Monday, June 30, 2008
Baby Murderer for Sale
One of the features that was unique to Nazism and that separated it out
from other forms of barbarism was the insistence that Jews were
"Untermenschen" or an inferior species, an inferior race, and so killing
Jewish civilians was not only a legitimate instrument for social policy
but downright just. Since Jews were inferior to other humans, there could
be nothing wrong with exterminating them like vermin, and eliminating them
from the planet.
For decades the position of the Arab world has been largely the same.
Arab Nazism has always been expressed in the idea that murdering Jewish
civilians, including Jewish children, does not count as murder at all,
because those being eliminated do not count as humans. Killing Jews
should not be murder because Jews are an inferior species. Murderers of
Jewish children are like military heroes defending a city wall or a port
The Arabs not only always tried to make the point that killing Jewish
children and civilians is legitimate, but for decades attempted to coerce
Israel into publicly and officially acquiescing to this definition of
Jewish inferiority. They did so by equating murderers of Jewish children
with soldiers, and demanding that Israel do the same. A terrorist who
blows up a bus full of children is as legitimate a combatant as any
soldier, the Arabs held, because his civilian victims were only Jews and
they do not count as humans. There was no reason why such a terrorist
should be regarded as any different from a soldier in a boat or a plane
engaged in military operations. The anti-Semitic media largely agreed, as
manifested in their insistence on referring to suicide bombers as
"activists" and "militants," and counting the suicide bombers among the
"victims" of any terror atrocity.
While the Arabs and the anti-Semites attempted for decades to bludgeon
Israel into acquiescing to the legitimization of the murder of Jewish
civilians and to the legitimacy of equating mass murderers of Jewish
children to combat soldiers, no Israeli politician ever agreed to such a
thing. Even the most wimpish and cowardly understood that such an
acknowledgement amounted to an acquiescence to the definition of Jewish
civilian life as having inferior negligible value and to the legitimizing
of mass extermination of Jews in the name of Jewish racial inferiority.
Today the Israeli cabinet under Ehud Olmert approved a "hostage deal" that
amounts to the declaration of the legitimacy of the murder of Jewish
children. The "deal" involves the release of the most notorious
terrorist baby murderer in the world, plus an as-yet-unknown number of
other murderers, evidently in exchange for the bodies of Israeli soldiers
kidnapped by the Hizbollah. While the media and government have not yet
said so formally, it appears that these soldiers were murdered in cold
blood by the Hezbollah. Israel will then "purchase" their corpses by
releasing the baby murderer and the other terrorists.
Releasing terrorists to "buy back" the bodies of Israeli POWs murdered in
cold blood by the Hizbollah became official Israeli policy years ago, when
it released more than 400 terrorists in 2004 to obtain the corpses of
three murdered IDF officers. At the same time, Israel also "bought" the
release of an Israeli drug smuggler and criminal who had been in Hezbollah
captivity. Back then I called for releasing a few terrorists in exchange
for the Hezbollah KEEPING the drug criminal in captivity. At that time I
published an article "I am Ashamed to be an Israeli,"
reprinted below. It goes without saying that the "deal" in which the baby
murderer is to be released for corpses is infinitely worse even than that
ignominy. The baby murderer is being publicly and morally equated by the
government of Ehud Olmert to combat soldiers.
The baby murderer is Samir Quntar (or Kuntar). This baby murderer was
part of a terrorist crew that entered Nahariya in northern Israel in 1979.
Selecting a civilian home at random, he entered, murdered the father of
the family and crushed the skull of his 4 year old daughter with his
rifle. The mother of the family was hiding in a closet with her two year
old daughter. She smothered the infant's cries so that Quntar would not
murder them as well, and the baby suffocated. Quntar was also of course
directly responsible for the murder of that baby as well. He then also
murdered two policemen in the town before being captured. The mother,
Smadar Haran, instantly lost her entire family. Almost like a page out of
Quntar of course became the hero of the Arab Nazis, who demanded that he
be repatriated to Lebanon as a home-coming heroic combatant, as part of
any prisoner exchange. In the cowardly deal in which 400 terrorists
were released to buy back the corpses of the three murdered IDF officers,
Sharon uncharacteristically showed a slight hint of a vertebrate and
refused to release the baby murderer. Releasing him would be to acquiesce
to the Arab Nazi insistence that murdering Jewish babies should not count
as murder because Jews are Untermenschen. Sharon refused and Quntar the
baby murderer stayed locked up.
The Kadima-Labor Party machine has been working all week to make pretense
of mass public support for this deal in which the Israeli government
legitimzes baby murder. Politicians are being called out by the machine
to endorse the exchange. The failed Chief of Staff of the army Dan Chalutz,
who lost the battle to the Hizboillah in 2006, has endorsed it. So did
Haaretz and its amen chorus of domestic leftists, who will endorse any act
of Israeli capitulation as a step forward towards peace.
Oh, while in Israeli prison, Quntar was allowed to marry (remember the
media outrage and opposition to Yigal Amir getting married?), and also
did a BA in political science via Israel's Open University correspondence
programs. No doubt Ben Gurion University would also have liked having him
study political science but he was unable to make it to classes on campus.
The Open University is funded by the Israeli taxpayer.
