Monday, November 27, 2006
Miscellaneous
1. Mikey Lerner explains Thankgiving to the Islamofascists:
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/thanksgiving_meditation_2006_to_the_force_of_life_and_love_in_the_universe/0011833
2. Amazingly, this appeared in Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/792491.html
Not a word about Sderot
By Alexander Yakobson
A petition by the international organization Faculty for
Israeli-Palestinian Peace (Haaretz Hebrew edition, November 22) sharply
denounces the Israel Defense Forces' activity in Gaza due to "the repeated
killing of civilians by Israel and an ongoing military operation that
began with a disproportionate response to the abduction of an Israeli
soldier."
There is clearly some attempt to maintain balance in the advertisement: In
addition to the harsh criticism of Israel and a statement attributing the
violence to the occupation, there is a condemnation of "all forms of
violence against civilians by the two sides" and a call to the Palestinian
Hamas government "to declare that its goal is not the destruction of
Israel." All in all, this is a relatively moderate text, and the many
Israeli academics who signed it include relatively moderate people.
It is precisely for this reason that it is worthwhile noting what is not
in this text. There are no Qassams. Sderot's name does not appear. The
firing of rockets at Israeli communities is not mentioned at all. It is
impossible for the reader to even guess from what is written that the
wide-scale military operations in Gaza not only started in the wake of the
soldier's abduction and the killing of his comrades, but also in an
attempt to stop, or at least reduce, the systematic firing of rockets at
Sderot and other Israeli communities. There is also no mention of the fact
that the firing of Qassams resumed soon after Israel's withdrawal from the
Gaza Strip.
Of course, it is possible to argue that Israel is again reacting in a
"disproportionate" way in this case. One can argue about this claim. But
how is it possible to completely ignore the firing of Qassams in the long
and detailed text that claims to describe the events in Gaza, the
background for them and the desirable solution for the crisis? What moral
justification is there for those who conceal such a "marginal detail" to
preach morality?
If the authors of the petition had bothered to accuse Israel, as is
customary, of a "disproportionate" response to the Qassams, it would have
been possible to ask them what a proportionate and legitimate response by
the state should look like after the firing of rockets at its communities
from a densely populated area. This poses a dilemma that is not simple at
all. It is customary to say that Israel has a right to defend its
citizens, but it must do so within the framework of international law. But
those who declare this usually interpret international law in a way that
denies Israel any real possibility of defending itself against the methods
of warfare employed against it.
The Qassams are fired from the very heart of the Palestinian civilian
population; no one tries to deny or hide this fact. Under these
conditions, any attempt to strike against the missile launchers entails a
serious risk of injuring civilians. There should be an effort to avoid
causing such injury as much as possible. But, over time, there is no power
in the world that can prevent the killing of citizens when live firing
positions are located next to their home.
The authors of the petition do not address this dilemma. They do not even
bother to say the problem should be resolved diplomatically. The firing of
rockets against the citizens of Israel simply appears to them as a matter
not worthy of mention.
It is clear that this text (and similar ones, which are not uncommon) can
only infuriate the Israeli public, which is the target audience the
authors of the petition are addressing. This fact in itself still does not
invalidate the petition. For the sake of truth and justice, it is
sometimes appropriate to infuriate the public. But is it appropriate to do
this for the sake of falsehood and injustice?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=792491
3. Oh dear - the threat of free speech on campus:
http://www.stljewishlight.com/topstories/320641723180141.php
4. Maybe move them to Ben Gurion University?
Ohio store owner demands artist remove gingerbread Nazis from window
By: Associated Press
Published: November 22, 2006
An artist's work made of gingerbread Nazis drew complaints after it was
displayed in a hardware store window, prompting the store owner to demand
the artwork be removed.
Charlie Palmer covered the gingerbread men during the weekend and said he
wanted them out of his business by Tuesday.
"He's gone way overboard this time," Palmer said of artist Keith McGuckin.
"A few of his other displays were on the edge, but never that crazy."
McGuckin said he chose the subject to provoke thought, not to offend.
"I can differentiate between real Nazis and the atrocities they performed
compared to these little gingerbread men, but I guess some people can't,"
said McGuckin, 50.
Palmer left one of McGuckin's displays uncovered: a depiction of a
suicidal snowman sitting under a hairdryer.
"I want people to say 'Oh, my gosh,"' McGuckin said. "And once they look
at it, say: 'It is kind of pretty."'
Last winter, McGuckin used Palmer's window to display a "caroler-bashing"
snowman and a little boy excited about using his chemistry set to create
the illegal drug crystal methamphetamine.
McGuckin is searching for new display space in the town, home of Oberlin
College and known for its left-leaning, beads-and-incense image.
"Maybe I just find beauty in bizarre places," he said.
5. The ISM's Kapo:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25618
