view that it is perfectly acceptable to hold Schalit captive. As far as they are concerned, it is acceptable to stand in breach of international law and basic standards of humanity in order to extort Israel to free mass murderers from prison. And it is acceptable to the Palestinians for these murderers to return to their work killing as many Jews as they can get their hands on.
It is hard to think of a more despicable comment on the state of Palestinian society than their wall to wall support for the taking and holding of hostages or their desire to see mass murderers released from jail. A person could be forgiven for thinking that on the fifth anniversary of Schalit’s abduction that the media would be full of articles describing in detail the evil that is Hamas and Fatah which celebrate Schalit’s victimization and the suffering of his family.
Why Israel Needs to Get Serious about Treason
Steven Plaut
Israel recently passed a law that would strip Israelis of their citizenship if convicted of espionage or treason. Condemned for this by countries all over the world, almost all of whom have far harsher anti-treason laws than Israel, the Israeli law has yet to be applied to anyone. Sometimes called the “Azmi Bishara Law,” it was motivated by an Arab member of the Israeli parliament (or Knesset), Azmi Bishara, from one of the Arab fascist parties, who had openly engaged in espionage and treason, including passing on intelligence to the Hezb’Allah terrorist organization while it was firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Bishara is now in hiding and has yet to be prosecuted. The anti-Israel lobby has denounced this law as “racist,” just as it denounces everything Israel does as racist (including rescuing Haitian earthquake victims). Treason itself is left undefined under this new Israeli law, and in general it has been interpreted by the legal authorities in Israel so loosely that virtually no one has ever been prosecuted for it. Israeli law defines treason as “acts that impair the integrity of Israel” or “impair its sovereignty,” and the granting of assistance to the enemy during time of war. Based on British law, Article 99(a) of the Israeli Criminal Code states, “If a person with intent to assist an enemy in war against Israel commits an act calculated to do so, he is liable to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.” It goes without saying that no one at all has ever been sentenced to either punishment for treason in Israel. Only a few people engaged in actual espionage, and this includes nuclear spy Mordecai Vanunu and some old-time spies for the Soviet Union, have ever even been so charged with “treason.”
This Israeli law is little more than a joke. Israeli Arabs, including almost all the Arabs who sit in Israel’s Parliament, openly collaborate with the enemies of Israel, support their agendas, sometimes engaging in violence. Israeli Jewish far Leftists work against the sovereignty and integrity of their own country every day. Examples of this would include issuing calls for Israel’s destruction or support for international boycotts against Israel. No one at all has been prosecuted for any of that. The Israeli Attorney General is quite militant when it comes to prosecuting Right-wing Israeli Jews for “incitement” and “racism,” including offenders who wear politically incorrect Tee shirts or have bumper stickers on their cars that some might find in poor taste. Israeli Arabs and Jewish Leftists never go to jail for collaborating with the enemy during times of war.
It is instructive and illuminating to examine the history of what other Western democracies have done with traitors, especially during times of war. It is important to see what sorts of anti-treason laws exist elsewhere in democratic countries.
Some countries have been putting teeth into old anti-treason laws recently because of international terrorism. Britain’s Treason Act, which allowed for the prosecution of British nationals supporting the enemy in time of war, goes back to 1351. It provided for mandatory execution of traitors. Britain executed sixteen traitors under the Act during World War II. The Act was suspended in 1946 and later was repealed. However, Britain has other laws against treason, and these are still being debated well into the 21st century. Under the British Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, the punishment for treason is life imprisonment, but it had been death up until that law was passed.
Canada also has a Treason Act, where “high treason” consists of acts committed during time of war. The punishment is mandatory life imprisonment. Australian has a somewhat similar treason law. Turkey, Ireland and Brazil have Treason Acts that provide for execution of traitors, as do many Third World countries. The United States has had anti-treason laws that allow for execution of traitors, although these were seldom applied, and similar laws were once passed by some individual states. The US also has the Espionage Act of 1917. France’s law provides for life imprisonment for treason, as do Hong Kong’s, India’s, and New Zealand’s. Switzerland’s Treason Act usually provides for softer punishments, but in some cases they can go as high as life imprisonment. Modern Germany also has an anti-treason law with punishments up to life imprisonment for high treason, but that is defined as attempts to overturn the constitutional order.