Here are more materials on this national disgrace:
Palestinian TV: Baby-Killer "A Lesson for Us"
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Palestinian Media Watch | 6/30/2008
According to the Palestinian Authority leadership, Samir Quntar epitomizes
the ideal Palestinian prisoner. Quntar, who crushed the head of
four-year-old Eynat Haran with his rifle, is serving four life sentences
for murder in an Israeli prison, but is almost certain to be freed in a
prisoner swap with Hizbullah this week.
On one hand, Quntar embodies what the PA considers the "heroism" of
terrorists fighting Israel. On the other hand, he's the ultimate symbol of
all terrorist prisoners who have murdered Israelis and will eventually be
freed as a result of future kidnappings or through some other means.
PA TV, controlled by Mahmoud Abbas, broadcast the following picture
honoring Quntar. He is depicted beside a map of Israel completely covered
by the Palestinian flag.
[PATV, 23-25 June 2008]
Following are several recent quotes from PA leaders since April 2008,
"Samir Quntar, the warrior from Lebanon."
"The brave warrior, Samir Quntar."
"The Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership are standing behind
"You (Quntar) are an inseparable part of the action to free our homeland."
"Your (Quntar) patience and strength are a lesson for us."
Besides bludgeoning Eynat Haran to death with rocks and his rifle, Quntar
killed her father and was responsible for the death of her infant sister.
He also killed two policemen in the 1979 attack in Naharia. The Israeli
cabinet today approved a prisoner exchange that would free Quntar and
several other prisoners in exchange for Israeli soldiers Eldad Regev and
Ehud Goldwasser, who were kidnapped by Hizbullah in 2006. The exchange
could happen within the next few days.
Itamar Marcus is the founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch. He
was appointed by the Israeli government to be the Israeli representative
(communication specialist) to the Trilateral
(Israeli-American-Palestinian) Anti-Incitement Committee established under
the Wye Accords. From 1998 to 2000, Mr. Marcus served as research director
of the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, writing reports on PA,
Syrian, and Jordanian schoolbooks. He holds a BA in political science from
City College of New York and an MA in Hebrew culture from New York
University. Barbara Crook is associate director and North American
representative of Palestinian Media Watch. She teaches at the School of
Journalism and Communications at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.
She holds an Honors BA in English literature from Queen's University, an
MA in journalism from the University of Western Ontario, and is a Southam
Fellow at the University of Toronto.
The following Op-Ed by Moshe Arens was titles in Hebrew, "A Deal Worse
than that for Tannenbaum." The English Haaretz prettified the title.
Haaretz supports the hostage "deal" because Haaretz always endorses
Bargaining for the living and the dead
By Moshe Arens
Tags: Gilad Shalit
There was a time, not so many years ago, when the policy of Israeli
governments, when one of its citizens or soldiers was abducted by a
terrorist organization, was to send the Israel Defense Forces to free the
hostages. It was clear that negotiating with the terrorists and agreeing
to their outrageous demands was simply setting the stage for further
kidnappings and higher demands in the future. It was a good policy, even
though it involved risking the lives of the hostages and of those sent to
When in past years a policy of negotiating with terrorists for the release
of hostages was adopted, it only proved the original premise. The
terrorists' demands continued to escalate, and each "deal" with them only
provided an incentive for further kidnappings and for ever more outrageous
demands before the hostages would be released. The terrorists may have
released the hostages - dead or alive - but each surrender to their
demands only provided an incentive for additional kidnappings of Israelis
and escalating demands, and put at risk Israelis, as yet unnamed, whom the
terrorists would abduct in the future. In other words, they served as an
incentive for the further abduction of Israelis.
In June 2004, under then-prime minister Ariel Sharon and then-defense
minister Shaul Mofaz, a deal was struck with Hezbollah for the return of
three dead Israeli soldiers - Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan and Omar Suad -
and the release of Elhanan Tennenbaum, in return for about 450 convicted
terrorists in Israeli prisons. Whereas the three soldiers had been
kidnapped while on duty in the IDF, Tennenbaum had been kidnapped while on
an illegal trip in Abu Dhabi in pursuit of what he thought would be a
profitable drug deal. There was no justification for the arrangement
Sharon's government made in this case. One might have hoped that it would
serve as a benchmark not to be exceeded in the future, and as a lesson in
how not to negotiate with terrorists.
Making decisions in negotiating with terrorists for the release of Israeli
hostages is an agonizing matter, and ministers are not to be envied the
responsibility they carry on their shoulders. However, certain principles
that need to be applied are almost self-evident: 1. Whatever deal is to be
struck, it should be done immediately after the kidnapping. (Remember Ron
2. The price to be paid for the return of the living is not to be the same
as the price for the dead.
3. Remember the Israelis who are being put at risk in the future as a
result of giving in to the demands of the terrorists.
It is clear that in the case of the negotiations for the return of IDF
soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, these principles have not been
observed. In full knowledge that they have been murdered by Hezbollah, the
price that Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak now seem prepared to pay is
scandalous. Samir Kuntar is not just a terrorist "with blood on his
hands," but a cold-blooded murderer who killed a small child and her
father. If anything, this deal is worse than the Tennenbaum deal.
And now Gilad Shalit. Any fool understands that the Israeli government
held one significant lever on Hamas in this case - the continued blockade
of Gaza and the continuation of IDF attacks on Hamas and Islamic Jihad in
the Gaza Strip. The impression given by the government that agreeing to a
cease-fire with the terrorists was part and parcel of a deal for the
release of Shalit was nothing less than a cheap political manipulation.
