Tu b'Shvat
01.25.05 (10:59 am) [edit]
Today is Tu b'Shvat. Tu b'Shvat is the New Year for trees in a halachic sense. The following are the practical halachic applications:
1. According to Halachah, agriculture runs in seven year cycles. When the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem, on years one, two, five and six, we were required to separate a tenth of our produce and eat it in Jerusalem. This tithe is called Maaser Sheni - the Second Tithe - because it is in addition to the (two percent which must be given to the Kohain, and the) ten percent which is given to the Levite.
On the third and sixth years, instead of eating this second tithe in Jerusalem we give the produce to the poor. [On the seventh year, we don't separate any tithe. The seventh year is the Sabbatical year, and all produce which grows is ownerless and free for anyone to take.]
If a fruit blossomed before the 15th of Shevat, it is considered to be produce of the previous year, if it blossomed afterwards, it is produce of the ‘new year.’
2. According to the Torah, it is forbidden to eat or derive any benefit from fruit for the first three years after a tree is planted. All fruit of the fourth year must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten - just like Maaser Sheni.
These years, too, are determined by Tu b'Shevat.
Sources: Babylonian Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah 2a
Tori Amos
01.25.05 (10:34 am) [edit]
I finally got what I've been wanting! I downloaded all of my favourite Tori Amos songs and they're all on my iPod now! I found this quiz on the net also:
You just want your space. "Sometimes, when you
express thought to people, you leave it open
for somebody to tromp in there and start
tearing it down. I sing, Father I killed my
monkey, to lead off the song, which explains
that sometimes you even destroy your own so
they can't excavate it. When I was growing up,
I started becoming very secretive about my
thoughts and the sensory world I would go to,
because there's a lot of mind control that goes
on constantly, people wanting access: 'What are
you thinking?' So sometimes I'd have my own
defense going, which would be to look them
straight in the eye and make them think I've
killed my imagination. But it's like, I'll take
control."
-- Tori; AP Magazine, Oct 99
Which 'To Venus and Back' Tori Amos Song Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Interesting.
Among what I downloaded: [i]Bliss[/i], [i]Cornflake Girl[/i], and [i]A Sorta Fairytale[/i]
Gosh she is amazing. Her voice is exquisite and her lyrics incredible. They make me want to go and finnish my painting. . .
Kofi Annan on Holocaust: Was it really that big of a deal?
01.24.05 (10:09 am) [edit]
Did you know that in Aramaic Kofi Annan means "we are monkies"?
It's true.
But I'm a little upset today when I read this article below. It seems that our pal Kofi is doing more praise of Nazi Germany than he is condemning those actions. Don't get me wrong; I'm happy the UN is finally recognizing the Holocaust for the tradgedy that it was. Of course, getting them to do so (60 years later) was an act of God in and of itself.
Let me pull some quotes that alarm me a bit.
[b][i]Those who incite hatred and mass murder are not always extremists but men of culture, Secretary-General Kofi Annan told world leaders[/i][/b]
You may be Jew killing murderous scum, but you're cultured Jew killing murderous scum. That's the best kind, you know! But wait, there's more...
[b][i]"How could such evil happen in a cultured and highly sophisticated nation-state in the heart of Europe whose artists and thinkers had given the world so much," Annan asked.[/i][/b]
Oh, stop! You're making the Furer blush! I'm sorry, but any culture that has DEATH CAMPS isn't very cultured nor sophistocated in my book. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's my values that are skewed. Not very likely though, Mr. Oil-For-Food.
[i][b]"All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."[/b][/i]
Or at least to "only follow orders"
[i][b]"The purveyors of hatred, were not always and may not be in the future, only marginalized extremists," he said.[/b][/i]
Get me a rewrite on that history thing, can ya? Aparantly, it wasn't state sponsered genocide. It was simply a few extremists WHO MADE A SEMI EMPIRE OUT OF EUROPE AND EXTERMINATED AT LEAST 6 MILLION JEWS, NOT TO MENTION OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS!
[b][i] Although the world rightly says "never again," action is harder. Since the Holocaust genocide has occurred in Cambodia, in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, he said.
And at this moment, "terrible things are happening today in Darfur, Sudan," Annan said.[/b][/i]
Oh right. Isn't Sudan on the Humanitarian council in the UN? Heh. How could they have a genocide crisis there? Must be those "marginalized extremists."
[b][i]The major powers knew of and discussed the Nazi mass murder of Jews but did not take measures against it [...][/b][/i]
Kinda like that whole terrorist suicide bombing thing, right? Who'd have thunk! history really does repeat itself! Even with the Koombiya rhetoric! How ironic that the UN, the ones who turn their backs on the Jews as they are being subjected to (once again) more genocide, are the ones touting the whole "never again" stuff. Perhaps they should take their heads out of their bung holes and wake up!
I love it! When the Jews are killed en masse, the whole world rushes to pretend to care. When a Jew stands up for themselves and their family against whomever is trying to kill them, how dare they! Perhaps people are mad at the Jews for defending themselves because it robs PCr's from having something to pretend to care about. Oh wait, they care more about condemning us for murders we never comitted. I see how it is.
In any case, I'll let you read the article in it's entirety. Make up your own mind about this bull excrement.
One last thing though, it's kinda like saying "We're going to recognize this tradgedy for what it was and then completely downplay it as if it wasn't that big of a deal."
Nice try, Kofi. But your sincerety act isn't fooling me at least.
Now what about yet another charter condemning the Jewish state for defending itself against genocide?
News story: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
Send traditional Tu biShvat Fruit with your greetings to our soldiers
01.23.05 (5:43 pm) [edit]
The following is an email announcement of which I'm forwarding along the information about to y'all.
[line]
Shalom from Yerushalayim.
The festival of Tu biShvat, New Year for Trees (this year on January
25), is a day filled with much symbolism. Although occurring in the
middle of winter, Tu biShvat celebrates the rebirth of nature, the spring
coming after the winter, the light at the end of the tunnel. We all pray
at this time that the light at the end of our soldiers' tunnel will
grow in intensity during the coming year.
You have to admit it -- the soldiers are great! Against the odds, they
lead the worldwide fight against terror. Their lives are daily fraught
with danger -- they have many, not always reported, successes -- but
they are under increasing pressure. Judging by recent statements from the
Prime Minister and senior politicians and army officers, they may soon
be very busy in Gaza, eliminating terror at its very source.
You can let our soldiers, in Gaza and elsewhere, know that you care for
them and support their war on terrorism. In addition to the Pizza and
Burgers you always send them, you can now also send them traditional
packages of dried Fruit for Tu biShvat.
The donut treats and pizza that many of you sent for Chanuka were
ecstatically received (you can see some of the soldiers' thank you letters
on the site).
It is always a huge boost to their morale to hear from many people
around the world, especially on special days like Chanuka and Tu biShvat.
