Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Cult of Personality
Today, for the most part, the Likud has all but ceased being a party and has become a personality cult. The party's Central Committee today voted to maintain in power a man who has acted contrary to every critical foreign policy decision of the Likud membership; a man who lost a referendum on his policies within his own party and went on to implement them anyway.
Those who voted to leave Ariel Sharon in power, by not moving up Likud party primaries, have proven that they will follow their "right-wing" king even as he implements the ideology of the far-left Meretz party.
Here is part of the Likud platform of the last national election:
"Settlement is a preeminent expression of the people of Israel's unquestionable right to Eretz Israel, and constitutes an important asset for the defense of the essential interests of the State of Israel. The Likud shall act for its continued strengthening and development."
And:
"The State of Israel will not allow the establishment of an Arab Palestinian state west of the Jordan River."
The Likud platform for the fifteenth Knesset elections was even more explicit:
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
On the other hand, the far-left Meretz party strongly favors the establishment of a Palestinian State, the destruction of all Jewish towns in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and proclaims national rights in the Land of Israel for Arabs.
Now, seeing as the Ariel Sharon of 2005 has advocated for a Palestinian State west of the Jordan, has destroyed Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel and has explicitly expressed the belief, at the United Nations, that Arabs have national rights to the Land of Israel, how can it be anything but a cult of personality that keeps the prime minister afloat in his ostensibly "right-wing" party?
Those who voted to leave Ariel Sharon in power, by not moving up Likud party primaries, have proven that they will follow their "right-wing" king even as he implements the ideology of the far-left Meretz party.
Here is part of the Likud platform of the last national election:
"Settlement is a preeminent expression of the people of Israel's unquestionable right to Eretz Israel, and constitutes an important asset for the defense of the essential interests of the State of Israel. The Likud shall act for its continued strengthening and development."
And:
"The State of Israel will not allow the establishment of an Arab Palestinian state west of the Jordan River."
The Likud platform for the fifteenth Knesset elections was even more explicit:
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
On the other hand, the far-left Meretz party strongly favors the establishment of a Palestinian State, the destruction of all Jewish towns in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and proclaims national rights in the Land of Israel for Arabs.
Now, seeing as the Ariel Sharon of 2005 has advocated for a Palestinian State west of the Jordan, has destroyed Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel and has explicitly expressed the belief, at the United Nations, that Arabs have national rights to the Land of Israel, how can it be anything but a cult of personality that keeps the prime minister afloat in his ostensibly "right-wing" party?
Sunday, September 25, 2005
"Death for the Sake of Allah"
The images of Islamist terrorists dancing on, burning down or praying in defiled synagogues in what was Gush Katif and northern Samaria cause feelings of rage in the hearts of most patriotic Jews. Personally, Islamist terrorists and their supporters celebrating the defeat (even if it was self-inflicted) of the Jews is enough to make me physically ill.
Even before the latest humiliation in Gaza, though, I often wondered why Israel refrains from bombing the rallies at which Hamas and Islamic Jihad supporters gather and call for the mass-murder of Jews. A Nazi rally at which Goebbels was speaking, it seems to me, would have been a legitimate target in World War II Europe. Certainly as much as the entire cities of Dresden or Hiroshima.
Well, I don't claim to know God's mind or calculations, but I do know that there is no sin in feeling a dark smile creep across my lips upon reading the following report (excerpted) from the Associated Press:
Even before the latest humiliation in Gaza, though, I often wondered why Israel refrains from bombing the rallies at which Hamas and Islamic Jihad supporters gather and call for the mass-murder of Jews. A Nazi rally at which Goebbels was speaking, it seems to me, would have been a legitimate target in World War II Europe. Certainly as much as the entire cities of Dresden or Hiroshima.
Well, I don't claim to know God's mind or calculations, but I do know that there is no sin in feeling a dark smile creep across my lips upon reading the following report (excerpted) from the Associated Press:
A truck filled with masked militants and homemade weapons exploded at a Hamas rally Friday, killing at least 15 Palestinians and wounding 80... bringing a grisly and terrifying end to one of the last gatherings by armed groups celebrating Israel's Gaza pullout.At a Friday rally in one of the abandoned Jewish towns in Gaza over a week ago, a Hamas speaker got the crowd going with a series of chanted questions and answers. One part went like this:
The blast sent a huge cloud of white smoke over the mass festivities, a sea of green Hamas flags and thousands of people gathered at Jebaliya, a Palestinian refugee camp that was the scene of harsh fighting between militants and Israeli soldiers during the past five years of violence.