One can only imagine the price that the terrorists are asking now that
they are holding not only Shalit hostage, but also the residents of
Sderot, Ashkelon and the settlements in the area. The Olmert government
has completely mishandled a most important security matter.
Now that the Olmert government is tottering and seems to about to topple,
its spokesmen are insisting that in view of the many dangers Israel is
facing, this is no time to change governments. In other words, don't
change horses midstream. But Olmert has provided additional proof, as if
additional proof were needed after the fiasco of the Second Lebanon War,
that his government cannot be trusted to deal with the dangers on the
horizon. The sooner they go the better.
I Am Ashamed to be an Israeli
By Steven Plaut
FrontPageMagazine.com | 1/30/2004
On Thursday January 29, Israel released about 450 imprisoned terrorists as
"payment" to the Hizbollah terrorist organization, in exchange for the
release of the bodies of three POWs murdered in cold blood by the
Hizbollah, and one captured Israeli, evidently a criminal, who had fallen
into Hizbollah captivity. Even as the exchanges were taking place, a
suicide bomb blew up a bus full of civilians in a residential area in
I have spent most of the past 12 years being ashamed to be an Israeli,
starting with the Oslo "peace process". Israeli governments made me
ashamed, and they did so by abasing, disgracing and humiliating me as a
Jew and as an Israeli.
I have been ashamed for 12 years at being an Israeli because this was the
period in which the governments of Israel abandoned the struggle for
Jewish national survival. They stopped trying to defend me and all other
Jews. They lectured me that it was my fault that the Arab fascists were
attacking Jews, and that it was within my power to stop the carnage if
only I would agree to demean myself sufficiently, to grovel before the
terrorists of the Middle East, and to appease the anti-Semites. I could
achieve peace if I would agree to place my neck in an Arab noose, but if I
refuse to do so then I would be the impediment to peace and my obstinacy
would be to blame for all further carnage.
For 12 years, my government pursued a policy of defending me and my family
by abandoning all attempts to defend us. My government decided to pursue
peace by pretending that war did not exist. After two millennia of
anti-Semitism, my government decided that anti-Semitism does not REALLY
exist, and that when people randomly murder Jewish children it is because
they have some legitimate grievances, because they have suffered, and
because Jews have shown them insufficient sensitivity.
My government implemented policies based on the presumption that the
making of concessions to blood-thirsty terrorists would be rewarded with
moderation and goodwill, that importing armed terrorist militiamen into
the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would cause them to seek peace. My
government followed policies based on the notion that the Jews were evil,
insensitive, and selfish. My government decided that if Jews would only
"share" their land and resources with those who rule the entire territory
from the Atlantic Ocean to Central Asia, that is, with those who refuse to
agree to any "sharing" that allows a Jewish state to exist anywhere in the
Middle East, then there would be peace.
My government decided that rewarding terrorists for violence would end
violence, and then told me that there was simply no alternative to
coddling terrorists and Islamofascists.
My government pursued peace by pretending that war did not exist. My
government sought peace through arming and bankrolling terrorists as
payoffs for a meaningless peace "accord". My government decided that
anti-Semitism can only be overcome by redressing the "underlying
grievances" that it reflects. My government fought terrorism by not
fighting it, and by trying to appease it. My government insisted that I
must coddle anti-Semites and terrorists, and must pander to their agenda
and desires for there is no other choice. My government over the past 12
years preached to me that it was my own pride and my parochial patriotism
that was the obstacle to peace. It told me I must seek peace through
self-abasement and self-humiliation. My government told me that if I would
show willingness to compromise, then so would the Arabs.
My government has been wrong about everything, but refuses to admit it has
been wrong about anything. My government decided that Palestinians are a
"nation" and that large chunks of my Jewish lands were in fact
"Palestinian lands". My government decided that Arabs may freely live any
place they wish anywhere in the land of Israel, but I may not live freely
where I might choose if it happens to be across the pre-1967 "Green Line"
border. My government instituted discrimination against me and against
other Jews in the name of "affirmative action", quotas and preferences for
Arabs and directed against me.
My government fought for my survival through cowardice and endless
"restraint", turning my other cheek against my will, pursuing endless
"goodwill gestures", which only enflamed the violence. It did so despite
the fact that I and my fellow Israeli citizens voted repeatedly to revoke
the "Oslo approach" and voted in favor of pursuing war against our
enemies, not appeasement. My government abandoned all of northern Israel
to the mercies of the Hizbollah rockets when it withdrew under fire from
its security zone in southern Lebanon, rockets now aimed at me in the
thousands. My government abandoned the Jewish towns near the Gaza Strip to
rocket barrages from the PLO.
I have spent the past 12 years cringing in shame. My government made me
feel that way. But I have NEVER felt as ashamed at being an Israeli as I
did this week, when my government decided to reward the Hizbollah for
murdering three of my fellow citizens in cold blood. My government also
abandoned Ron Arad, the seventeen-year long-missing Israeli navigator MIA,
releasing his kidnapper, a Lebanese terrorist being held in Israeli prison
as a bargaining chip for Arad's release, and rewarding the terrorists who
originally kidnapped Arad when his plane crashed, who then "sold" him to
Iran and possibly murdered him.
