Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Pillowing
1. For those who expected the anti-democratic doctrine of "judicial
activism" to disappear once its main advocate in Israel, Chief Justice
Aharon Barak, retired - think again!
Yesterday the Supreme Court proved that judicial activism (which
is a form of judicial tyranny holding that unelected judges should be
free just to make up laws as they go along, laws that the elected reps of
the people oppose) is still around.
By a vote of 2 against 1, a Supreme
Court panel voted that a senior poice officer be barred from being
promoted (and in effect be forced to resign) , in spite of a decision by
the executive branch of the Israeli
government and an official commission of inquiry that it appointed
that he NOT be so barred. The officer had been criticized in a
report on the behavior of the police in the 2000 pogroms launched by
Israeli Arabs against Jews. In those pogroms, the police used live
ammunition. Captain Bentsi Sau (spelling?) was criticized in the
later state report of inquiry into the events, a report that
deliberately downplayed the violent provocations and behavior of Arab
rioters. Nothing in that report specifically called for Sau's
resignation, dismissal, or denial of promotion. Recently, an Arab NGO and
some families of Arabs killed in the
suppression of those pogroms petitioned the court to block all further
promotions for Sau. There is no legal basis that allows the court
to impose its own conclusions on such personnel decisions nor to override
what the government decided. In other words, the Court thinks it is in
its power to impose on the executive branch what executive policy must be!
The two judges who voted for this act of anti-democratic judicial tyranny
were Ayala Procaccia, who was sharply denounced in the media in recent
weeks for her ordering the jailing without trial of teenage girls for
holding politically incorrect political opinions (see
http://israelnn.com/news.php3?id=105914), and Salim Jubran, a
Christian Arab Supreme Court judge. Eliakim Rubinstein voted against the
decision.
2. The headline in Haaretz today is that Amir Peretz, the head of the
Israeli Labor Party, is willing to accept Avigdor Lieberman as a cabinet
minister if - in exchange - the government agrees to a list of payoffs and
concessions to Israeli Arabs.
SO if you were wondering who Peretz considers to be his actual
constituents, he has clarified that now.
3. Pro-terror journalist gets himself kidnapped by his terrorists:
http://israelnn.com/news.php3?id=114144
Here is another one:
http://counterpunch.com/phillips10242006.html
4. Drug-touting, pro-terror, anti-Semitic hippy pseudo-rabbi spreading
his manure again:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1159193504520&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
5. Israel leftist professors say WORSE things than THIS! Why are they
not prosecuted?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193506985&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
6. NO PEACE, NO PEACE PLANS, NO PRICE FOR PEACE
(A short guide to those obsessed with peace)
by Moshe Sharon
- Everybody says that his donkey is a horse.
- There is no tax on words.
(Two Arab proverbs)
On December 24th 1977, at the very beginning of the negotiations between
Israel and Egypt in Ismailia, I had the opportunity to have a short
discussion with Muhammad Anwar Sadat the president of Egypt. "Tell your
Prime Minister, he said, that this is a bazaar; the merchandize is
expensive." I told my Prime Minister but he failed to abide by the rules
of
the bazaar. The failure was not unique to him alone. It is the failure of
all the Israeli governments and the media.
On March 4, 1994, I published an article in the Jerusalem Post called
"Novices in Negotiations" The occasion was the conclusion of the "Cairo
Agreement." A short time later, Yasser Arafat, proved yet again that his
signature was not worth the ink of his pen let alone the paper to which it
was affixed, and his word was worth even less. Then, as in every
subsequent
agreement Israel was taken aback when her concessions had become the basis
for fresh Arab demands.
In Middle Eastern bazaar diplomacy, agreements are kept not because they
are
signed but because they are imposed. Besides, in the bazaar of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, the two sides are not discussing the same
merchandize. The Israelis wish to acquire peace based on the Arab-Muslim
acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state. The objective of the Arabs is to
annihilate the Jewish state, replace it with an Arab state, and get rid of
the Jews.
To achieve their goal, the Arabs took to the battlefield and to the bazaar
diplomacy. The most important rule in the bazaar is that if the vendor
knows
that you desire to purchase a certain piece of merchandize, he will raise
its price. The merchandize in question is "peace" and the Arabs give the
impression that they actually have this merchandize and inflate its price,
when in truth they do not have it at all.