....
Mishandled explosives apparently caused the blast, which came a day before an agreement by militants not to publicly parade weapons is to take effect.
....
Hamas said six militants were killed, including Jihad Shaleal, head of the group's military wing in Jebaliya.
Palestinian security officials said the blast was an accident but Hamas blamed Israel....
....
The explosion came in the middle of the celebration. The militants are extremely popular with young Palestinians, and teenagers surrounded the pickup before the blast, said Abu Rashad, who was just a few feet away. He said three militants with two homemade rockets were in the truck's bed, and three or four other militants rode inside.
....
An accidental explosion would be only the latest in a string of deadly mishaps for militant groups in Gaza.
A Hamas weapons warehouse exploded this month in Gaza City, killing six people. Hamas claimed it was an Israeli attack, but Palestinian security forces found the blast was an accident caused by the militants.
During an Islamic Jihad rally at the abandoned Jewish settlement of Netzarim last week, a gunman died after accidentally shooting himself in the head.
Even after the blast Friday, seven or eight gunmen stood in the back of another truck riding through Gaza, using their feet to stop a half-dozen rockets from bouncing around in the bed.
Speaker: What is your path?So, is dying because terrorists from "your movement" are idiots considered "death for the sake of Allah"? I hope so. I'd like to see more of them exit the scene that way.
Crowd: Jihad.
Speaker: What is your path?
Crowd: Jihad.
Speaker: What is your greatest desire?
Crowd: Death for the sake of Allah.
Speaker: What is your greatest desire?
Crowd: Death for the sake of Allah.
Speaker: What is your greatest desire?
Crowd: Death for the sake of Allah.
Speaker: What is your movement?
Crowd: Hamas.
Speaker: What is your movement?
Crowd: Hamas.
[Translation courtesy of http://www.memri.org/.]
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Black Rage
Saw this on TV on September 18th, allegedly filmed unbeknownst to those involved:
A protest against the security fence in a local Arab village. Arabs are inside a locked mosque courtyard. They call out to a Jewish soldier of Ethiopian origin through the gate:
"Hey, nigger. Hey, nigger. What are you doing? You have no rights... This is a mosque!"
Soldier: "Who are you calling nigger?!"
Then, soldier pulls out a tear gas cannister and looks like he's ready to throw it. But he clutches it, walks to and fro, infuriated. His comrades encourage him: "Throw it! Throw it!"
Eventually, he does. Gas cannister lands in mosque courtyard. All hell breaks loose (hey, a mosque was "violated").
Now, guess in what context this was presented:
a) As an example of Arab anti-African racism.
b) Arab hypocrisy in using their mosque as cover for incitement, and then getting upset about attacks on the mosque.
c) Arab cowardice - hiding inside a locked courtyard and antagonizing Jews.
d) Jewish restraint in the face of provocations by Arabs.
e) An example of how Jews cause anti-fence protests to turn violent with their unrestrained provocations against Muslims.
If you guessed (e), you win a free subscription to Makes-Sense-To-Me news......
And I remind you - this was Israeli TV (Channel 2; But I expect good ol' Channel 10 to do an expose any minute about how the mosque was actually the national Hamas headquarters and how the soldier was an immigrant convert from New Orleans, Louisiana......)
A protest against the security fence in a local Arab village. Arabs are inside a locked mosque courtyard. They call out to a Jewish soldier of Ethiopian origin through the gate:
"Hey, nigger. Hey, nigger. What are you doing? You have no rights... This is a mosque!"
Soldier: "Who are you calling nigger?!"
Then, soldier pulls out a tear gas cannister and looks like he's ready to throw it. But he clutches it, walks to and fro, infuriated. His comrades encourage him: "Throw it! Throw it!"
Eventually, he does. Gas cannister lands in mosque courtyard. All hell breaks loose (hey, a mosque was "violated").