My government decided to release nearly 450 murderers with blood on their
hands in order to "buy" the release of the carcasses of three of my fellow
citizens who were murdered by the Hizbollah after they had been kidnapped
by it in a border incursion. My government had abandoned southern Lebanon
to the Hizbollah and assured me there would be complete tranquility
thereafter. After the farcical Israeli "withdrawal" ordered by my
government, the Hizbollah has fired almost daily into Israel, has sent in
terrorists who murdered Israeli civilians, and snatched the three soldiers
(two Jews and one Bedouin Arab) whose bodies were released this week,
after murdering them in cold blood.
Last week the Hizbollah murdered one more army officer working a bulldozer
near the border; in response my government punished some empty Hizbollah
buildings in southern Lebanon. This week's prisoner "deal" was made
possible only because my government refuses to execute the murderers, the
terrorists. My government thinks capital punishment is inhumane, and its
absence has made possible the murders of 1300 of my fellow countrymen.
That is like twenty two September 11ths, when measured proportional to
The Hizbollah also held as prisoner a man who had entered Lebanon
apparently for criminal purposes, possibly a drug deal to pay off his
gambling debts. I opposed releasing any terrorists to get him released. I
might have considered agreeing to release a handful as payment to the
Hizbollah to keep him imprisoned there, if he is indeed a drug smuggler.
My government decided to respond to the murders of the three POWs by
rewarding their murderers, not by converting three Hizbollah towns into
large parking lots, not by bathing the Hizbollah leaders in napalm. My
government signaled to all my fellow citizens that it was unwilling to
avenge our deaths. My government let every Israeli soldier know that his
life would be worthless if captured by the enemy because my government
would always seek "deals" with those who murder POWs. My government made
it known that by grabbing some Israelis as hostages, anyone could obtain
any concession they want from my country. My government also let every
soldier know that, if captured in war, he would be abandoned to his fate
by my government. My government agreed to this "deal" with the Hizbollah,
a deal that spit on the family of missing Israeli airman Ron Arad.
The man who kidnapped and "sold" Arad has been released by my government
as payment for the release of the common criminal. My government is trying
to cover its shame by boasting that it "held out tough" and refused to
release a baby-murdering terrorist named Samir Kuntar, the man who
murdered three members of a northern Israeli family several years ago. My
same government boasts that it would have released this arch-murderer had
the Hizbollah so much as told Israel where Ron Arad (or his grave) is.
So much for "standing tough".
My government is a disgrace. My government practices cowardice and
pretends it is courage. My government displays indifference to the
Israelis who will now be murdered by those released terrorists and
murderers. My government had the gall to pretend it was acting out of
compassion and morality when it signed this capitulation, when it placed
that smirk on the face of the Hizbollah chief terrorist, boasting of his
victory. To drive home the point that the "deal" proves to the world that
the Jews are on the run, the terrorists blew up a bus in Jerusalem even
while the prisoner exchange was being carried out, the same Jerusalem they
pretend is holy to them, as part of celebrating the stampede of Jewish
flight. After all, the Hizbollah was being rewarded for terror, so why
should not the Palestinians follow their lead in obtaining Israeli
The bus atrocity in Jerusalem was carried out by the "Al Aqsa Martyrs
Brigades," a PLO terror group under the direct command and control of
My government pretended it was suddenly acting out of Jewish ethical
values. My government would not know a Jewish ethical value if it popped
up in its face. My government pretends there is a "Part B" to this
capitulation, in which information about Ron Arad will be released. I do
not believe them. I think my government is lying to window-dress this act
As I watch the victory smile on the mug of the Hizbollah Chief Terrorist,
my own government makes me cringe. My government makes me ashamed of being
(To read how others see the "deal", see
2. A minor victory:
Note how many yea
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Sarkozy and Land for Peace
Well, Sarkozy was in Jerusalem this week, and standing before the Knesset
he called for Israel to agree to have Jerusalem divided, with half turned
over to the savages. He also called for ethnic cleansing of the Jews
living in the West Bank
These French politicians have long believed that peace could be created by
turning Israel into a sort of Vichy appeasement regime. But now that they
want to purchase peace with land, they may be on to something important.
Never one to back down from a challenge, I have prepared a set of
proposals for consideration by the French people, so they too can achieve
a full, lasting, and just peace with their historic opponents.
First, we all agree that territory must not be annexed by force.
Therefore, we can also agree that Germany has a moral right to demand the
return of Alsace-Lorraine, for the French aggression in 1945 and its
consequent occupation must not be rewarded. "A full withdrawal for full
peace" should operate here. Further, France must agree to the return and
rehabilitation of all ethnic Germans expelled from Alsace-Lorraine after
World Wars I and II, as well as all those they define as their
But this, of course, is just the first step toward a solution, as no
aggression can be rewarded.and France has much other stolen territory to
return. It took Corsica from Genoa, Nice and Savoy from Piedmont; as the
successor state, Italy must get back all these lands. By similar token,
territories grabbed from the Habsburgs go back to Austria, including
Franche-Comt., Artois, and historic Burgundy. The Roussillon area (along
the Pyren.es) must be returned to Spain, its rightful owner. And Normandy,
Anjou, Aquitaine, and Gascony must be returned to their rightful owners,
the British royal family.
Not even this not enough for the sake of peace. Brittany and Languedoc
must be granted autonomy at once, recognizing the Breton and Occitan
Liberation organizations as their legal rulers. This leaves the French
government in control over the .le de France (the area around Paris).