You can send traditional Tu biShvat fruit packages, or of course pizza
or burgers, by going to the PizzaIDF website at =http://www.PizzaIDF.orgPizzaIDF.org.
We wish you and your families a fruitful year -- and once again thank
you for all the support you have shown our soldiers until now.
Regards,
Shimon
http://PizzaIDF.org" title="http://PizzaIDF.org" target="_blank"http://PizzaIDF.org
PS Your gifts of over $250 are eligible for a US IRS tax deduction.
Please tell your friends about this way to help our soldiers:
http://www.PizzaIDF.org/SendToFriend.htm" title="http://www.PizzaIDF.org/SendToFriend.htm" target="_blank"http://www.PizzaIDF.org/SendT...
How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)
01.20.05 (7:51 pm) [edit]
I just started reading the book by Ann Coulter of which shares the title of this blog entry. So far so good. I'm enjoying her wit. One quote from the book really caught my attention so I'm going to share it with you.
"[b][i]As long as liberals are going to keep demanding that Americans refer to Islam as a 'religion of peace,' it would be a big help if Muslims would stop killing people.[/i][/b]" --Ann Coulter (How to Talk to a Liberal [if you must]) [i]2004[/i]
Things that make you go hmmm. Am I right?
I'd like to dedicate this post to the recent suicide bomb at the Gaza Crossing in Israel.
Now back to my book...
Inaugurations
01.20.05 (2:32 pm) [edit]
I got up early today so that I could view the Presidential Inauguration this morning. It was at 8am here on the West Coast and since I don't have a TV, I had to go to my boyfriend's house down the street. He has digital cable so in no time I found out which stations it was on. I decided that I was going to flip back and fourth between NBC's coverage and CBS's.
What I saw was not just a happy day for our President, but also a bitter day for the press.
I started out with NBC. During the precession of who's who in Washington, correspondents were interviewing Barbara Boxer and that Obama guy. Why? Because it was important to cover the whole Dr. Rice issue that has been being debated over in the Senate. Nice.
Ok, so the Liberal Media isn't thrilled with AMERICA's choice for president. But we gotta get in those cheap shots! And heck, if we can't get rid of "Shrub," we might as well go after Dr. Rice. And, hey, since we have no true interest in the Inauguration of this guy we don't like, let's devote time to some cheap shots.
Great. Can you say [i]sour grapes[/i]?
Disgusted and bored, I flipped to CBS. Mr. I supposedly-have-documents -proving-that-the-preside nt-dodged-Vietnam from 60 minutes was heading the program this morning on that station. This outta be good, I thought to myself. A singer on the stage began to sing something written by John Ashcroft, himself. Let the zinger's fly! For about 30-45 seconds, you couldn't quite understand what he and a few other correspondents were saying as they made fun of the song's writer who has served our country.
Flipping back to NBC and towards the end of the ceremony, during the American Anthem by a lovely Soprano, they decided to cut the footage of the singer to reveal some goofy nut jobs being escorted off the premises shouting obscenities and flashing peace signs.
And this was just some of the highlights.
By the end when I turned off the TV, I thought to myself for a moment and reflected. [i]For a bunch of [b]Queer Eye[/b] loving, French asshole embracing you know what's, liberals sure have horrible taste.[/i] I know many are disrespectful, loud, rude, not funny, and often crazier than a raccoon drinking moonshine, but this is ridiculous. And to top it off, the camera focused on Clinton more of the time than on President George W. Bush. I wonder what zingers would have flown if it was Clinton we were honoring once more?
So you don't like the guy. I get it. Can't you at least have some respect? I guess they did have a milimeter of it. At least no one, to my knowledge, was harping on the President himself. That must have taken so much restraint. Considering how hard that is for some people in the irresponsible media, I guess we should throw them a fish.
Then, as I was sitting there in front of the dark television, I realized the overwhelming feeling that was truly upon me. I just plain felt sorry for them.
Martin Luther King Jr.
01.17.05 (8:26 am) [edit]
Today is Martin Luther King Jr.'s Holiday. We should all honor and rembember that great man today. Perhaps this quote will help us to do just that:
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Some of the most beautiful and influencial words. May he rest in peace and satisfaction knowing that much of the fight has been won.
However as always, we still have much work to do!
Facts Being Ignored
01.16.05 (2:36 pm) [edit]
I got this quote in an email today. As always, I get a weekly email of quotes. After reading some of this mornning's headlines about the state of Israel allegedly being the one to blame for all of the problems that arose over the weekend, I felt this to be most appropriate:
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-Aldous Huxley
Since the news likes to ignore the fact that people were MURDERED in cold blood yesterday by 'martyrs', and rather focus on how 'wonderful' Abu Mazen is and how his inaguration was 'shadowed with Israeli unjust violence', one can understand my unrest. Fact is, Israel was simply defending itself, once again, agaisnt Palestinian violence and aggression.
This was a deadly attack. If a few news agencies wrote of Israel being at fault, others wrote to blame the 'cycle of violence.'
"There is no cycle of violence," an Israeli ambasador once said with a very thick Hebrew accent when asked on CNN if Israel's actions really help to stop that fictional cycle. "There is only Palestinian agression and Israel defending itself against this aggression."
The world seems to feel that as our people are murdered in cold blood, we should also keep our pockets open and keep feeding, paying, and indulging our murderers. How obcene. How rediculous.
The fact of the matter is we don't have to keep paying these monsters to murder our children. We do not have an obligation to help anyone who threatens our lives. That is why Israel has 'cut off' the Palestinians and is sealing the checkpoints. We do not have an ally in Abu Mazen. We do not have a partner in the Holocaust denying liar.
You'd think that these facts would simply be elementary. Aparantly, the large majority of people in this world, even those in upper developed countries, have not even entered early elementary grades.
As far as I can tell you, personally, I hope for their own sake that the Palestinian people can get their act together because we won't take their garbage either way. Not any more. Never again!