Now, guess in what context this was presented:
a) As an example of Arab anti-African racism.
b) Arab hypocrisy in using their mosque as cover for incitement, and then getting upset about attacks on the mosque.
c) Arab cowardice - hiding inside a locked courtyard and antagonizing Jews.
d) Jewish restraint in the face of provocations by Arabs.
e) An example of how Jews cause anti-fence protests to turn violent with their unrestrained provocations against Muslims.
If you guessed (e), you win a free subscription to Makes-Sense-To-Me news......
And I remind you - this was Israeli TV (Channel 2; But I expect good ol' Channel 10 to do an expose any minute about how the mosque was actually the national Hamas headquarters and how the soldier was an immigrant convert from New Orleans, Louisiana......)
Monday, September 12, 2005
Quick Quiz: LA Times or Yediot Acharonot?
Which is more pro-Israel - Israel TV's Channel One, Israel's Yediot Acharonot newspaper or the Los Angeles Times?
Hint: One of them had a long piece September 9th describing how footage from a Netzarim intersection five years ago, purporting to show the shooting death of a boy named Muhammad A-Dura at the hands of the Israelis, was faked. The other two media outlets carried interviews with Muhammad's parents, describing their suffering ever since their son was supposedly killed. In one case, the interviewer even asked two or three times of the mother (called - how could it be otherwise? - Umm Muhammad), "But do you hate the Israelis?"
Give up? Okay, I'll tell you.
The LA Times carried an article on September 9th reviewing the evidence that appears in a Commentary expose by French author Nidra Poller of the A-Dura case, portraying it as a modern-day blood libel.
In contrast, Ynet, the web site of Israel's leading daily newspaper, Yediot Acharonot, carried a sympathetic interview today (September 12) with Jamal A-Dura, Muhammad's father. The article is entitled "God Gave Us the Ability to Forget, I Am Not Able To" and it contains not one word about the extensive evidence that the A-Dura footage was sophisticated PLO-French political theater. Instead, the correspondent, Ali Waked, presents the A-Dura story exactly according to the PLO script, with the exception that he does not claim Israelis shot the boy. Instead, he just says that Muhammad "was killed" during a heavy exchange of gunfire between PLO and Israeli forces. Of course, those images - filmed by an Arab cameraman for a French TV station - became the iconic image of the then-starting Oslo War for the Arab world, with Israel as the executioner.
Similarly, last night (September 11), Israel's public television station, Channel One, carried a teary-eyed video of the whole A-Dura family. They were filmed at Muhammad's grave, in their home, looking at computer "models" of the scene of the gun battle near what was Netzarim, in Gush Katif. Umm Muhammad described - with tears in her eyes, filmed in extreme close-up - how she misses her son and how painful it is, but how "martyrdom" is still the best death. That part of the report, at least, was enlightening, especially when the slain boy's brother is asked if he would also like to die as a "martyr". He answers without hesitating that he definitely would, that "everyone" wants to die as a martyr.
But again, not a word about the evidence that the shooting of Muhammad A-Dura was a staged, Arab-PLO passion play.
So, to all of the loyal philo-Semites who cancelled their subscriptions to the Los Angeles Times over its biased coverage of Israel - I understand. I am considering boycotting much of the Israeli media for the exact same reason.....
Hint: One of them had a long piece September 9th describing how footage from a Netzarim intersection five years ago, purporting to show the shooting death of a boy named Muhammad A-Dura at the hands of the Israelis, was faked. The other two media outlets carried interviews with Muhammad's parents, describing their suffering ever since their son was supposedly killed. In one case, the interviewer even asked two or three times of the mother (called - how could it be otherwise? - Umm Muhammad), "But do you hate the Israelis?"
Give up? Okay, I'll tell you.
The LA Times carried an article on September 9th reviewing the evidence that appears in a Commentary expose by French author Nidra Poller of the A-Dura case, portraying it as a modern-day blood libel.