That, however, still does not solve the problem of the Holy City of Paris,
sacred to artists, gourmets, and adulterers. The Corsicans obviously have
a historic claim to the Tomb of the Emperor Napoleon, their famed son, as
well as the Invalides complex and beyond. For the sake of peace, is it not
too much to ask that Paris be the capital for two peoples? The French
authorities must agree to prevent French Parisians from even entering the
sacred tomb area, lest this upset the Corsicans.
The Saint Chapelle and the Church of Notre Dame of course will be
internationalized, under joint Vatican-art historical auspices. Indeed,
the French should consider it a compliment of the highest order that so
many people see Paris as an international city.
The French have nothing to complain of. They will enjoy the benefits of
peace and retain control of the Champs Elysees.
Actually, come to think of it, even the Champs Elys.es may be too much.
Recalling the French position that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel,
perhaps the true French capital is not Paris at all, but Vichy.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Good Lynch, Bad Lynch - Haaretz Displays its Integrity
AH, Haaretz, the Palestinian newspaper printed in Hebrew, the daily whose
idea of "pluralism" is based on Brezhnev's Pravda, the newspaper in which
Israel (and America) are always wrong and the Islamofascists are always
right, the newspaper of Post-Zionism and Post-Judaism, where Israeli
survival is an archaic idea whose time has past.
Haaretz, or Al-Ard in Arabic, has for many years adopted the quaint
custom of anti-Semitic newspapers elsewhere in referring to suicide bombers
and mass murderers of Jews as "activists" and "militants." Yet suddenly,
this week the "T" word appears on Haaretz' front page. "T" as in terrorist.
How come? Well, the news story concerns Eden Natan-Zada, a mentally ill
Israeli soldier (actually a deserter) who shot up Shfaram in October 2005
and killed several Druse and Arabs. Shfaram is about 40 minutes outside
Haifa. He was then attacked by locals in the crowd who lynched him,
Ever since, the Israeli Attorney General's office has been mulling over
whether to prosecute the members of the mob who killed the by-then-disarmed
Natan-Zada. This week, the prosecution decided not to prosecute.
This is newsworthy because there have been cases in which Arab terrorists
were apprehended live after they murdered Jews and who were then summarily
executed by those who captured them. In every one of these cases, those who
dispatched the terrorhoids were prosecuted. The most famous incident being
the Bus 300 affair (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kav_300_affair).
Now after the Natan-Zada incident, I called for the prosecution NOT to
indict those who killed the perp. I also insisted that killing terrorists
should never be considered a crime, even when Jews kill captured Arab
terrorists, and that the decision not to prosecute should be regarded as
case precedent for ALL who kill terrorists, even when the killers are Jews.
I thought that those who executed the terrorists in the Bus 300 affair
should have been given medals. I am all in favor of lynching terrorists
captured immediately after they commit mass murder.
Now Haaretz is also in favor of such lynching, but only when the perp
is a Jew and the victims Arabs. Haaretz is NEVER in favor of punishing Arab
terrorists who murder Jews, and of course opposes the death penalty for
Which brings us to the Haaretz editorial in the very same issue (June 16)
in which it cheers the decision by the AG not to indict the killers of
Natan-Zada. Every second word referring to Natan-Zada in the Haaretz
articles about the decision refer to him as a "terrorist." He of course was
not, although he was a killer, and probably was not legally sane.
In the very same issue, it runs an editorial demanding that a Jewish
farmer in the Negev who shot Arab burglars who had broken into his small
ranch be indicted! In January 2007 one Shai Dromi shot two Arabs who had
broken into his homestead, trying to steal his sheep, and he killed one and
injured the other.
The Attorney General prosecuted him. The Knesset decided to take an
uncharacteristic stand against this case of judicial activism and judicial
tyranny by starting to pass (it already passed its "first reading") a
special law, known in the media as the Shai Dromi Law, declaring that people
who kill or injure burglars and intruders into their homes will not be
prosecuted. The farm lobby took time off from lobbying for cheap water and
subsidies to back the bill.
Haaretz of course is outraged! This law would be nothing less than a
"license to kill." (See http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/992997.html) What
about their Miranda rights?
I cite the editorial:
'The new law will lead to killing to no avail, and could include people
accidentally harming members of their own family. True, a man's home is his
castle, and he has to be granted the right of self-defense therein, but it
is not permissible to shed the blood of someone who enters the house, even
if he is a burglar. The place of thieves is in prison, but they must not be
turned into the victims of executions. Nor is it reasonable to extend the
rights granted to a person in his home to his yard, store or flock as well.'
So when is it okay in Haaretz' opinion to kill intruders? When they are
Jewish "intruders" in "Palestinian lands," of course!
2. Wall St. Journal email@example.com
June 19, 2008
Israel's Truce With Hamas Is a Victory for Iran
By MICHAEL B. OREN
June 19, 2008; Page A13
Proponents of an Israeli-Palestinian accord are praising the cease-fire
between Israel and Hamas that went into effect this morning. Yet even if
agreement suspends violence temporarily -- though dozens of Hamas rockets
struck Israel yesterday -- it represents a historic accomplishment for the
jihadist forces most opposed to peace, and defeat for the Palestinians who
might still have been Israel's partners.
The roots of this tragedy go back to the summer of 2005 and the Israeli
withdrawal from Gaza. The evacuation, intended to free Israel of Gaza's
political and strategic burden, was hailed as a victory by Palestinian
terrorist groups, above all Hamas.