This is the wisdom of the bazaar, if you are clever enough you can sell
nothing at a price. The Arabs sell words, they sign agreements, and they
trade with vague promises, but are sure to receive generous down payments
from eager buyers. In the bazaar only a foolish buyer pays for something
he
has never seen.
There is another rule in the market as well as across the negotiating
table:
the side that first presents his terms is bound to loose; the other side
builds his next move using the open cards of his opponent as the starting
point.
In all its negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs, Israel has always
rushed
to offer its plans, and was surprised to discover that after an agreement
had been "concluded" it had become the basis for further demands.
Most amazing is the reaction in such cases. Israeli politicians, "experts"
and the media eagerly provide "explanations" for the Arabs' behavior. One
of
the most popular explanations is that these or other Arab pronouncements
are
"for internal use," as if "internal use" does not count. Other
explanations
invoke "the Arab sensitivity to symbols," "honor," "matters of emotion"
and
other more patronising sayings of this nature. Does Israel possess no
"sensitivities" or does it have no honor? What does all this have to do
with
political encounters?
It is therefore essential, as the late President Sadat advised, to learn
the
rules of the oriental bazaar before venturing into the arena of bazaar
diplomacy. The most important of all the rules is the Roman saying: "If
you
want peace - prepare for war." Never come to the negotiating table from a
position of weakness. Your adversary should always know that you are
strong
and ready for war even more than you are ready for peace.
In the present situation in the Middle East and in the foreseeable future
"Peace" is nothing more than an empty word. Israel should stop speaking
about "peace" and delete the word "peace" from its vocabulary together
with
such phrases as "the price of peace" or "territory for peace." For a
hundred
years the Jews have been begging the Arabs to sell them peace, ready to
pay
any price. They have received nothing, because the Arabs have no peace to
sell, but they have still paid dearly. It must be said in all fairness
that
the Arabs have not made a secret of the fact that what they meant by the
word "peace" was nothing more than a limited ceasefire for a limited
period.
Since this is the situation, Israel should openly declare that peace does
not exist as an option in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that it has
decided
to create a new state of affairs in the Middle East, compelling the Arab
side to ask for peace; and pay for it. Unlike the Arabs, Israel has this
merchandize for sale.
>From now on Israel should be the side demanding payment for peace. If the
Arabs want peace, Israel should fix its price in real terms. The Arabs
will
pay if they reach the conclusion that Israel is so strong that they cannot
destroy it. Because of this, Israel's deterrent power is essential.
Therefore, if anyone asks Israel for plans, the answer should be: no
"plans," no "suggestions," no "constructive ideas," in fact no
negotiations
at all. If the Arab side wants to negotiate, let it present its plans and
its "ideas." If and when it does, the first Israeli reaction should always
be "unacceptable! Come with better ones." If and when the time comes for
serious negotiations, once the Arabs have lost all hope of annihilating
the
Jewish state, here are ten rules for bargaining in the Middle Eastern
bazaar:
. Never be the first to suggest anything to the other side. Never
show
any eagerness "to conclude a deal." Let the opponent present his
suggestions
first.
. Always reject; disagree. Use the phrase: "Not meeting the minimum
demands," and walk away, even a hundred times. A tough customer gets good
prices.
. Don't rush to come up with counter-offers. There will always be
time
for that. Let the other side make amendments under the pressure of your
total "disappointment." Patience is the name of the game: "haste is from
Satan!"
. Have your own plan ready in full, as detailed as possible, with
the
red lines completely defined. However, never show this or any other plan
to
a third party. It will reach your opponent quicker than you think. Weigh
the
other side's suggestions against this plan.
. Never change your detailed plan to meet the other side "half way."
Remember, there is no "half way." The other side also has a master plan.
Be
ready to quit negotiations when you encounter stubbornness on the other
side.
. Never leave things unclear. Always avoid "creative phrasing" and
"creative ideas" which are exactly what your Arab opponent wants. Remember
the Arabs are masters of language. Playing with words is the Arab national
sport. As in the market, so also at the negotiating table, always talk
dollars and cents.
. Always bear in mind that the other side will try to outsmart you
by
presenting major issues as unimportant details. Regard every detail as a
vitally important issue. Never postpone any problem "for a later
occasion."
If you do so you will lose; remember that your opponent is always looking
for a reason to avoid honouring agreements.
. Emotion belongs neither in the marketplace nor at the negotiating
table. Friendly words as well as outbursts of anger, holding hands,
kissing,
touching cheeks, and embracing should not be interpreted as representing
policy.