The Re-cycled Distortion
01.16.05 (7:39 am) [edit]
Though the terrorists are clearly the single obstacle to moving forward, some media outlets have shown an inability to extract themselves from their four year-old narrative that blames either Israel, or a vague 'cycle of violence' for all troubles. The Scotsman, for example, took a wholly innocent gesture from Ariel Sharon and spun it as a provocative act ― note the Scotsman's headline to this Reuters report (Jan. 12): The Scotsman assigns to Sharon's phone call some causal effect on Hamas' attack, though there's not a shred of evidence Hamas was even aware of this call. It's one thing for the media to falsely accuse Sharon of 'sparking' the last intifada, but will even his peace overtures be blamed for ongoing terrorist violence? Comments to The Scotsman: click here * * * Reuters, meanwhile, seems stuck in 'cycle of violence' mode. On Wednesday (Jan. 12), one Israeli civilian and two Palestinians were killed in Gaza and the West Bank. Though the three died on the same day, the circumstances of their deaths could not have differed more: ● Meanwhile, two Hamas men fell near Ramallah after a concerted IDF effort to avoid any violence: Soldiers of the Nahal Brigade reached a house in the village to arrest the wanted men. After surrounding the house, soldiers called out to residents to leave the building. When the fugitives failed to surrender, soldiers began demolishing the house in an attempt to force them out. When that failed, soldiers stormed the building, and the two fugitives... opened fire on the soldiers. The soldiers returned fire, killing them. (Jerusalem Post) Yet in reporting the three deaths, Reuters employed the same 'neutral' terminology that news agencies have favored for the past four years: Wednesday's killings threatened a relapse into what has been an intractable cycle of violence that, unless quickly checked, could stall fresh internationally backed momentum toward Middle East peace negotiations, frozen since 2000. In truth, the current situation ― with Abu Mazen reaching out to Israel and (to some extent) challenging the terrorists ― clearly demonstrates just how inaccurate the 'cycle of violence' description is. The 'momentum toward Middle East peace negotiations' that Reuters refers to is threatened by one thing only ― Islamist terrorists who, by their own admission, are not interested in peace. So the conflict is, now more than ever, a linear one, not circular: Palestinian terrorists strike, the IDF attempts to halt them. The terrorists are motivated not by Israeli acts (as the term 'cycle' suggests), but rather by an ideology that even Reuters acknowledges in this very article: 'Islamists seek to destroy Israel itself and pose Abbas's main opposition.' In an apparent effort to maintain neutrality, Reuters continues to employ the term 'cycle of violence' to describe the conflict. But in doing so, they distort the basic facts of reality ― a far from 'neutral' position. Comments to Reuters: editor@reuters.com HonestReporting encourages subscribers to monitor your local media for ongoing use of the term 'cycle of violence' to describe the linear dynamic of Palestinian terrorists, thwarting those who seek peace. Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias. HonestReporting
Palestinian terrorists ― launching numerous rocket, mortar, and bombing attacks on Israeli civilians in Gaza over the past few days ― are doing their best to spoil the positive atmosphere engendered by the Palestinian elections. 
●
The Future of New Technology ... And Much of the Same!
01.12.05 (3:22 pm) [edit]
This past weekend was the electronics industry's most important time of the year..... where the "WOW" products of tomorrow are unveiled.....like the machine that helps Mahmoud Abbas appear like a moderate even when he is acting inflammatory.
By Jeff Dunetz
Each year, beginning with the Thursday after New Year's, manufacturers and retailers in the electronics industry make a four-day pilgrimage to Las Vegas for CES, the International Consumer Electronics Show.
CES is the industry's most important time of the year. This show is where the "WOW" products of tomorrow are un-veiled. For the business participants, the show is serious business. It is the venue where manufacturers show off their best wares and unleash their best sales people upon key retailers to entice them to place huge orders for their establishments. For the consumers in atten-dance, the show is an incredible experience where you can touch, try, and be totally awed by the latest and most revolutionary technology products.
Take for example the new electronic moderation simulator. Originally prepared for Palestinian Leader Mahmoud Abbas, this device allows a politician to appear moderate while using war-mongering phrases like “Zionist Enemy” in speeches (a phrase even mentor PLO leadership has refrained from using in the years after Oslo). This product allows the user to embrace terrorist leaders and at the same time announce, “The day will come when the refugees return home," it allows him to promise protection for armed terrorists while still giving a warm and comfy impression of being a peacemaker to much of the world.
Another device to be previewed at CES is already quite popular with the United Nations. Called the MoneyWalks-Man, early reviewers have designated it as a wonder of modern technology. It works like the transporter machine from Star Trek....but only has an effect on money. To date this incredible machine has been used to transport UNRWA funds into the hands of Hamas terrorists and Iraqi oil for food dollars into the pocket of Kofi Annon’s son A recent modification of this product has allowed both the UN and Reuters News to completely wipe out any record of Israel’s contribution to the Tsunami relief efforts.
The most impressive response at the show came at the BBC Optics booth. The company unveiled a product created for those who share the BBC’s taste for fantasy. Hundreds of consumers waited for hours to try their image shifting sun-glasses. Advanced shipments of this product are already in use by the editorial boards of the NY and LA Times, and very popular with pundants such as Juan Cole noted History Professor at the University of Michigan. What is so special about the BBC’s product? They are rose-colored glasses that obstruct any image of terrorism perpetuated by Palestinians on Israeli civilians. Instead this miraculous device is able to substitute a video image of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon beating President Bush’s knuckles with a baby blue yard stick, forcing the leader of the free world to fall in line with the Likud point of view. (You know, come to think of it, you rarely see pictures of the president’s hands). For an extra fifty dollars the glasses come equipped with headphones which play a recording of NY Times Columnist Tom Friedman singing his favorite song, “Sharon is a Bully”. Tom sings in a brilliant falsetto, reminiscent of Tiny Tim’s "Tiptoe Through the Tulips."
Not wanting to be outdone by other areas of the world, a branch of European Union known as the Network of Joint Engineering Workers (also known by its initials NOJEW) displayed some of its cutting edge technology at the show. Perhaps the most commercial of its featured items is something calledDimension One. This amazing creation has an advanced understanding of language. It senses whenever a speaker is about to present both sides of an issue and gives the orator a small electric shock as a warning that they are about to give a fair presentation (something EU governments work very hard to avoid, especially when discussing the Middle East). It has been reported that the EU has already received orders for this valuable product from many of the Middle Eastern Studies departments of American Universities, including Stanford and Columbia.
Along with the distribution at American Universities, this product is very popular amongst European Governments themselves. As a matter of fact it is so popular that many countries are developing their own Joint Engineering products. It seems that as a matter of public policy most European nations want NOJEWs of their own.
If you would like to comment on any of these pieces or receive an e-mail when ever a new piece is published please click here
A World Without Israel
01.12.05 (10:32 am) [edit]
Imagine that Israel never existed. Would the economic malaise and political repression that drive angry young men to become suicide bombers vanish? Would the Palestinians have an independent state? Would the United States, freed of its burdensome ally, suddenly find itself beloved throughout the Muslim world? Wishful thinking. Far from creating tensions, Israel actually contains more antagonisms than it causes.
Since World War II, no state has suffered so cruel a reversal of fortunes as Israel. Admired all the way into the 1970s as the state of “those plucky Jews” who survived against all odds and made democracy and the desert bloom in a climate hostile to both liberty and greenery, Israel has become the target of creeping delegitimization. The denigration comes in two guises. The first, the soft version, blames Israel first and most for whatever ails the Middle East, and for having corrupted U.S. foreign policy. It is the standard fare of editorials around the world, not to mention the sheer venom oozing from the pages of the Arab-Islamic press. The more recent hard version zeroes in on Israel’s very existence. According to this dispensation, it is Israel as such, and not its behavior, that lies at the root of troubles in the Middle East. Hence the “statocidal” conclusion that Israel’s birth, midwifed by both the United States and the Soviet Union in 1948, was a grievous mistake, grandiose and worthy as it may have been at the time.