Hamas proceeded to fire some 1,000 rocket and mortar shells into Israel.
months later Hamas gunmen, taking advantage of an earlier cease-fire,
infiltrated into Israel, killed two soldiers, and captured Cpl. Gilad
Hamas's audacity spurred Hezbollah to mount a similar ambush against
Israelis patrolling the Lebanese border, triggering a war in which Israel
was once again humbled. Hamas now felt sufficiently emboldened to
Gaza's Fatah-led government, and to declare itself regnant in the Strip.
Subsequently, Hamas launched thousands more rocket and mortar salvos
Israel, rendering parts of the country nearly uninhabitable.
In response, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) air strikes and limited ground
incursions killed hundreds of armed Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel
international censure for collateral civilian deaths and
tactics. Israel also imposed a land and sea blockade of Gaza, strictly
controlling its supply of vital commodities such as a gasoline. But the
policy enabled Hamas to hoard the fuel and declare a humanitarian crisis.
Israel never mounted the rolling, multi-month operation that the IDF had
planned. Traumatized by his abortive performance in the Lebanon War,
by financial scandals, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert balked at a military
engagement liable to result in incalculable casualties and United Nations
condemnations, but unlikely to halt Hamas aggression.
Like Hezbollah in 2006, Hamas won because it did not lose. Its leaders
walked Gaza's streets freely while children in Sderot and other Israeli
border towns cowered in bomb shelters. Like Hezbollah, which recently
wrested unprecedented powers from the Lebanese parliament, Hamas parlayed
its military success into political capital.
The European Parliament demanded the immediate lifting of the Gaza
and France initiated secret contacts with Hamas officials. A minister from
the Israeli Labor Party, Ami Ayalon, went a step further by calling for
Hamas's inclusion in peace talks -- a recommendation soon echoed by Jimmy
Carter and the New York Times.
The Egyptian-brokered cease-fire yields Hamas greater benefits than it
have obtained in direct negotiations. In exchange for giving its word to
halt rocket attacks and weapons smuggling, Hamas receives the right to
monitor the main border crossings into Gaza and to enforce a truce in the
West Bank, where Fatah retains formal control.
If quiet is maintained, then Israel will be required to accept a
in the West Bank as well. The blockade will be incrementally lifted while
Cpl. Shalit remains in captivity. Hamas can regroup and rearm.
The Olmert government will have to go vast lengths to portray this
arrangement as anything other than a strategic and moral defeat. Hamas
initiated a vicious war against Israel, destroyed and disrupted myriad
Israeli lives, and has been rewarded with economic salvation and
Tellingly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who once declared Hamas
illegal, will soon travel to Gaza for reconciliation talks. Mr. Abbas's
signifies the degree to which Hamas, with Israel's help, now dominates
Palestinian politics. It testifies, moreover, to another Iranian triumph.
As the primary sponsor of Hamas, Iran is the cease-fire's ultimate
beneficiary. Having already surrounded Israel on three of its borders --
Gaza, Lebanon, Syria -- Iran is poised to penetrate the West Bank. By
activating these fronts, Tehran can divert attention from its nuclear
program and block any diplomatic effort.
The advocates of peace between Israelis and Palestinians should recognize
that fact when applauding quiet at any price. The cost of this truce may
well be war.
Mr. Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, is the author
of "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the
Present" (Norton, 2008).
URL for this article:
3. From the ISM terrorist web site:
Subject: Re: [ISM Media Group] Israeli forces assault and forcibly deport
New Zealand peace activist once kidnapped in Iraq.
ISM Media Alerts <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Harmeet Sooden, a peace activist from New Zealand, was forcibly
deported from Israel on the 18th of June at 1 am, after four days in
jail. Sooden was told he was being deported because he was a ..threat
to the security of the State of Israel... Sooden, along with Tom Fox,
Norman Kember, and James Loney, was held in captivity for four months
while working with the Christian Peacemaker..s Team (CPT) in Iraq.
..I am still reeling from this experience. It dredged up some old
feelings. I told them honestly that I had come to revisit Yad Vashem,
visit historic sites and volunteer for ISM. They never disclosed the
official reason for denying me, the Ministry of Interior official told
me that I was a ..threat to the security of the State of Israel..,..
Sooden said of his time in Israeli captivity.
When Sooden arrived early in the morning on June 14th he was
immediately questioned by the authorities, who attempted to deport him
the first time that night, without letting him talk to a lawyer. He
resisted the first deportation and was transferred to ..Unit 9... Later
they attempted to deport him again, assaulting him in the process and
dragging him on to the plane. The pilot refused to fly and so he
avoided the second deportation attempt. Sooden was later successfully
deported with security officers aboard the plane, and will arrive in
New Zealand at 2:15 pm on June 20th (Via Bangkok).
Sooden was targetted because of his past involvement with the
International Solidarity Movement (ISM). Sooden was active previously
in Nablus and Jenin with ISM and was part of a two week delegation to
Iraq which turned into four months of captivity, during which one of
his comrades, Tom Fox, was murdered.
June 18, 2008
The Mistakes That Launched 3,000 Rockets
By Richard A. Baehr
Directed By Peter Lord and Nick Park
6. More Patriotism:
Last update - 17:56 10/06/2008
Arab towns to distribute 'Nakba' alternative history booklet outside
By Yoav Stern
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Lizard of Oz
The Lizard of Oz at the University of Haifa
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Olmert - Nothing to Lose
Olmert: Nothing to Lose
By Amir Taheri
New York Post | 6/3/2008
If history were to choose a sobriquet for Ehud Olmert, what would it be?