. Beware of popular beliefs about the Arabs and the Middle East -
"Arab honour" for example. Remember, you have honour too, but this has
nothing to do with the issues under negotiation. Never do or say anything
because somebody has told you that it is "the custom." If the Arab side
finds out that you are playing the anthropologist he will take advantage
of
it.
. Always remember that the goal of all negotiations is to make a
profit. You should aim at making the highest profit in real terms.
Remember that every gain is an asset for the future, because there is
always
going to be "another round."
The Arabs have been practicing negotiation tactics for more than 2000
years.
They are the masters of words, and a mine of endless patience. In
contrast,
Israelis (and Westerners in general) want quick "results." In this part
of
the world there are no quick results, the hasty one always looses.
Moshe Sharon, Ph.D.
professor of Islamic History in the
Hebrew University, Jerusalem
See also http://acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/09-issue/sharon-9.htm
7. UN Terrorism:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDdmMzk4YTJlZDM0ZGZiZGY5NWYyY2E5OGJmMzgzOWM=
8. "Jewish" Billionaires versus AIPAC
By Isi Leibler October 24, 2006
There are ill winds of change hovering on the horizon.
Washington is signaling its intention to distance itself from Israel.
Pressures are being imposed on Israel to make further unilateral
concessions to Mahmoud Abbas, most of which would directly impact on her
security.
The new climate was exemplified in a recent address by Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice who compared the self-inflicted suffering of the
Palestinian people with segregation in the United States and said that
"there could be no greater legacy for America" than to bring about "a
Palestinian state for a people who have suffered too long, who have been
humiliated too long, who have not reached their potential for too long."
Rice failed to qualify these remarks by noting that Palestinian
"humiliation" and "suffering" would have been averted and a Palestinian
state could have been established a long time ago, had they curtailed
terror and ceased launching missiles against Israeli civilians, a
situation which prevails to this very day.
It was particularly disconcerting that both the impotent Israeli
government and the usually highly vocal American Jewish establishment
failed to condemn these outrageous remarks.
These developments should be viewed in tandem with an intensifying
campaign by unrepresentative American left wing Jewish groups publicly
urging the US Administration to soften their policies in relation to the
Palestinians.
In order not to distress the strongly pro Israel Jewish community, the
"doves" employ Orwellian language. They do not demand that the Bush
Administration reverse its support for Israel. Instead they call for
Washington to become "more involved" and "even handed" in order to bring
an end to the "ongoing violence and retribution" -- code language for
downplaying terror and incitement which the Abbas factions indulge in no
less than their Hamas counterparts. It means urging Israel to negotiate
under fire, bring an end to sanctions against the PA, talk to Hamas, and
make concessions which will invariably lead to a greater toll in Israeli
lives.
Until recently, public support for Israel in the United States had reached
an all time high. President Bush is unquestionably the most pro Israel
president ever to have occupied the White House. Both Congress and the
Senate have been fully supportive of Israel and opposition has been
relegated to the fringes. The evangelicals have elevated support of Israel
to one of their top priorities.
Yet storm clouds were brewing. The charges of espionage against AIPAC
officers represent an unprecedented affront to an ally. The situation at
the campuses where anti Israeli activity has become the central focus
point of radical political activism is more than disconcerting. Segments
of the US electronic and print media were highly biased in their coverage
of the Lebanon war. The brouhaha over the Israel lobby initiated by
Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in a Harvard University paper
has led to widespread campaigns demonizing AIPAC and other pro Israel
lobbies. Tony Judt, the Jewish historian promoting the view that Israel
was a mistake and supporting a bi-national Israel-Palestinian entity has
provided an aura of respectability to the dismantling of the Jewish state.
These anti Israeli sentiments are now infiltrating into the Democratic
Party -- the party favored by the majority of American Jews. Senator
Joseph Lieberman, the former Democratic vice president candidate, lost his
pre-selection to a relatively unknown leftist who challenged his Middle
East policies and obtained the support of a large percentage of Jewish
voters.
In fact the most troublesome aspect to these trends is not that the public
profile of bodies like the Jewish Policy Forum and Brit Zedek V'Shalom
calling for more evenhandedness is growing. It is even more worrying that
reaction to these activities by all American Jewish agencies, other than
the hard line ZOA, has been extraordinarily muted.