In contrast, Ynet, the web site of Israel's leading daily newspaper, Yediot Acharonot, carried a sympathetic interview today (September 12) with Jamal A-Dura, Muhammad's father. The article is entitled "God Gave Us the Ability to Forget, I Am Not Able To" and it contains not one word about the extensive evidence that the A-Dura footage was sophisticated PLO-French political theater. Instead, the correspondent, Ali Waked, presents the A-Dura story exactly according to the PLO script, with the exception that he does not claim Israelis shot the boy. Instead, he just says that Muhammad "was killed" during a heavy exchange of gunfire between PLO and Israeli forces. Of course, those images - filmed by an Arab cameraman for a French TV station - became the iconic image of the then-starting Oslo War for the Arab world, with Israel as the executioner.
Similarly, last night (September 11), Israel's public television station, Channel One, carried a teary-eyed video of the whole A-Dura family. They were filmed at Muhammad's grave, in their home, looking at computer "models" of the scene of the gun battle near what was Netzarim, in Gush Katif. Umm Muhammad described - with tears in her eyes, filmed in extreme close-up - how she misses her son and how painful it is, but how "martyrdom" is still the best death. That part of the report, at least, was enlightening, especially when the slain boy's brother is asked if he would also like to die as a "martyr". He answers without hesitating that he definitely would, that "everyone" wants to die as a martyr.
But again, not a word about the evidence that the shooting of Muhammad A-Dura was a staged, Arab-PLO passion play.
So, to all of the loyal philo-Semites who cancelled their subscriptions to the Los Angeles Times over its biased coverage of Israel - I understand. I am considering boycotting much of the Israeli media for the exact same reason.....
Monday, September 05, 2005
Haaretz Explains Why Relations With Arabs Are "Fragile"
"The evacuation of settlements in the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank, as well as recent Jewish terrorist attacks in Shfaram and the West Bank have left relations between Jews and Arabs particularly fragile." -- from Haaretz online newspaper, at the end of a story about a couple being sentenced for throwing a pig's head at a mosque.
That's Haaretz's disgustingly obsequious, dhimmi, galut, self-loathing attitude. See? It ain't the hundreds of Arab terrorist attacks every month - including the Katyusha on Eilat and the suicide bombing in Be'er Sheva, to name the most dramatic recent events - that lead to "fragile" relations. It's not daily doses of the most vulgar anti-Semitism preached since Nazi Germany.
Oh no. Just when Jews (allegedly) carry out terrorist attacks. That makes relations "fragile".
This way, when Hamas or a PLO offshoot carries out the next terrorist atrocity against Jews, we can flip back to the Haaretz archives and learn that it was, after all, the Jews who pushed the "fragile" relationship with the Arabs too hard - what with their constant terrorist attacks and their "evacuation of settlements" (I still don't get how that makes for "fragile relations", but maybe I just don't know enough).
It is just like when Herschel Grynszpan shot a Nazi official in France. That was a radical act that "precipitated" Kristalnacht, wasn't it? His shooting made relations "fragile", no doubt, between Germans and Jews to the point where the poor Germans just had to smash some synagogues.
On the other hand, when Jews are killed by Arabs, why, then relations are apparently solid and all is right with the world, a la Haaretz - the newspaper for the thinking Israeli... (thinking he's an Arab, perhaps?)
That's Haaretz's disgustingly obsequious, dhimmi, galut, self-loathing attitude. See? It ain't the hundreds of Arab terrorist attacks every month - including the Katyusha on Eilat and the suicide bombing in Be'er Sheva, to name the most dramatic recent events - that lead to "fragile" relations. It's not daily doses of the most vulgar anti-Semitism preached since Nazi Germany.
Oh no. Just when Jews (allegedly) carry out terrorist attacks. That makes relations "fragile".
This way, when Hamas or a PLO offshoot carries out the next terrorist atrocity against Jews, we can flip back to the Haaretz archives and learn that it was, after all, the Jews who pushed the "fragile" relationship with the Arabs too hard - what with their constant terrorist attacks and their "evacuation of settlements" (I still don't get how that makes for "fragile relations", but maybe I just don't know enough).
It is just like when Herschel Grynszpan shot a Nazi official in France. That was a radical act that "precipitated" Kristalnacht, wasn't it? His shooting made relations "fragile", no doubt, between Germans and Jews to the point where the poor Germans just had to smash some synagogues.
On the other hand, when Jews are killed by Arabs, why, then relations are apparently solid and all is right with the world, a la Haaretz - the newspaper for the thinking Israeli... (thinking he's an Arab, perhaps?)