The accidental prime minister!
Two years ago, Olmert moved into the prime ministerial chair because his
boss and mentor, Ariel Sharon, had suffered a stroke. This week or the
week after, Olmert will be gone because most Israelis have had enough of
his troubles with justice over a range of accusations, including bribery
and money laundering.
Olmert may or may not be guilty of the charges, though they have won him
the unofficial title of "Israel's Most Corrupt Politician," and that is
really saying something.
Theoretically, Olmert should have been one of the best prepared of all
those who acceded to Israel's premiership. He had an impressive CV, as
Mayor of Jerusalem, holder of several Cabinet posts, and close aide to
Yitzhak Shamir and Sharon. And yet, after two years as prime minister,
Olmert gives the impression that he doesn't have a clue what the post is
about. Even his admirers cannot cite a single significant contribution
that he might have made on any major issue of domestic or foreign policy.
There are several reasons for Olmert's "do-nothing" style, not all of them
due to his shortcomings.
Israel's peculiar political system, designed to fragment power, obliges
any prime minister to spend at least half of his time holding an uneasy
coalition together. Another 20 percent of the time is wasted on keeping an
eye on friends who are always ready to stab you in the back.
Even then, Olmert could have done better. He didn't, because he lacks the
As a lawyer, he is so used to either-oring issues that he ends up confused
and unable to pick an option.
Olmert is practitioner of what one might call the politics of appearance.
He is more concerned about how things look rather than how they are. The
latest example is his recent, almost childish, eagerness to open a
dialogue with the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Olmert knows that Assad, at war against his own people in Syria, cannot
offer Israel peace. And, yet, he agrees to dance with the Syrian only to
avoid criticism from the " Realpolitik" cabal at home and abroad.
Olmert knows that Khomeinism, having seized control of Iran's immense
resources, and acquired tentacles in Lebanon and Gaza, is the principal
medium-term existential threat to Israel. And yet he has been pushing that
dossier toward the Americans, who have been pushing it back toward him.
Olmert's half-heartedness was demonstrated with catastrophic results
during the summer war against Iran's Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon two
Having assembled a massive force, Olmert didn't know what to do with it.
In that conflict, Hezbollah suffered huge losses, enough to constitute
total defeat in a conventional war. However, Olmert's decision to wave a
big stick but settle for pinpricks enabled Tehran and its proxies to claim
Almost all Israeli prime ministers are known for ideas about ways of
settling the Palestinian issue. Remember the Begin Plan, the Allon Plan,
the Sharon Plan?
There has never been an Olmert Plan.
Even when others have come up with ideas, such as the Arab League's
proposal of 2006 or the revised version of President George W Bush's
"roadmap" as presented at Anapolis last November, Olmert has failed to
mobilize the degree of Israeli commitment and engagement that might have
produced some concrete results. Instead, he has danced around the issues,
asking for "clarifications," and sending conflicting signals in all
Because the Israeli system puts the prime minister at the center of the
nation's political life, it does matter whether the man, or woman, in
charge is dynamic or lethargic.
Olmertism, to coin a phrase, means going through the motions of acting as
prime minister but doing as little as you could get away with.
In a conversation we had in his office in Tel Aviv last year, Shimon
Peres, now President of Israel, argued that, in this era of globalization,
governments were becoming irrelevant. "The future is shaped by
entrepreneurs with fresh ideas, especially the younger ones," he said.
"The most that an intelligent government could do is to let them do it."
In that sense, Olmert has been the ideal prime minister.
He has buried Israel's old socialist ghosts and their claim to plan the
economy and distribute its fruits. He has completed the dismantling of
cumbersome structures designed in the 19th century.
The trouble is that, beyond economics, Israel faces problems like no other
nation-state in the world. It is the only nation publicly threatened with
annihilation by several powers, notably the Islamic Republic in Iran.
Olmertism cannot cope with such challenges and threats. It is a passive,
and, ultimately, self-serving style of politics in a country that would
always need a strong dose of dynamism and idealism simply to survive.
Many Israelis feel that they need a new national strategy that looks
beyond survival. This is why they think it is time to declare an end to
Olmertism. There are many waiting in the queue to succeed Olmert: Foreign
Minister Tzipi Livini, Defence Minister Ehud Barrack, and, of course,
Likud leader Benyamin Netanyahu. They may have very different plans, but
at least they have something to offer.
2. So now how bout we send some Post-Zionist professors there?
3. Viva La Michelle:
4. Form a campus bulletin board near you :
5. Win the War?
By Matthew Continetti
The Weekly Standard | 6/4/2008
Don't look now, but evidence of progress in the war on terror is just
about everywhere. Last week CIA director Michael Hayden noted some U.S.
accomplishments for the Washington Post: "Near strategic defeat of
al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia.
Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally." USA Today: Attacks in Iraq
are "down 70 percent since President Bush ordered a U.S. troop increase,
or 'surge,' early last year."
The New Yorker's Lawrence Wright devoted a long essay to Sayyid Imam
al-Sharif, onetime mentor to Ayman al Zawahiri, who now criticizes his
former protg and Osama bin Laden and suggests they be put on trial. In the
New Republic, Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank told the story of Sheikh
Salman al-Awdah, author of an open letter attacking bin Laden and violent
jihad that has caused shockwaves across the Muslim world. The sheikhs of
Anbar Province in Iraq lead a national, transsectarian movement preparing
for provincial elections by the end of the year. Polling shows a
widespread decline in support among Muslims for suicide bombing and for
bin Laden. Fareed Zakaria observed that the number of Islamist attacks
worldwide has declined precipitously since 2004.