The soft version is familiar enough. One motif is the “wagging the dog” theory. Thus, in the United States, the “Jewish lobby” and a cabal of neoconservatives have bamboozled the Bush administration into a mindless pro-Israel policy inimical to the national interest. This view attributes, as has happened so often in history, too much clout to the Jews. And behind this charge lurks a more general one—that it is somehow antidemocratic for subnational groups to throw themselves into the hurly-burly of politics when it comes to foreign policy. But let us count the ways in which subnational entities battle over the national interest: unions and corporations clamor for tariffs and tax loopholes; nongovernmental organizations agitate for humanitarian intervention; and Cuban Americans keep us from smoking cheroots from the Vuelta Abajo. In previous years, Poles militated in favor of Solidarity, African Americans against Apartheid South Africa, and Latvians against the Soviet Union. In other words, the democratic melee has never stopped at the water’s edge.
Another soft version is the “root-cause” theory in its many variations. Because the “obstinate” and “recalcitrant” Israelis are the main culprits, they must be punished and pushed back for the sake of peace. “Put pressure on Israel”; “cut economic and military aid”; “serve them notice that we will not condone their brutalities”—these have been the boilerplate homilies, indeed the obsessions, of the chattering classes and the foreign-office establishment for decades. Yet, as Sigmund Freud reminded us, obsessions tend to spread. And so there are ever more creative addenda to the well-wrought root-cause theory. Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that what is happening between Israelis and Palestinians is a “tremendous obstacle to democratization because it inflames all the worst, most regressive aspects of Arab nationalism and Arab culture.” In other words, the conflict drives the pathology, and not the other way around—which is like the streetfighter explaining to the police: “It all started when this guy hit back.”
The problem with this root-cause argument is threefold: It blurs, if not reverses, cause and effect. It ignores a myriad of conflicts unrelated to Israel. And it absolves the Arabs of culpability, shifting the blame to you know whom. If one believes former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the Arab-Islamic quest for weapons of mass destruction, and by extension the war against Iraq, are also Made in Israel. “[A]s long as Israel has nuclear weapons,” Ritter opines, “it has chosen to take a path that is inherently confrontational.…Now the Arab countries, the Muslim world, is not about to sit back and let this happen, so they will seek their own deterrent. We saw this in Iraq, not only with a nuclear deterrent but also with a biological weapons deterrent…that the Iraqis were developing to offset the Israeli nuclear superiority.”
This theory would be engaging if it did not collide with some inconvenient facts. Iraqis didn’t use their weapons of mass destruction against the Israeli usurper but against fellow Muslims during the Iran-Iraq War, and against fellow Iraqis in the poison-gas attack against Kurds in Halabja in 1988—neither of whom were brandishing any nuclear weapons. As for the Iraqi nuclear program, we now have the “Duelfer Report,” based on the debriefing of Iraqi regime loyalists, which concluded: “Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior-level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.”
Now to the hard version. Ever so subtly, a more baleful tone slips into this narrative: Israel is not merely an unruly neighbor but an unwelcome intruder. Still timidly uttered outside the Arab world, this version’s proponents in the West bestride the stage as truth-sayers who dare to defy taboo. Thus, the British writer A.N. Wilson declares that he has reluctantly come to the conclusion that Israel, through its own actions, has proven it does not have the right to exist. And, following Sept. 11, 2001, Brazilian scholar Jose Arthur Giannotti said: “Let us agree that the history of the Middle East would be entirely different without the State of Israel, which opened a wound between Islam and the West. Can you get rid of Muslim terrorism without getting rid of this wound which is the source of the frustration of potential terrorists?”
The very idea of a Jewish state is an “anachronism,” argues Tony Judt, a professor and director of the Remarque Institute at New York University. It resembles a “late-nineteenth-centur y separatist project” that has “no place” in this wondrous new world moving toward the teleological perfection of multiethnic and multicultural togetherness bound together by international law. The time has come to “think the unthinkable,” hence, to ditch this Jewish state for a binational one, guaranteed, of course, by international force.
So let us assume that Israel is an anachronism and a historical mistake without which the Arab-Islamic world stretching from Algeria to Egypt, from Syria to Pakistan, would be a far happier place, above all because the original sin, the establishment of Israel, never would have been committed. Then let’s move from the past to the present, pretending that we could wave a mighty magic wand, and “poof,” Israel disappears from the map.
Civilization of Clashes
Let us start the what-if procession in 1948, when Israel was born in war. Would stillbirth have nipped the Palestinian problem in the bud? Not quite. Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon marched on Haifa and Tel Aviv not to liberate Palestine, but to grab it. The invasion was a textbook competitive power play by neighboring states intent on acquiring territory for themselves. If they had been victorious, a Palestinian state would not have emerged, and there still would have been plenty of refugees. (Recall that half the population of Kuwait fled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s “liberation” of that country in 1990.) Indeed, assuming that Palestinian nationalism had awakened when it did in the late 1960s and 1970s, the Palestinians might now be dispatching suicide bombers to Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere.
Let us imagine Israel had disappeared in 1967, instead of occupying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which were held, respectively, by Jordan’s King Hussein and Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Would they have relinquished their possessions to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and thrown in Haifa and Tel Aviv for good measure? Not likely. The two potentates, enemies in all but name, were united only by their common hatred and fear of Arafat, the founder of Fatah (the Palestine National Liberation Movement) and rightly suspected of plotting against Arab regimes. In short, the “root cause” of Palestinian statelessness would have persisted, even in Israel’s absence.
Let us finally assume, through a thought experiment, that Israel goes “poof” today. How would this development affect the political pathologies of the Middle East? Only those who think the Palestinian issue is at the core of the Middle East conflict would lightly predict a happy career for this most dysfunctional region once Israel vanishes. For there is no such thing as “the” conflict. A quick count reveals five ways in which the region’s fortunes would remain stunted—or worse:
States vs. States: Israel’s elimination from the regional balance would hardly bolster intra-Arab amity. The retraction of the colonial powers, Britain and France, in the mid-20th century left behind a bunch of young Arab states seeking to redraw the map of the region. From the very beginning, Syria laid claim to Lebanon. In 1970, only the Israeli military deterred Damascus from invading Jordan under the pretext of supporting a Palestinian uprising. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Nasser’s Egypt proclaimed itself the avatar of pan-Arabism, intervening in Yemen during the 1960s. Nasser’s successor, President Anwar Sadat, was embroiled in on-and-off clashes with Libya throughout the late 1970s. Syria marched into Lebanon in 1976 and then effectively annexed the country 15 years later, and Iraq launched two wars against fellow Muslim states: Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990. The war against Iran was the longest conventional war of the 20th century. None of these conflicts is related to the Israeli-Palestinian one. Indeed, Israel’s disappearance would only liberate military assets for use in such internal rivalries.