Despite the misleading double-talk, this campaign represents a real and
serious threat to Israel. AIPAC is possibly the greatest success story of
any American lobbying group. It has one overriding role: To support Israel
and Israel government policies. Were AIPAC to initiate policies
conflicting or inconsistent with the objectives of the Israel government
it would lose its grassroots support overnight. Hence repeated allegations
that AIPAC is a "hawkish" body is language designed to undermine AIPAC and
support for Israel.
These leftwing bodies have already succeeded in diluting Congressional
legislation designed to cut off aid for the Palestinian Authority unless
it renounced terrorism. They also provided support to Washington in its
efforts to force Israel to make security concessions on border crossings
which resulted in a massive flow of arms into Gaza.
Even more alarming was the announcement by George Soros, one of the
world's ten wealthiest individuals, that he would employ his financial
clout and connections with other Jewish billionaires to create a new body
to balance "AIPAC's hawkish policies". Soros has no interest in visiting
Israel and no qualms about presenting himself as an anti Zionist. Despite
being a holocaust survivor, he describes the Bush Administration as
equivalent to a Nazi regime, accuses Israel of being largely to blame for
the resurgence of anti Semitism, and takes pride in being openly critical
of Israel which his charity foundation ignores, although it "supports the
rights of Arabs in Israel". Soros also promotes the bizarre belief that a
weak rather than a strong Israel could best achieve a peace settlement
with its neighbors.
The potential combination of Jewish leftists and liberal Jewish salon
billionaires is worrisome. It will embolden the radical Jewish doves and
reinforce them with chutzpa to more aggressively undermine the Bush
Administration's support of Israel. It is no coincidence that Dr. Yossi
Beilin strongly supports the creation of the new body which he says "would
not compete with AIPAC but would portray another facet of American Jewry".
Regrettably the lame duck Olmert government, which has the capacity to
neutralize a Jewish organization seeking to undermine Israel's prime US
lobbying vehicle, will in all probability lack the courage and the will to
take on the billionaires and will stand aside.
It will thus be left to the American Jewish establishment to stand up and
be counted and confront the Soros led anti AIPAC initiative. Regrettably
their former track record in standing up to the demands of Jewish
billionaires is hardly encouraging. Threats by major donors to cancel
contributions to parties resisting their demands usually succeeded in
intimidating organizations to back down.
It will truly be a sad day for the Jewish people if the Israeli government
buries its head in the sand and American Jewish organizations remain
silent, whilst a campaign proceeds to "softly" undermine and delegitimize
AIPAC by labeling it as a "hawkish" body.
Washington's backing for Israel is today more crucial than ever. If
American Jews are perceived as being divided over Israel, the long term
repercussions on the one superpower whose support is critical, could be
disastrous.
9. Racism on Campus:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25060
10. Animal Kooks in Hebrew attack MacDonald's:
http://bdidut.com/mac/
11. Take a look at this photo:
http://www.sfjff.org/sfjff22/news/filmmakers/yoko-and-john.gif
For those of you old enough to have prostate problems, you will no doubt
recognize this at once as one of the photos of Beatles' John Lennon and
Yoko Ono, in one of their infamous "love-ins", in which they confined
themselves to bed in 6 star hotels in order to protest materialism and
war. The photo I post here is where they are dressed, lest I lose my PG
rating.
The press at the time was obsessed with John and Oko's adventures in the
bedroom.
I am reminded of that because of the media obsession this week with the
bedroom actvities of Yigal Amir (assassin of Yitzhak Rabin) and his wife.
The courts are allowing the Amirs to have conjugal visits. Maybe
producing a baby.
The media Champions of Justice are all aghast at this. How can such a
murderer be allowed conjugal visits, they are all chanting in uniform
chorus. Well, Amir did indeed murder someone and someone important at
that. But the same bleeding hearts in the media never had a thing to say
about Arab terrorists and mass murderers in Israeli prisons also being
allowed conjugal visits. In many cases, the beneficiaries killed many
more people than did Yigal Amir.
Here is Haaretz, insisting Amir "enjoyed" his conjugal visit
(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/778929.html). Just how did the
Haaretz reporter know he enjoyed it and how did they know that Mrs. Amir
was not "in the feminine way" today?
Here is the Jerusalem Post condemning the decision to allow the Amirs to
pillow:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193514490&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Note: Not a word against Arab mass murderers engaging in pillowing in
prison!
Anyone know how Yoko Ono "enjoyed" her confinement in that room with John
Lennon?