How did this happen? It is partly due to Muslim outrage at al Qaeda's
killing of its coreligionists. It is partly due to Muslim rejection of al
Qaeda's malign interpretation of Islam. For these reasons, Bergen and
Cruickshank wrote that "encoded in the DNA of apocalyptic jihadist groups
like Al Qaeda are the seeds of their own long-term destruction."
True. But such seeds must be sown, watered, and tended. Read the authors
mentioned above, and you would think that al Qaeda's troubles sprung up
overnight. They did not. Its troubles cannot be separated from U.S.
counterterrorism policy. From President Bush's policy.
After 9/11, the president mobilized all forms of American power against
bin Laden and his global jihadist movement. The constant pressure--cutting
off the movement's funding, bringing down the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan, hunting down jihadist affiliates in the Philippines and the
Horn of Africa, spying on the terrorists' global communications--put the
enemy on the defensive for the first time.
Then the president denied the jihadists an ally by removing Saddam Hussein
from power in Iraq. Bin Laden declared Iraq the "central front" of his war
against the West, and the Sunni insurgency helped Al Qaeda in Iraq gain a
foothold there. Bush changed strategy last year, sending reinforcements to
Iraq and ordering General Petraeus to secure the country's population. The
results have been dramatic. By the time the first reinforcements arrived
in Iraq, the Anbaris were already turning against al Qaeda. The Americans
helped to almost completely eliminate the group in Anbar. Al Qaeda in Iraq
is on the run. It has been denied its strategic goal of establishing an
Islamic State of Iraq. Its black flag flies no more there.
What once seemed a war between jihadists and the West is now a war between
jihadists and Muslims who reject terrorism. Bin Laden is close to losing
this fight on his central front. Al Qaeda is no longer the attractive
"strong horse" of bin Laden's December 2001 metaphor. It is that fact,
more than any other, that accounts for his movement's current disarray.
But a global war has many fronts. Progress in one battle is often
accompanied by setbacks in another. Al Qaeda may be on the brink of
defeat, but its leadership maintains a safe haven along Pakistan's
northwest frontier. In Afghanistan, Coalition forces continue to fight al
Qaeda, the Taliban, and other agents of state failure. Meanwhile, the
Iranian theocracy moves steadily forward in its quest for nuclear weapons.
Iran's proxies in Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon commit murder in the pursuit of
illiberal ends. A disturbing number of European Muslims are sympathetic to
the jihadists and are a potential source of fresh recruits. And a
precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would erase all of the progress that has
been made in the last year and a half. A precipitous withdrawal would
provide aid and comfort to al Qaeda.
The left's analysis of jihadism has been proved incorrect at every turn.
It argued military power would be ineffective against the terrorists.
Wrong. It argued that intervention in Iraq would energize bin Laden's
movement. That movement is in shambles. The left argued Iraq was a lost
cause. It isn't. The left argues that a "war on terrorism" is futile, that
defeat is inevitable, because terrorism is a "tactic," not an enemy.
Nonsense. President Bush has demonstrated through perseverance and (more
often than not) sound policy that the war on terror can be won. And right
now we're winning it.
5. The evil Haim Bereshit:
6. Haifa U's Anti-Israel Cult:
Monday, June 02, 2008
Rev Wright vs. the Pseudo-Rabbi of Meaning?
Monday, June 2, 2008
Hillary's answer to Rev Wright
The whole world is talking about the "theological" crackpots with whom
Barack Obama has long hung out. The worst of them, the "Reverend" Jeremiah
Wright, is a vulgar Afrofascist, arguable worse than the Rev Al. As it
turns out, Wright went to the same high school as me, an academic magnet
school in Philadelphia that admitted lots of qualified black students long
before "affirmative action apartheid" dumbed down standards. Since Wright
had such a nice generous start in life from Central High School, where he
no doubt was treated wonderfully and with respect by the 70% of the
student body that was Jewish, you might have expected better from him.
And while Rev Wright is foaming at the mouth against Dem Joos and America,
it is worth keeping in mind for balance that Hillary Clinton also has a
long track record of hanging about with lunatic pseudo-theologians. We
recall how in the first Clinton Administration, Hillary chose as her guru
the pseudo-rabbi Michael Lerner, the Sixties fossilized pro-LSD editor of
Tikkun Magazine and proponent of the silly "Politics of Meaning" form of
pseudo-religion, in which all religion is transformed into pursuit of the
political fads of the Left. Lerner of course is not a rabbi, and was never
ordained by any terrestrial rabbinic seminary.
Would a President Hillary invite Mikey Lerner over to the Oval Office to
blow dope with her?
2. Latest from Isracampus.org.il:
The anti-Israel Cult of Prof. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi of the University of
By Lee Kaplan, www.isracampus.org.il
Israel's Enemies Within
By Myles Kantor
Did Baruch Kimmerling illustrate the stupidity of the intelligentsia or
was he just plain evil and self-serving?
By Lee Kaplan, www.isracampus.org.il
3. This week.s award for the Stupidest .Rabbis. on the Planet goes
4. York U Jihad: http://www.forward.com/articles/13471/