Believers vs. Believers: Those who think that the Middle East conflict is a “Muslim-Jewish thing” had better take a closer look at the score card: 14 years of sectarian bloodshed in Lebanon; Saddam’s campaign of extinction against the Shia in the aftermath of the first Gulf War; Syria’s massacre of 20,000 people in the Muslim Brotherhood stronghold of Hama in 1982; and terrorist violence against Egyptian Christians in the 1990s. Add to this tally intraconfessional oppression, such as in Saudi Arabia, where the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect wields the truncheon of state power to inflict its dour lifestyle on the less devout.
Ideologies vs. Ideologies: Zionism is not the only “ism” in the region, which is rife with competing ideologies. Even though the Baathist parties in Syria and Iraq sprang from the same fascist European roots, both have vied for precedence in the Middle East. Nasser wielded pan-Arabism-cum-socialism against the Arab nation-state. And both Baathists and Nasserites have opposed the monarchies, such as in Jordan. Khomeinist Iran and Wahhabite Saudi Arabia remain mortal enemies. What is the connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Nil, with the exception of Hamas, a terror army of the faithful once supported by Israel as a rival to the Palestine Liberation Organization and now responsible for many suicide bombings in Israel. But will Hamas disband once Israel is gone? Hardly. Hamas has bigger ambitions than eliminating the “Zionist entity.” The organization seeks nothing less than a unified Arab state under a regime of God.
Reactionary Utopia vs. Modernity: A common enmity toward Israel is the only thing that prevents Arab modernizers and traditionalists from tearing their societies apart. Fundamentalists vie against secularists and reformist Muslims for the fusion of mosque and state under the green flag of the Prophet. And a barely concealed class struggle pits a minuscule bourgeoisie and millions of unemployed young men against the power structure, usually a form of statist cronyism that controls the means of production. Far from creating tensions, Israel actually contains the antagonisms in the world around it.
Regimes vs. Peoples: The existence of Israel cannot explain the breadth and depth of the Mukhabarat states (secret police states) throughout the Middle East. With the exceptions of Jordan, Morocco, and the Gulf sheikdoms, which gingerly practice an enlightened monarchism, all Arab countries (plus Iran and Pakistan) are but variations of despotism—from the dynastic dictatorship of Syria to the authoritarianism of Egypt. Intranational strife in Algeria has killed nearly 100,000, with no letup in sight. Saddam’s victims are said to number 300,000. After the Khomeinists took power in 1979, Iran was embroiled not only in the Iran-Iraq War but also in barely contained civil unrest into the 1980s. Pakistan is an explosion waiting to happen. Ruthless suppression is the price of stability in this region.
Again, it would take a florid imagination to surmise that factoring Israel out of the Middle East equation would produce liberal democracy in the region. It might be plausible to argue that the dialectic of enmity somehow favors dictatorship in “frontline states” such as Egypt and Syria—governments that invoke the proximity of the “Zionist threat” as a pretext to suppress dissent. But how then to explain the mayhem in faraway Algeria, the bizarre cult-of-personality regime in Libya, the pious kleptocracy of Saudi Arabia, the clerical despotism of Iran, or democracy’s enduring failure to take root in Pakistan? Did Israel somehow cause the various putsches that produced the republic of fear in Iraq? If Jordan, the state sharing the longest border with Israel, can experiment with constitutional monarchy, why not Syria?
It won’t do to lay the democracy and development deficits of the Arab world on the doorstep of the Jewish state. Israel is a pretext, not a cause, and therefore its dispatch will not heal the self-inflicted wounds of the Arab-Islamic world. Nor will the mild version of “statocide,” a binational state, do the trick—not in view of the “civilization of clashes” (to borrow a term from British historian Niall Ferguson) that is the hallmark of Arab political culture. The mortal struggle between Israelis and Palestinians would simply shift from the outside to the inside.
My Enemy, Myself
Can anybody proclaim in good conscience that these dysfunctionalities of the Arab world would vanish along with Israel? Two U.N. “Arab Human Development Reports,” written by Arab authors, say no. The calamities are homemade. Stagnation and hopelessness have three root causes. The first is lack of freedom. The United Nations cites the persistence of absolute autocracies, bogus elections, judiciaries beholden to executives, and constraints on civil society. Freedom of expression and association are also sharply limited. The second root cause is lack of knowledge: Sixty-five million adults are illiterate, and some 10 million children have no schooling at all. As such, the Arab world is dropping ever further behind in scientific research and the development of information technology. Third, female participation in political and economic life is the lowest in the world. Economic growth will continue to lag as long as the potential of half the population remains largely untapped.
Will all of this right itself when that Judeo-Western insult to Arab pride finally vanishes? Will the millions of unemployed and bored young men, cannon fodder for the terrorists, vanish as well—along with one-party rule, corruption, and closed economies? This notion makes sense only if one cherishes single-cause explanations or, worse, harbors a particular animus against the Jewish state and its refusal to behave like Sweden. (Come to think of it, Sweden would not be Sweden either if it lived in the Hobbesian world of the Middle East.)
Finally, the most popular what-if issue of them all: Would the Islamic world hate the United States less if Israel vanished? Like all what-if queries, this one, too, admits only suggestive evidence. To begin, the notion that 5 million Jews are solely responsible for the rage of 1 billion or so Muslims cannot carry the weight assigned to it. Second, Arab-Islamic hatreds of the United States preceded the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza. Recall the loathing left behind by the U.S.-managed coup that restored the shah’s rule in Tehran in 1953, or the U.S. intervention in Lebanon in 1958. As soon as Britain and France left the Middle East, the United States became the dominant power and the No. 1 target. Another bit of suggestive evidence is that the fiercest (unofficial) anti-Americanism emanates from Washington’s self-styled allies in the Arab Middle East, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Is this situation because of Israel—or because it is so convenient for these regimes to “busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels” (as Shakespeare’s Henry IV put it) to distract their populations from their dependence on the “Great Satan”?
Take the Cairo Declaration against “U.S. hegemony,” endorsed by 400 delegates from across the Middle East and the West in December 2002. The lengthy indictment mentions Palestine only peripherally. The central condemnation, uttered in profuse variation, targets the United States for monopolizing power “within the framework of capitalist globalization,” for reinstating “colonialism,” and for blocking the “emergence of forces that would shift the balance of power toward multi-polarity.” In short, Global America is responsible for all the afflictions of the Arab world, with Israel coming in a distant second.
This familiar tale has an ironic twist: One of the key signers is Nader Fergany, lead author of the 2002 U.N. Arab Human Development Report. So even those who confess to the internal failures of the Arab world end up blaming “the Other.” Given the enormity of the indictment, ditching Israel will not absolve the United States. Iran’s Khomeinists have it right, so to speak, when they denounce America as the “Great Satan” and Israel only as the “Little Satan,” a handmaiden of U.S. power. What really riles America-haters in the Middle East is Washington’s intrusion into their affairs, be it for reasons of oil, terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction. This fact is why Osama bin Laden, having attached himself to the Palestinian cause only as an afterthought, calls the Americans the new crusaders, and the Jews their imperialist stand-ins.