Execution and life imprisonment were not the only responses of Western democracies to internal treason. In 1939 the British government under Winston Churchill passed Defence Regulation 18B. It suspended habeas corpus for Nazi sympathizers and allowed for their wholesale internment without a trial. While enemy aliens were interned under other laws, this law was used to intern British nationals. The law was used to jail pro-German citizens, including members of the pro-Nazi British Union of Fascists party, led by Oswald Mosley.
The United States passed its first law against enemy aliens and against treason in the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. It allowed for the internment of enemy aliens in time of war. It remained on the books, supplemented by the Sedition Act of 1918, an initiative of President Woodrow Wilson, which was later repealed.
Abraham Lincoln may have been the most aggressive president when it came to prosecuting and jailing traitors. He ordered the suspension of habeas corpus in 1861. He used military tribunals and declarations of martial law liberally. More than 4200 trials by military commission were conducted. “Copperheads” or Americans in the North who identified with the rebellion in the South were arrested and jailed. Other Copperheads were deported and stripped of citizenship. Some traitors were executed. 13,000 people in the North were rounded up and jailed under martial law. The Union government took action against newspapers that identified with the rebellion, closing some. Under the Confiscation Act of 1861, the private property of those accused of treason, and not only Southerners, could be seized.
Britain had historically made liberal use of internment as an instrument against the enemy, especially during the Boer Wars. After 1940 it arrested Germans, Austrians and Italians in larger numbers. The Treachery Act passed Parliament that same year and allowed for the prosecution of any alien suspected of espionage or hostile activity, and included provision for execution of foreign spies, In addition, over 7000 suspect aliens were deported, mainly to Canada and Australia. Tragically, in some cases these included non-British Jews, for fears that German spies might have infiltrated Britain while amongst them.
Canada interned 80,000 people during World War I. While the massive internment of Japanese-Americans by the United States during World War II is well known, less well known is the fact that thousands of ethnic Japanese were interned by Canada. Australia also ran internment camps, holding as many as 7000 Australians, plus thousands of aliens sent there by Britain for internment. While their numbers were much smaller than those of the interned Japanese-Americans, hundreds of Italian-Americans were interned by the US during World War II, and other restrictions were applied to Italian-Americans who were not interned. German-Americans were subject to restrictions during World War I, over 6000 were arrested and over two thousand were interned. 11,000 alien Germans were interned in the United States during World War II. Surprisingly, given the widespread pro-Nazi sentiments among some American ethnic Germans and the operations of several pro-Nazi organizations in the 1930s in the US, German–Americans were not interned during World War II, although some other countries in the Western Hemisphere did intern domestic ethnic Germans. Small numbers of ethnic Germans were evicted from sensitive coastal areas of the US. After Pearl Harbor the United States outlawed the pro-Nazi “German American Bund.”
Throughout Europe before and during World War II, the ethnic German minority populations by and large supported Nazi Germany. After the war, these Germans well expelled en masse by many of those countries as retaliation for their identification with the enemy, including from democratic Czechoslovakia. The same people today whining that Israel’s “Azmi Bishara Law” is “racist” have never had much to say about those expulsions.
The irony is that Israel’s Arab population more openly identifies with the country’s enemies than do any of those groups interned during war by Britain and the other Western democracies. Most Israeli Arabs make little attempt to hide their contempt and intense hatred for the democratic country in which they live, while rarely seeking to move to any of the 22 countries that have an Arab ethnic majority. Most (but not all) Israeli Arabs support political parties and groups openly hostile to the existence of Israel, openly supporting the genocidal terrorist groups and Moslem countries seeking Israel’s obliteration. Israeli far-leftist groups, awash in funding from hostile anti-Israel foreign governments and organizations, engage in sedition and treason during time of war, led by Israel’s tenured Far Left. None of these have been targeted for prosecution by Israel’s legal system or police.
Why not? Why can Taliban John and Jihad Jane be prosecuted in the US, while traitors in Israel enjoy immunity?
Israel, and not Israel alone, needs to start putting some teeth into anti-treason legislation and enforcement.
New! 10 Quick Flotilla Facts
10 Quick Flotilla Facts:
Flotilla Violates International Law, Supports Terrorism,
and Tries to Provoke Violent Confrontation
IN THE SUMMER OF 2010, anti-Israel extremists and Turkish jihadists organized a flotilla to violate Israel's legal naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. The Israeli Navy redirected five of the boats to the Israeli port of Ashdod without incident. However, those on the sixth boat refused to cooperate. When Israeli officers boarded the ship, the Turkish jihadists brutally attacked them with knives, metal bars, and guns.
Nine jihadists were killed. This year, the same anti-Israel extremists are planning another international flotilla, purportedly to bring humanitarian goods to Gaza. International leaders, from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to EU spokespersons, have urged the organizers to cancel the flotilla and instead use legally approved channels to deliver any goods to Gaza. 1. The flotilla campaign is not a humanitarian effort. It is a crude political stunt by provocateurs who want to force Israel into a violent response.
2. The flotilla organizers blatantly violate international law by trying to breach Israel's legal maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. As long as Hamas remains committed to armed conflict with Israel, Israel has the right to impose a blockade to prevent the importation of weapons.
3. Flotilla organizers intend to aid and support Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the murder of Jews and the "obliteration" of Israel. Hamas is a proxy of the brutal Iranian regime. Providing material support for Hamas violates U.S. criminal and civil law, according to the U.S. State Department.
4. Flotilla organizers are not "nonviolent human rights activists." They belong to extremist organizations that oppose the existence of the Jewish state and support terrorist groups that are dedicated to the violent destruction of Israel, such as Hamas.
5. If flotilla organizers were sincere about wanting to help Palestinians, they could easily send aid through approved Israeli and Egyptian entry points, as U.S. State Department officials have repeatedly said.
6. Gazans do not face a humanitarian crisis. They have ample supplies of basic necessities and consumer goods, are currently experiencing an economic boom, and have a higher standard of living than people in most of Africa and parts of Asia.
7. Hamas brutally repressive regime, not Israel, has caused the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.
8. If flotilla participants really were peace and human rights activists, they would go where they are urgently needed today to Libya and Syria, where peaceful demonstrators face ruthless repression, torture, and murder.
9. Flotilla organizers violate one of the most basic rights: A nation's right and responsibility to protect its people from enemies intent on murder.
10. International leaders, from the UN secretary-general to the U.S. State Department, oppose the flotilla as unnecessary and as a dangerous provocation.
For more information, please visit www.flotillafacts.com.
Flotilla Of Duplicitous Cowards...
Gerald A. Honigman
So, another flotilla of pusillanimous hypocrites is about to set sail to support Arabs whose sole aim is the destruction of the sole Jewish state in existence.
Scores of millions of non-Arab victims in the region continue to be murdered, subjugated, and otherwise victimized daily, but the stick-it-to-the-Jews crews can only see problems with an admittedly imperfect Israel trying to prevent its own destruction.
Quite a while back, before the current Syrian mess exploded, I penned Turkey And The The Case Of The Missing Caravan ( http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2010/6/state3915.htm ) which pointed out the hypocrisy of all the parties concerned during the first flotilla. If I must say so myself, if you've not seen it before, the timing is such for a look now. The hypocritical stench is about to make an encore visit...
Now, in addition to the ongoing Turkish example of the assorted flotilla cowardice and duplicity (despite Ankara's not participating this time for its own Syrian reasons), we are faced with the surreal situation in which Syrian Arab butchers are given a hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil free pass by the new sailors while they go after Israel's legal blockade of Hamas's Gaza instead. Recall that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and its Jews, is in a murderous state of war with both, and was elected by Hamas's Arab populace which agrees with its genocidal jihadi agenda...In other words, a more justified and legal blockade has never existed. Israel and others have already intercepted ships heading for Gaza loaded with weaponry.
Furthemore, anyone who wants to find out the facts knows that Gaza's necessities and beyond reach the people over land crossings from Israel itself--let alone Egypt's now virtually open borders. And that has always been so--even at the time of Flotilla numero uno. Like other countries at war, however, Israel reserves the right to try its best to make sure that thousands of more missiles, mortars, explosives, and such don't make it to Gaza to be launched against Jewish civilians in Israel proper--as has been commonly done. Hence the naval blockade...
Now, just up the road--er, sea --a bit, that same cowardly flotilla could target Syrian ports...but don't hold your breath.
You see, the spineless worms aboard (one quarter nauseating Lefty Hebrews) know that their heads would likely be placed on Arab pikes if they tried such a thing...and the males' voices might be raised a few notches--if you get my drift (couldn't resist...sorry).
True, Flotilla the First attacked Israelis sent to peacefully commandeer the one of a half dozen vessels which decided to break the blockade--and paid the price in blood. But, if one does not want to get burned, one should not play with fire...
Jews do have the right to defend themselves--both as individuals and as a nation--although that still seems to come as shock to too many others on the world scene. Jump on the cattle cars instead !
Furthermore, this all nothing new for Syrian Arab butchers.
Consider just these few examples regarding Syrian actions--totally ignored by the willingly deaf, dumb, and blind feckless fleet-- which could be cited...
Decades ago, Ismet Cherif Vanly wrote The Syrian 'Mein Kampf' Against The Kurds ; Assad the First massacred tens of thousands of fellow Arabs in Hama; Damascus has been involved in the continuous rape, murder, and subjugation of/in Lebanon (which it has never recognized as independent of itself); constantly targeted Israeli civilians from the Golan Heights prior to '67; has been home base for Hamas's political leadership; along with Iran supplies and enables its Hizbullah buddies and bullies in Lebanon; etc. and so forth.
But nothing above matters to the combination of the ignorant and/or anti-Semites and/or self-hating Hebrews aboard those disgraceful decks.
Put me in charge of handling the response...
I say substantial quantities of livestock excrement--of which productive Israeli herders have plenty--should be gathered and dropped aboard the vessels. That from pigs would be best...There are Christian pig farmers in Israel.
At the same time, the steering mechanisms of the ships should be disabled...easy enough to do by the Israeli navy.
Leave them adrift afterwards.
Those who wish may be towed to Israeli ports afterwards. No Israelis should be dropped aboard the vessels...reports state that at least some of the crews are planning more violence this time around.
And those who don't choose the tow?
Who cares ?
And I'm serious.
When America set up its naval blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis in the early '60s, we we were set to sink anyone breaking the blockade. When Egypt started the Six Day War in 1967 by blockading Israel at the Straits of Tiran and Gulf of Aqaba, it allowed no one to break that blockade. Numerous other examples could be cited as well.
Israel remains in a fight for its life with those who want it dead. Its enemies recently beheaded a three-month old infant and slaughtered four other family members in their sleep as well. Similar Arab heroes also recently targeted a school bus, killing and wounding Jewish kids.
A manure shower is generous considering what could be done instead...
All parties should think about that a bit...
So, another flotilla of pusillanimous hypocrites is about to set sail to support Arabs whose sole aim is the destruction of the sole Jewish state in existence.
Scores of millions of non-Arab victims in the region continue to be murdered, subjugated, and otherwise victimized daily, but the stick-it-to-the-Jews crews can only see problems with an admittedly imperfect Israel trying to prevent its own destruction.
Quite a while back, before the current Syrian mess exploded, I penned Turkey And The The Case Of The Missing Caravan ( http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2010/6/state3915.htm ) which pointed out the hypocrisy of all the parties concerned during the first flotilla. If I must say so myself, if you've not seen it before, the timing is such for a look now. The hypocritical stench is about to make an encore visit...
Now, in addition to the ongoing Turkish example of the assorted flotilla cowardice and duplicity (despite Ankara's not participating this time for its own Syrian reasons), we are faced with the surreal situation in which Syrian Arab butchers are given a hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil free pass by the new sailors while they go after Israel's legal blockade of Hamas's Gaza instead. Recall that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and its Jews, is in a murderous state of war with both, and was elected by Hamas's Arab populace which agrees with its genocidal jihadi agenda...In other words, a more justified and legal blockade has never existed. Israel and others have already intercepted ships heading for Gaza loaded with weaponry.
Furthemore, anyone who wants to find out the facts knows that Gaza's necessities and beyond reach the people over land crossings from Israel itself--let alone Egypt's now virtually open borders. And that has always been so--even at the time of Flotilla numero uno. Like other countries at war, however, Israel reserves the right to try its best to make sure that thousands of more missiles, mortars, explosives, and such don't make it to Gaza to be launched against Jewish civilians in Israel proper--as has been commonly done. Hence the naval blockade...
Now, just up the road--er, sea --a bit, that same cowardly flotilla could target Syrian ports...but don't hold your breath.
You see, the spineless worms aboard (one quarter nauseating Lefty Hebrews) know that their heads would likely be placed on Arab pikes if they tried such a thing...and the males' voices might be raised a few notches--if you get my drift (couldn't resist...sorry).
True, Flotilla the First attacked Israelis sent to peacefully commandeer the one of a half dozen vessels which decided to break the blockade--and paid the price in blood. But, if one does not want to get burned, one should not play with fire...
Jews do have the right to defend themselves--both as individuals and as a nation--although that still seems to come as shock to too many others on the world scene. Jump on the cattle cars instead !
Furthermore, this all nothing new for Syrian Arab butchers.
Consider just these few examples regarding Syrian actions--totally ignored by the willingly deaf, dumb, and blind feckless fleet-- which could be cited...
Decades ago, Ismet Cherif Vanly wrote The Syrian 'Mein Kampf' Against The Kurds ; Assad the First massacred tens of thousands of fellow Arabs in Hama; Damascus has been involved in the continuous rape, murder, and subjugation of/in Lebanon (which it has never recognized as independent of itself); constantly targeted Israeli civilians from the Golan Heights prior to '67; has been home base for Hamas's political leadership; along with Iran supplies and enables its Hizbullah buddies and bullies in Lebanon; etc. and so forth.
But nothing above matters to the combination of the ignorant and/or anti-Semites and/or self-hating Hebrews aboard those disgraceful decks.
Put me in charge of handling the response...
I say substantial quantities of livestock excrement--of which productive Israeli herders have plenty--should be gathered and dropped aboard the vessels. That from pigs would be best...There are Christian pig farmers in Israel.
At the same time, the steering mechanisms of the ships should be disabled...easy enough to do by the Israeli navy.
Leave them adrift afterwards.
Those who wish may be towed to Israeli ports afterwards. No Israelis should be dropped aboard the vessels...reports state that at least some of the crews are planning more violence this time around.
And those who don't choose the tow?
Who cares ?
And I'm serious.
When America set up its naval blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis in the early '60s, we we were set to sink anyone breaking the blockade. When Egypt started the Six Day War in 1967 by blockading Israel at the Straits of Tiran and Gulf of Aqaba, it allowed no one to break that blockade. Numerous other examples could be cited as well.
Israel remains in a fight for its life with those who want it dead. Its enemies recently beheaded a three-month old infant and slaughtered four other family members in their sleep as well. Similar Arab heroes also recently targeted a school bus, killing and wounding Jewish kids.
A manure shower is generous considering what could be done instead...
All parties should think about that a bit...
Who is trying to kill whom?
Israel Matsaz
I follow Josh Trevino on Twitter. I have never met him in person. I know almost nothing about him other than the fact that a couple of friends (Soccer Dad and Noah Pollak) also follow him and I think Noah actually knows him. I just thought some of his tweets that I saw looked interesting, so I followed him. While writing this post, I looked up this biography. Perhaps in response to this post, he'll send me a resume.
When I saw the tweet above, I thought it was a bit tongue in cheek. At least until this evening, I thought this flotilla would result in less violence than the last one. I retweeted the tweet. revino's tweet has apparently caused some controversy around the blogosphere (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). And some of that controversy needs to be set straight.
As boatloads of American humanitarianofascists, including Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, and the Obamishly hued novelist/poet Alice Walker, steam toward Gaza, one proud GOP operative, Josh Trevino, assures Israel:
Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla -- well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.
That's what I call thinking out of the box. I mean, hey, when American citizens get all uppity about human rights--ask a foreign power to murder them.
...
But then, I guess Mr. Trevino doesn't deserve all the credit for giving Israel's Likud government the go ahead to slaughter American citizens. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and I assume her boss, is giving the IDF a wink as well:
There will be construction materials entering Gaza and we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.
So there you go, IDF. You have the right to shoot 86-year-old Heda Epstein in order to defend your borders from uppity humanitarianofascists bearing food, medicine, and embarrassment.
Let's get a few things straight. A Holocaust survivor is someone who lived through the Holocaust in an affected country. It's not just someone who was alive when the Holocaust happened. Hedy Epstein - who loves to promote herself as a Holocaust survivor - is not one. She is no more a Holocaust survivor than my 83-year old father who lived through the Holocaust in Boston, Massachusetts. She left Germany in May 1939 - before the war or the Holocaust started - on the Kindertransport, and spent the war in England. When you hear "Holocaust survivor," you envision those gaunt kids who were in the concentration camps at the end of the war. She's not one of them. There were 10,000 kids just like her. They are not Holocaust survivors any more than the thousands of Jews who fled Germany and other affected countries during the 1930's. That makes her a much less sympathetic figure, doesn't it?
The people on those boats are committing an act of war. Yes, including Hedy Epstein and Alice Walker and that moron Medea Benjamin. They're not wearing uniforms, they're not part of an army, but by trying to run a legal naval blockade (and even the UN now says it's legal), they are committing an act of war. They are military combatants, and they may be treated accordingly.
This is what Secretary of State Clinton - who knows and understands the rules - keeps having the State Department tell them. If they are combatants who are attacking a US ally, there is nothing the US can or will do to protect them. Nor should it.
Josh Trevino's tweet was probably tongue in cheek. This post is not. It doesn't matter what they're carrying on those boats because what those boats seek to do is to open up a shipping lane to Gaza through which large scale weaponry - which could not or would not be shipped over land from Israel or Egypt - can be imported in the future. The point of these boats isn't the cargo - it's for the boats to get through. And Israel will not allow that to happen at any cost. Including at the cost of a bunch of American citizens (30% Jewish unfortunately) who have turned themselves into hostile combatants.
I follow Josh Trevino on Twitter. I have never met him in person. I know almost nothing about him other than the fact that a couple of friends (Soccer Dad and Noah Pollak) also follow him and I think Noah actually knows him. I just thought some of his tweets that I saw looked interesting, so I followed him. While writing this post, I looked up this biography. Perhaps in response to this post, he'll send me a resume.
When I saw the tweet above, I thought it was a bit tongue in cheek. At least until this evening, I thought this flotilla would result in less violence than the last one. I retweeted the tweet. revino's tweet has apparently caused some controversy around the blogosphere (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). And some of that controversy needs to be set straight.
As boatloads of American humanitarianofascists, including Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, and the Obamishly hued novelist/poet Alice Walker, steam toward Gaza, one proud GOP operative, Josh Trevino, assures Israel:
Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla -- well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.
That's what I call thinking out of the box. I mean, hey, when American citizens get all uppity about human rights--ask a foreign power to murder them.
...
But then, I guess Mr. Trevino doesn't deserve all the credit for giving Israel's Likud government the go ahead to slaughter American citizens. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and I assume her boss, is giving the IDF a wink as well:
There will be construction materials entering Gaza and we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.
So there you go, IDF. You have the right to shoot 86-year-old Heda Epstein in order to defend your borders from uppity humanitarianofascists bearing food, medicine, and embarrassment.
Let's get a few things straight. A Holocaust survivor is someone who lived through the Holocaust in an affected country. It's not just someone who was alive when the Holocaust happened. Hedy Epstein - who loves to promote herself as a Holocaust survivor - is not one. She is no more a Holocaust survivor than my 83-year old father who lived through the Holocaust in Boston, Massachusetts. She left Germany in May 1939 - before the war or the Holocaust started - on the Kindertransport, and spent the war in England. When you hear "Holocaust survivor," you envision those gaunt kids who were in the concentration camps at the end of the war. She's not one of them. There were 10,000 kids just like her. They are not Holocaust survivors any more than the thousands of Jews who fled Germany and other affected countries during the 1930's. That makes her a much less sympathetic figure, doesn't it?
The people on those boats are committing an act of war. Yes, including Hedy Epstein and Alice Walker and that moron Medea Benjamin. They're not wearing uniforms, they're not part of an army, but by trying to run a legal naval blockade (and even the UN now says it's legal), they are committing an act of war. They are military combatants, and they may be treated accordingly.
This is what Secretary of State Clinton - who knows and understands the rules - keeps having the State Department tell them. If they are combatants who are attacking a US ally, there is nothing the US can or will do to protect them. Nor should it.
Josh Trevino's tweet was probably tongue in cheek. This post is not. It doesn't matter what they're carrying on those boats because what those boats seek to do is to open up a shipping lane to Gaza through which large scale weaponry - which could not or would not be shipped over land from Israel or Egypt - can be imported in the future. The point of these boats isn't the cargo - it's for the boats to get through. And Israel will not allow that to happen at any cost. Including at the cost of a bunch of American citizens (30% Jewish unfortunately) who have turned themselves into hostile combatants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)