None of this is to argue in favor of Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, nor to excuse the cruel hardship it imposes on the Palestinians, which is pernicious, even for Israel’s own soul. But as this analysis suggests, the real source of Arab angst is the West as a palpable symbol of misery and an irresistible target of what noted Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami has called “Arab rage.” The puzzle is why so many Westerners, like those who signed the Cairo Declaration, believe otherwise.
Is this anti-Semitism, as so many Jews are quick to suspect? No, but denying Israel’s legitimacy bears an uncanny resemblance to some central features of this darkest of creeds. Accordingly, the Jews are omnipotent, ubiquitous, and thus responsible for the evils of the world. Today, Israel finds itself in an analogous position, either as handmaiden or manipulator of U.S. might. The soft version sighs: “If only Israel were more reasonable…” The semihard version demands that “the United States pull the rug out from under Israel” to impose the pliancy that comes from impotence. And the hard-hard version dreams about salvation springing from Israel’s disappearance.
Why, sure—if it weren’t for that old joke from Israel’s War of Independence: While the bullets were whistling overhead and the two Jews in their foxhole were running out of rounds, one griped, “If the Brits had to give us a country not their own, why couldn’t they have given us Switzerland?” Alas, Israel is just a strip of land in the world’s most noxious neighborhood, and the cleanup hasn’t even begun.
[i]Josef Joffe is the publisher of Die Zeit, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and distinguished fellow at the Institute for International Studies, both at Stanford University[/i]
President Abbas - A New Age?
01.12.05 (10:19 am) [edit]
Abbas and his wife Amina While everyone hopes progress will indeed occur, HonestReporting is concerned that many media outlets have been carried away by the optimism and begun engaging in unhelpful wishful thinking. Consider two themes that characterized media coverage of this election: Abbas' opposition to Palestinian terror, and the emerging Palestinian democracy.
There's an optimistic mood in the region and in the media following yesterday's election of Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen) as president of the Palestinian Authority. Associated Press hailed 'the promise of a new era,' Philadelphia Inquirer saw 'a precious opportunity,' and Chicago Tribune described 'a mandate for reform, Mideast peace.' 
on election day (Reuters)
1) OPPOSITION TO TERROR Journalists have continually labeled Abbas a 'moderate' and 'a strong and courageous opponent of violence' (Washington Post), and Abbas has made some statements to that effect. Yet Abbas' campaign has also brought the accuracy of these media labels into question: ●
His appearing on the shoulders of wanted terrorists,
● His denouncing 'the Zionist enemy,'
● His promising a mass Palestinian 'right of return' to Israel, and
● As reported in the London-based daily Al-Quds al-Arabi, his funneling of at least $100,000 to wanted terrorists during the campaign.
 |
Mike Keefe on the two faces of Abu Mazen (Denver Post) |
Again and again, Abbas has expressed his solidarity with violent extremists. Last month he traveled to Damascus to meet with some of the region's most implacable terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. Afterward, Abbas's "foreign minister," Nabil Sha'ath, declared that between the Palestinian Authority and the other groups, "there are no differences over the objectives."
In his victory speech last night, Abbas said:
The small jihad, which was the armed struggle, has ended, and now begins the large jihad, which will be the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and the building of our homeland. I present this victory to the soul of Yasser Arafat and present it to our people and to our martyrs.
'The large jihad'? Dedicating victory 'to the martyrs'? This doesn't sound like 'moderate' rhetoric. And during the campaign, Abbas questioned only the efficacy ― but not the morality ― of terror attacks on Israeli civilians. Charles Krauthammer reminds us of the power of words in this conflict: What of Abbas's vaunted opposition to violence? On Jan. 2 he tells Hamas terrorists firing rockets that maim and kill Jewish villagers within Israel, "This is not the time for this kind of act." This is an interesting "renunciation" of terrorism: Not today, boys; perhaps later, when the time is right. Which was exactly Arafat's utilitarian approach to terrorism throughout the Oslo decade...
Have we learned nothing? In the Middle East, words are actions. Never more so than in an election campaign in which your words define your platform and establish your mandate. Abbas is running practically unopposed, and yet, on the question of both ends and means, he chooses to run as Yasser Arafat.
HonestReporting urges subscribers to monitor both the stated policies of the new Palestinian leader and his representation in the media, lest the two drift too far apart.
 |
Senator John Kerry, an election observer, passes a Palestinian policeman (AP) |
While yesterday's election was hailed as democratic and accepted as legitimate by the Israeli government, there remains some concern on this matter. The New York Sun (Dec. 31) reported that Abbas' opponents didn't exactly get a fair shake ― the PA-controlled press allowed almost no coverage of their campaigns, and people were afraid to be seen even reading their campaign literature. Moreover:
The message that the people have received from various leaders of the PA is that if they vote for a candidate other than Mr. Abbas they will either lose jobs they already have in the PA or will not be hired by the PA in the future. Since the PA is the largest employer in the West Bank and Gaza, the threat carries a great deal of weight.
Looking forward, Abbas must work to dismantle this culture of intimidation and create the essential structures of democratic society ― a free press, accountability of elected officials, and due process of law. These are essential elements for progress toward a lasting peace with Israel.
Today, President Bush extended an offer to meet Abbas at the White House. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan clarified the terms for real progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace:
The Palestinian leadership has responsibility to move forward on putting in place a unified security force that is committed to fighting terrorism. And they have a responsibility to put in place reforms that will lead to democratic institutions.
 |
Tallying the vote in Gaza City (AFP) |
But the Arafat era taught us nothing if not the fallacy of building a peace edifice without a foundation. At this critical juncture, HonestReporting subscribers must not allow the media to advance wishful thinking at the expense of a process that leads to a genuine, lasting peace in the region.
The Story of the Middle East by Dennis Miller
01.10.05 (8:08 am) [edit]
[i]Dennis Miller- Monday 10th Nov 2003[/i]
A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you Really need.
Here we go:
The Palestinians want their own country.
There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians.
It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern Invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank Was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then.
As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."
So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."
I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country.
Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could 've had their own country any time in the last thirty years. Especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living.
That's no fun.
No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course -- that's where the real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.
Why?
For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something.
It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, By the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.
Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a Pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, Everyone will be pals.
Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea?
Oh, that? We were just kidding.
My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the Numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it.
Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting.
No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the Worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death. Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a Roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away.
However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of Losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the Countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint.
If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and East of the Jordan.
[i]Dennis Miller ia a Christian and a TV entertainer who has a Show called Dennis Miller Live on HBO.[/i]
Al-Jazeera's tsunami conspiracy theories
01.10.05 (7:59 am) [edit]
Has the whole world gone batty? This only furthers my point that Al Jazeera is a less real news than the Daily Show! What the heck? When catastrophe hits, who ya gonna blame? The JOOOS!
This is the biggest load of crap I've heard in a while. And I've heard a lot of crap!
[line]
Posted: January 6, 2005
6:32 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Everyone knows a magnitude 9.0 earthquake triggered the massive tsunamis that have killed more than 150,000 in South Asia, right?
Wrong, reports Al-Jazeera, the popular Arab news service.
Some think the U.S. and Indian militaries deliberately caused the tsunamis with electromagnetic pulse technology.
Some of the theories reported on seriously by Al-Jazeera include:
The U.S. government knew of the disaster ahead of time and failed to warn Asians in affected countries, as evidenced by the American Navy base situated on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia that was alerted and escaped unscathed from the effects of the tsunamis;
Indian and U.S. military testing of weapons using electromagnetic waves triggered the earthquake;
Aliens caused the disaster as a way to correct the planet's "wobbly" rotation;
The Australian and Thai governments deliberately failed to respond to warning of the impending earthquake.
Dr. Bart Bautisda, the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology's chief science research specialist, categorically rejects any claim of foul play having been the reason behind the disaster.
The weapons-testing theory holds no water, he says, because of the amount of energy needed to cause such a quake.
"You would need a very huge amount of energy. It's impossible. A billion tons could not do it," he told Al-Jazeera.
Bautisda admits that wave activity might be triggered very close to the scene of a giant explosion, but the effect would only be a tiny fraction of the tsunamis that hit the Asian coastline on Dec. 26.
"It's possible to cause vibration, but not sufficient to cause disruption," he said. "We can tell the difference between an artificial explosion and an earthquake. The mechanisms are different."
But what about a nuclear explosion?
An Egyptian magazine today claimed the tsunami "was possibly" caused by a secret Indian nuclear experiment in which "Israeli and American nuclear experts participated," the Jerusalem Post reported.
According to Al-Osboa', India, in its heated nuclear race with Pakistan, has received sophisticated nuclear know-how from the U.S. and Israel, both of which "showed readiness to cooperate with India in experiments to exterminate humankind."
The magazine claimed geologists have warned about holding nuke tests "in the region of the Indian Ocean known as 'the Fire Belt,' in which the epicenter of the earthquake lies."
The Fire Belt includes dangerous terrain that can move at anytime, without human intervention, Al-Osboa' reported.
PA TV: U.S., Jews caused tsunami
01.10.05 (7:55 am) [edit]
What? You have GOT to be shitting me.
[line]
Posted: January 10, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
With Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently crediting the Palestinian Authority for clamping down on incitement against the Jewish state, official Palestinian television last week blamed Israel for the tsunami in southeast Asia, preached the destruction of Israel and the U.S., and declared America the prime sponsor of world terror.
"The Muslim remembers how the Jews corrupted the land ... . They invest in the East Asian countries, which were destroyed [by the tsunami] because of the Jewish and American corruption and destruction," said Palestinian preacher Sheik Ibrahim Madiras Friday during his weekly sermon broadcast on PA television, according to a translation by Palestinian Media Watch.
"The Jews are Jews. Their character and custom are the corruption and destruction of this land. We keep warning you: the Jews are a cancer that spreads inside the body of the Islamic and Arab nation," continued Madiras.
Madiras told his audience the Palestinian goal is the destruction of Israel. "We are interested in returning to our genuine borders. We want to return to the 1948 [pre-Israel] borders," said Madiras, referring to the period before Israel's creation.
"[We have a claim] which we can't forget and will never forgive forever [against] Britain and all governments who assisted that state [Israel] to be established on this land, which is a false state on a true land."
Madiras went on to called America the center of terrorism. "America today is the sponsor of terror on this land. America, who pretends for freedom and pretends for democracy, is the sponsor of terror on the face of this land. America has reached her peak, by Allah's will, is on the way to the abyss. America, led by its president now, [who is] leading it to the abyss, to destruction, to death, by Allah's will. America, for whom Bush dug a grave the day he invaded Afghanistan, and prepared the grave for burial the day he invaded Iraq, by Allah, America will be buried the day the American embassy will be moved to Jerusalem, and it will be the last nail in her coffin."
Sharon and other Israeli leaders last month credited Mahmoud Abbas for helping to lower official incitement in the Palestinian media against Israel. But as yesterday's PA presidential election drew closer, Palestinian incitement grew exponentially.
Abbas campaigned alongside Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorists, and called Israel the "Zionist enemy." He also vowed to protect and shelter wanted terrorists, referring to them as "heroes."
"We will not forget those wanted by Israel. These are the heroes that are fighting for freedom," said Abbas.
Earlier last month, Palestinian television featured a senior PA academic, Dr. Hassan Khater, founder of the Al Quds Encyclopedia, saying the killing of Jews is mandated by the prophet Mohammed, Palestinian Media Watch reported.
Khater, quoting what he said was Islamic tradition, told viewers, "Mohammed said in his Hadith: 'The Hour [Day of Resurrection] will not arrive until you fight the Jews, [until a Jew will hide behind a rock or tree] and the rock and the tree will say: Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'"
[i]Aaron Klein is WorldNetDaily's special Middle East correspondent, whose past interview subjects have included Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, Shlomo Ben Ami and leaders of the Taliban.[/i]
Oooh, sparkly!
01.06.05 (8:23 pm) [edit]
Isn't it pretty? :D So I've been meaning to post a picture of what my wonderful boyfriend has given to me and I just now had some time with my camera phone. I received this bit of wonderfulness just recenly.
Guardian of British Distortion
01.06.05 (8:14 pm) [edit]
How did this British animosity toward Israel come about, with Israel ranked worse than Egypt, India, China and 20 other countries? Today's (Jan. 5) UK media coverage of an incident in Gaza goes a long way toward explaining it. The Guardian announced a horrific IDF act of child killing: seven children on their way to pick strawberries were mistaken for Palestinian militants and killed by Israeli tank shells... The tanks used anti-personnel shells, which throw out thousands of metal darts in a deadly cloud... The attack took place near Beit Lahiya, in northern Gaza, from where militants had been firing mortars at Israeli positions on the Gaza border... The Guardian report 1) presents as established fact a 'mistaken killing' of innocent Palestinian children, 2) reverses the actual series of events ― IDF response named first, Palestinian mortars second, 3) describes the Israeli civilian target of the Palestinian mortar fire as an Israeli 'position' ― falsely implying a military target, and 4) calls the IDF response an 'attack,' while the Palestinian mortar fire (against civilians) receives no such derogatory description. Here's what actually happened, according to an altogether fair report from The New York Times: The troubles began when Palestinians fired four mortar rounds in the morning, wounding an Israeli civilian in an industrial zone on the northern edge of the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military said. One shell nearly hit a school bus carrying children in northern Gaza, the military added. Col. Avi Levy, a brigade commander in northern Gaza, told Israel radio that "we understand that the fire actually hit that cell [of Palestinian terrorists]." But he acknowledged the possibility of civilian casualties. "In the event that our fire hit civilians, then this is the place to protest against terrorists who fire mortars from the midst of civilians." Note that the Times account acknowledges 1) who started the violence ― Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians, 2) the IDF claim that its tanks actually struck the mortar-firing terrorists, and 3) the all-important issue of terrorists firing mortars from the midst of Palestinian civilians, thereby endangering innocents' lives. Now we understand the results of the UK public opinion poll. Years of reports such as today's from the Guardian have left Britons with a highly distorted understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. HonestReporting asks: How much longer will an irresponsible UK media continue to deceive the British public by blaming Israel for all the region's woes? Comments to the Guardian: letters@guardian.co.uk The college campus has become a threatening place for pro-Israel students. A well-organized campaign against Israel ― including mock checkpoints and 'apartheid walls', rowdy anti-Israel demonstrations, and anti-Israel lecturers ― has turned many North American campuses into centers of hateful propaganda. Right now, while many of their fellow students are sunbathing in Florida during winter break, 170 HR-Campus activists are in Israel for a 2-week training program operated though our affiliate, Hasbara Fellowships. This is the biggest program of its kind ever. Some highlights of the current training program include tours of Israel's security fence, meetings with victims of terror, Mideast history seminars, and briefing sessions with former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold, and Raanan Gissin, a top advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Program Director Patrick Amar says: 'I'm proud of how these bright Jewish students from North America are willing to take a stand, becoming advocates on behalf of Israel. These young adults are sure to become the pro-Israel leaders of tomorrow.' For more information on HonestReporting for Campus, click here ― and be sure to sign up for HR-Campus communiques as well. Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias. HonestReporting
A new, comprehensive poll of British opinion on foreign nations was just released by The Telegraph. The results: Israel is considered by Britons the #1 'least deserving of international respect,' the 'least beautiful country,' the country Britons would 'least like to take a holiday in,' and would 'least like to live in.'
Soon afterward, an Israeli tank fired on a group of Palestinians believed to have been responsible for firing the mortars from farmland on the outskirts of Beit Lahiya, the Israeli military said. Seven Palestinian youths working in a strawberry field, ages 11 to 17, were killed, according to relatives, witnesses and Palestinian officials at Kamal Adwan Hospital...
WINTER BREAK IN ISRAEL 
HonestReporting recognized that the college newspaper was an important element of this anti-Israel campaign (for example, the U of Illinois paper recently called Israel a 'base for genocide'), so we launched HonestReporting for Campus to empower students to fight back.
The program features workshops that train students how to deal with anti-Israel propaganda on campus, educates students about current issues and the history of Israel and the Mideast, and provides tools for effectively communicating this information in college papers and on campus. 
No Good Deeds Go Unpunished
01.06.05 (11:23 am) [edit]
I found this story on the net and found it interesting. I'm posting it because I think it is food for thought. I do not necissarily agree with everything that this article says, but I think it has value in that it definately makes you stop and think. Take a look. It's a good read.
[line]
By Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com" title="http://www.JewishWorldReview.com" target="_blank"http://www.JewishWorldReview....
It is hard to imagine an anti-Semite going to a Jewish doctor with a broken foot, and holding out his foot, telling him, "Here, fix this, you Jew bastard." And yet this is what is happening today, but with a different twist. It is now, although virtually unreported by the world's press, a case of, "Don't fix this, you Jew bastard. Just send money."
After the horror of the tsunami, Israel immediately leapt into a rescue mode. While most nations were dithering about and making promises, or promises to make promises, Israel sent 82 tons of medical and humanitarian aid to Sri Lanka, as well as a planeload of blood products and an additional 40 tons of supplies from private donors. On December 27 a medical team specializing in rescue work, trauma, and pediatrics was dispatched carrying medicine and baby food. A rescue-and-recovery team with specialized equipment for identifying bodies was sent, and a Health Ministry group of doctors, nurses, and members of IDF arrived in Thailand. Unfortunately, the American media, which ironically the Muslim and Arab press say is controlled by Jews, reported little of these extraordinary undertakings. The world media, along with a substantial portion of the American media, have a vested interest in continuing to cast Israel as a Palestinian murdering villain.
In addition to the help it has already sent, Israel offered to send 150 experienced military medics and support personnel to set up field hospitals. It was then that a light went off in the collective heads of at least three of the recipient nations, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and India. These countries with substantial Muslim populations apparently realized that in their condition, they would not be able to bite the hand that fed them, and, therefore, either turned down or did not respond to offers of Israeli aid. They much prefer to have Uncle Sugar pay the bills. And believe it or not, when President Bush suggested an amount that they did not feel to be sufficient, they had their public relations machines — the same ones whose usual bill of fare is a panoply of propaganda condemning the United States, its foreign policy, and anything remotely connected with Israel — complain that President Bush was a cheapskate and that we should throw more money at them.
It should not pass without notice that fellow Muslim nations, particularly the oil-rich Arab states, who are among the richest in the world in per capita income, yet their contributions to tsunami relief are amongst the lowest.
Certainly there should be a precondition that before these nations receive any aid, they should clearly denounce terrorism and, at the very least, discontinue the state-sponsored anti-American drivel heard in that part of the world.
The uncharitable thought crosses our minds that if the reverse were true, i.e., if Israel had suffered a catastrophe, would they come to its aid? No one, this side of a lunatic asylum, could honestly answer in the affirmative.
We believe that as a nation, we should not, as a matter of national policy — at least until the private sector proves inadequate — fund these relief efforts. Does this sound harsh? Let us point out several facts:
* The private sector of America voluntarily coughs up $34 billion a year in charitable aid that goes to foreign countries. This is more than virtually any other country spends for this purpose.
* To use American taxpayer money on this aid means using money that Jewish Americans and the mothers and fathers of service men and women — the same ones whose sons and daughters are regularly reviled in the Muslim media as murderers — believe is going to nations and regimes that are antagonistic (to be mild) to all that they hold dear.
* The proponents of foreign aid point out that this government spent over a billion dollars to assist Florida after the multiple hurricanes that struck the state. This reasoning, of course, nicely misses the point that these were American citizens helping other American citizens.
Perhaps the strongest practical reason to hold up monies is the fact that we do not know that the money will actually reach the intended recipients. In fact, history tells us the contrary. Dare we mention the Food For Oil plan? We understand U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is urging U.S. aid. Could the fact his son is out of work have anything to do with it? After all, he has lots of experience in the field.
We are not suggesting never offering help. But let's not rush into doing so. Let's at least wait and see what those nations encouraging us to open our pocket books first do themselves.
[i]© 2005, Mason and Felder[/i]
A Quote
01.04.05 (8:46 am) [edit]
I got this quote in my email quote of the week and I had to post it here. It is one of the most beautiful things I have ever read in such a small little soundbite.
power and magic in it.[/i]"
--Goethe[/b]
It's basically how I view my life! :lol:
