A few days ago I blogged that my family were coming from Haifa to Jerusalem for the week. This weekend we are to go up to Haifa for the Bar Mitzvah. Given the news of the last 20 min I am not sure how wise this is. I promise to write a full report on the weekend when I get back.
Let's all pray for a quiet weekend.
N
Friday, July 21, 2006
Thursday, July 20, 2006
The Ultimate Weapon against Hezbollah - Barry Manilow!
The IDF would do well to check out this article from the London Times of July 18.
Yes - force the Hezbollah to listen to Barry Manilow for hours on end. That will show em! In Edmund Blackadder's words - that would be "a fate worse than a fate worse than death!"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2274211.html
Up to a hundred hooligans had been gathering in the streets of the town and the council was concerned that their roaring engines and loud car stereos were giving its citizens sleepless nights and damaging trade for local restaurants. The council responded by erecting loudspeakers in the worst-affected streets. Bill Saravinovski, deputy mayor of Rockdale, said: “Barry’s our secret weapon. He does seem to be working.” A CUNNING scheme to prevent groups of boy racers plaguing a residential area by blasting them with Barry Manilow songs has met with a mixed response. The local council in Rockdale, near Sydney, has hailed the plan as a success.
Mr Saravinovski said that only the residents who lived closest to the loudspeakers were badly affected. But he admitted: “I am not disputing what the residents are saying. I myself can’t swallow some of Manilow’s songs, like Mandy.”
The Manilow playlist relies on the classics such as Copacabana, Mandy, I Write the Songs, Can’t Smile Without You and Looks Like We Made It. Research said to have been conducted in the United States for the FBI in the early 1990s suggested that the extended playing of Manilow’s songs could force people to flee. The FBI reportedly threatened to play Manilow at loud volume outside the Branch Davidian siege in Waco, Texas, in 1993. However, the siege ended before the plan could go ahead.
The Blacktown council in West Sydney, on the other hand, claimed success when it used Manilow’s music to prevent youths from loitering around a railway station.
The only problem with this scheme is that it could easily be defined as a war crime.
Yes - force the Hezbollah to listen to Barry Manilow for hours on end. That will show em! In Edmund Blackadder's words - that would be "a fate worse than a fate worse than death!"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2274211.html
Up to a hundred hooligans had been gathering in the streets of the town and the council was concerned that their roaring engines and loud car stereos were giving its citizens sleepless nights and damaging trade for local restaurants. The council responded by erecting loudspeakers in the worst-affected streets. Bill Saravinovski, deputy mayor of Rockdale, said: “Barry’s our secret weapon. He does seem to be working.” A CUNNING scheme to prevent groups of boy racers plaguing a residential area by blasting them with Barry Manilow songs has met with a mixed response. The local council in Rockdale, near Sydney, has hailed the plan as a success.
Mr Saravinovski said that only the residents who lived closest to the loudspeakers were badly affected. But he admitted: “I am not disputing what the residents are saying. I myself can’t swallow some of Manilow’s songs, like Mandy.”
The Manilow playlist relies on the classics such as Copacabana, Mandy, I Write the Songs, Can’t Smile Without You and Looks Like We Made It. Research said to have been conducted in the United States for the FBI in the early 1990s suggested that the extended playing of Manilow’s songs could force people to flee. The FBI reportedly threatened to play Manilow at loud volume outside the Branch Davidian siege in Waco, Texas, in 1993. However, the siege ended before the plan could go ahead.
The Blacktown council in West Sydney, on the other hand, claimed success when it used Manilow’s music to prevent youths from loitering around a railway station.
The only problem with this scheme is that it could easily be defined as a war crime.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Is there a Hebrew phrase for "foot-in-mouth disease"?
Abba Eban was a sophisticated, Oxbridge-educated man of great wit and charm, and unbeatable knowledge of Western diplomatic niceties. When he said "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity", he knew he was speaking to similarly inclined Western ears, and they nodded appreciatively, understanding the nuance and subtlety of what he was saying.
Unfortunately, today his most famous witticism has been heard by non-Oxbridge, simple, non-English speaking Israeli politicians and military men, on whom subtlety and nuance are completely wasted. They have made a simple connection - Palestinians always miss opportunities, and Palestinians are vastly superior to Israelis when it comes to public relations and garnering support from foreign governments, media and NGOs. Therefore, for Israel to catch up, it's our duty to start missing opportunities.
A case in point - rarely if ever has Israel had such positive responses from the rest of the world than in the first few days of the current battle in Gaza and Lebanon. G8 leaders, western media, almost the whole world recognized that Hamas and Hezbolla had overstepped the mark by kidnapping and killing Israeli soldiers inside undisputed Israeli territory. While there were some mealy-mouthed words about "proportionate response" and "respecting civilian rights", the overwhelming feeling was that Israel has every right to go after the kidnappers and murderers. And as long as we spoke in public about "bringing our boys home", we had this support.
Compare that to now. The Israeli spokesmen are talking about "a few more weeks are needed to dismantle Hezbolla" and the hostages are hardly mentioned. Now the world is going back to the old pattern.
The New York Times today writes ... "The asymmetry in the reported death tolls is marked and growing: some 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians. In Gaza, one Israeli soldier has died from his own army’s fire, and 103 Palestinians have been killed, 70 percent of them militants. The cold figures, combined with Israeli air attacks on civilian infrastructure like power plants, electricity transformers, airports, bridges, highways and government buildings, have led to accusations by France and the European Union, echoed by some nongovernmental organizations, that Israel is guilty of 'disproportionate use of force' in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and of 'collective punishment' of the civilian populations."
Next, we'll see resolutions in the UN Security Council condemning Israel for its aggression against peace-loving Lebanon, which will only fail when (if?) the US vetoes it. And watching the White House briefing yesterday, it's obvious that the US government has run out of breathing space from the East Coast media, who are now asking their standard questions about US bias against the Arabs, about the influence of the "Jewish lobby" in steering foreign policy, and all the usual rhetoric that they trot out when dealing with Israel-US relations.
This is a plea to anyone to speaks in the name of Israel. Keep your foot out of your mouth. We are fighting in Lebanon for one thing - to bring our boys home safely. We are fighting in Gaza for one thing - to bring our boy home safely. No negotiations that do not start with that as unconditional prerequisites are tolerated, but no "secret agendas" -- PLEASE!.
Unfortunately, today his most famous witticism has been heard by non-Oxbridge, simple, non-English speaking Israeli politicians and military men, on whom subtlety and nuance are completely wasted. They have made a simple connection - Palestinians always miss opportunities, and Palestinians are vastly superior to Israelis when it comes to public relations and garnering support from foreign governments, media and NGOs. Therefore, for Israel to catch up, it's our duty to start missing opportunities.
A case in point - rarely if ever has Israel had such positive responses from the rest of the world than in the first few days of the current battle in Gaza and Lebanon. G8 leaders, western media, almost the whole world recognized that Hamas and Hezbolla had overstepped the mark by kidnapping and killing Israeli soldiers inside undisputed Israeli territory. While there were some mealy-mouthed words about "proportionate response" and "respecting civilian rights", the overwhelming feeling was that Israel has every right to go after the kidnappers and murderers. And as long as we spoke in public about "bringing our boys home", we had this support.
Compare that to now. The Israeli spokesmen are talking about "a few more weeks are needed to dismantle Hezbolla" and the hostages are hardly mentioned. Now the world is going back to the old pattern.
The New York Times today writes ... "The asymmetry in the reported death tolls is marked and growing: some 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians. In Gaza, one Israeli soldier has died from his own army’s fire, and 103 Palestinians have been killed, 70 percent of them militants. The cold figures, combined with Israeli air attacks on civilian infrastructure like power plants, electricity transformers, airports, bridges, highways and government buildings, have led to accusations by France and the European Union, echoed by some nongovernmental organizations, that Israel is guilty of 'disproportionate use of force' in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and of 'collective punishment' of the civilian populations."
Next, we'll see resolutions in the UN Security Council condemning Israel for its aggression against peace-loving Lebanon, which will only fail when (if?) the US vetoes it. And watching the White House briefing yesterday, it's obvious that the US government has run out of breathing space from the East Coast media, who are now asking their standard questions about US bias against the Arabs, about the influence of the "Jewish lobby" in steering foreign policy, and all the usual rhetoric that they trot out when dealing with Israel-US relations.
This is a plea to anyone to speaks in the name of Israel. Keep your foot out of your mouth. We are fighting in Lebanon for one thing - to bring our boys home safely. We are fighting in Gaza for one thing - to bring our boy home safely. No negotiations that do not start with that as unconditional prerequisites are tolerated, but no "secret agendas" -- PLEASE!.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Time to choose our spokespersons carefully
There is a tendency in crisis situations to let any old idiot speak on our behalf.
Yesterday I watch Bibi Netanyahu do just that. And while I admire the fact that he would not be drawn into a conversation, prompted by the presenter, as to whether or not he thinks Olmert is doing a good job. I have to admit it is a little bit, actually a lot, hypocritical to have him say "We withdrew from Gaza, we withdrew from Lebanon and now this is what we get."
My memory is hazy at the best of times, but I sure as hell remember that he wasn't one of the "we" agreeing to withdraw from Gaza, he was in fact the only one to resign from Government at such a critical time of the disengagement. So to use it now as moral grounds for fighting the war that we find ourselves in at the moment, OK.
But for Bibi to use it, well... seems a little hypocritical.
Yesterday I watch Bibi Netanyahu do just that. And while I admire the fact that he would not be drawn into a conversation, prompted by the presenter, as to whether or not he thinks Olmert is doing a good job. I have to admit it is a little bit, actually a lot, hypocritical to have him say "We withdrew from Gaza, we withdrew from Lebanon and now this is what we get."
My memory is hazy at the best of times, but I sure as hell remember that he wasn't one of the "we" agreeing to withdraw from Gaza, he was in fact the only one to resign from Government at such a critical time of the disengagement. So to use it now as moral grounds for fighting the war that we find ourselves in at the moment, OK.
But for Bibi to use it, well... seems a little hypocritical.
A war we don't want for many reasons
A very good friend of mine has written a heartfelt blogpost about the situation, with the simple plea that she does not want to send her man, any man to war.
It is so easy to understand and sympathize with her plea. As our PM Ehud Olmert succinctly said last night it in his address to the nation, "we don't want this war".
I was just saying to my husband last night that I am so grateful that he does not serve in the army, for that matter neither do either of my brothers. But I had to admit I felt a little guilty about saying/thinking/feeling that.
It is so easy to understand and sympathize with her plea. As our PM Ehud Olmert succinctly said last night it in his address to the nation, "we don't want this war".
I was just saying to my husband last night that I am so grateful that he does not serve in the army, for that matter neither do either of my brothers. But I had to admit I felt a little guilty about saying/thinking/feeling that.
Monday, July 17, 2006
anybody out there remember 1967 ??
There's talk now about an international stabilization force to be sent to the Israeli-Lebanese border to help end the fighting. Sounds good, doesn't it. The forces come in, and separate the two warring sides, and peace and tranquility reign. Does this sound in any way familiar?
In 1956, after British, French and Israeli troops invaded Egypt, the solution proposed was to station neutral UN forces in Sinai to keep the peace. For the next 10 years, the Egyptians sponsored fedayeen fighters to cross over the border and attack Israeli positions at will. The UN forces did nothing.
On May 15, 1967 President Nasser sent columns of tanks and troops across the Suez Canal and into Sinai all the way to the Israeli border. The following day Nasser ordered UN peacekeeping troops to leave the border region and they complied immediately, whereupon official Egyptian radio announced:
"As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain anymore to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which shall result in the termination of Zionist existence." (source : http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/backg/cdavid.html"
Before we agree to any such proposal by the UN, let's keep this history in mind. If the "peace keepers" will allow themselves to be bypassed at will, if their presence there is simply to act as a shield behind which Hezbollah can re-arm at its leisure, and worst of all, if the physical presence of foreigners will force Israel to hold back from responding to Hezbollah attacks, then we would be foolish, in fact criminal, to repeat the mistake of 1956.
In 1956, after British, French and Israeli troops invaded Egypt, the solution proposed was to station neutral UN forces in Sinai to keep the peace. For the next 10 years, the Egyptians sponsored fedayeen fighters to cross over the border and attack Israeli positions at will. The UN forces did nothing.
On May 15, 1967 President Nasser sent columns of tanks and troops across the Suez Canal and into Sinai all the way to the Israeli border. The following day Nasser ordered UN peacekeeping troops to leave the border region and they complied immediately, whereupon official Egyptian radio announced:
"As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain anymore to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which shall result in the termination of Zionist existence." (source : http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/backg/cdavid.html"
Before we agree to any such proposal by the UN, let's keep this history in mind. If the "peace keepers" will allow themselves to be bypassed at will, if their presence there is simply to act as a shield behind which Hezbollah can re-arm at its leisure, and worst of all, if the physical presence of foreigners will force Israel to hold back from responding to Hezbollah attacks, then we would be foolish, in fact criminal, to repeat the mistake of 1956.
Why do Western Liberals hate Israel
It's been a great mystery for decades. Given the obvious differences in world-view between first-world intellectuals who classify themselves as the intellectual elite, and the third-world despots who rule the Arab world, where does the bias and animosity toward Israel that they have in common have its foundation. Israel is a democracy, with many shared values in step with Europe, while the "Arab street" is a narrow-minded, rigid and uncompromising autocracy clearly dedicated to imposing its own (or its leaders') outlook on the rest of the world. How did we get to this situation, where the whole gamut of "advanced" organizations, from the World Council of Churches to the BBC to the range of European and American university faculties, which have completely different agendas and world views, come together on the single subject of evil Israel.
I have an idea about this that I haven't seen enunciated anywhere else, and for that reason alone, it's worth considering, since nothing else has accounted for this mystery (maybe I've been watching to many episodes of House MD, which follows this story line in all episodes).
Think back to the last time these various groups came to share an outlook so forcefully. Or rather, think first of the numerous instances where situations that clearly required a meaningful response from the "left-wing intellectuals" evoked nothing but a yawn. Chechnya, Bosnia, Rwanda, Tibet, Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Eritrea, Congo, almost all the West African countries, Zimbabwe. The list is long, but not one of them, despite their death-tolls in the tens and hundreds of thousands, ever extracted more than a mild level of interest or rebuke. Just to put it in perspective, in the last 6 years of "savage fighting" between Israel and the Palestinians, about 3o00 people have died. In Chechnya in the same time, 20,000 out of a population on barely one million have died.
So, what's the difference between Israel vs the Palestinians and all these other conflicts. In one word, it is Race. All of the other wars are perceived to be between people of the same race. Whether it's "white" Serbians slaughtering "white" Bosnians, or "black" Ethiopians slaughtering "black" Eritreans, or "brown" Sri Lankans slaughtering "brown" Tamils, there's considered to be no racial element in the fighting. But Israel is (or rather, is perceived to be) a "white" country, while the Palestinians are "coloured". Now the massive chip on the shoulders of the European intellectual kicks in.
Europe has, deservedly, a conscience born from the centuries of racial subjugation and discrimination that they collectively perpetuated on the rest of the "undeveloped" world until the middle of the last century. Anything that today even slightly smells of racism ignites a flame in the guts of the left-wing that overwhelms any rational argument. Having a background of unmitigated cruelty and selfishness, which has never been completely expunged, they have lost all capability of examining this subject impartially. Thus, Israel is in the wrong no matter what we do, and the Palestinians and the Arab “brothers” are in the right, despite the manifest contradiction between this approach and the “facts on the ground”.
I have more to say on this subject, on how the chip on their shoulder got to be so big, but that's for later.
I have an idea about this that I haven't seen enunciated anywhere else, and for that reason alone, it's worth considering, since nothing else has accounted for this mystery (maybe I've been watching to many episodes of House MD, which follows this story line in all episodes).
Think back to the last time these various groups came to share an outlook so forcefully. Or rather, think first of the numerous instances where situations that clearly required a meaningful response from the "left-wing intellectuals" evoked nothing but a yawn. Chechnya, Bosnia, Rwanda, Tibet, Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Eritrea, Congo, almost all the West African countries, Zimbabwe. The list is long, but not one of them, despite their death-tolls in the tens and hundreds of thousands, ever extracted more than a mild level of interest or rebuke. Just to put it in perspective, in the last 6 years of "savage fighting" between Israel and the Palestinians, about 3o00 people have died. In Chechnya in the same time, 20,000 out of a population on barely one million have died.
So, what's the difference between Israel vs the Palestinians and all these other conflicts. In one word, it is Race. All of the other wars are perceived to be between people of the same race. Whether it's "white" Serbians slaughtering "white" Bosnians, or "black" Ethiopians slaughtering "black" Eritreans, or "brown" Sri Lankans slaughtering "brown" Tamils, there's considered to be no racial element in the fighting. But Israel is (or rather, is perceived to be) a "white" country, while the Palestinians are "coloured". Now the massive chip on the shoulders of the European intellectual kicks in.
Europe has, deservedly, a conscience born from the centuries of racial subjugation and discrimination that they collectively perpetuated on the rest of the "undeveloped" world until the middle of the last century. Anything that today even slightly smells of racism ignites a flame in the guts of the left-wing that overwhelms any rational argument. Having a background of unmitigated cruelty and selfishness, which has never been completely expunged, they have lost all capability of examining this subject impartially. Thus, Israel is in the wrong no matter what we do, and the Palestinians and the Arab “brothers” are in the right, despite the manifest contradiction between this approach and the “facts on the ground”.
I have more to say on this subject, on how the chip on their shoulder got to be so big, but that's for later.
Telling it like it is - at last
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071700187.html
President Bush should know that in Russia, someone is always listening. In this case, it was the rest of the world!
During a lunch with other leaders at the Group of Eight summit on Monday, Bush was caught on a live microphone talking in tough, occasionally profane terms with British Prime Minister Tony Blair about the latest conflict in the Middle East. Bush criticized the position taken by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, and said he would soon send Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region.
"What they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over," Bush says with his mouth full as he buttered a piece of bread.
President Bush should know that in Russia, someone is always listening. In this case, it was the rest of the world!
During a lunch with other leaders at the Group of Eight summit on Monday, Bush was caught on a live microphone talking in tough, occasionally profane terms with British Prime Minister Tony Blair about the latest conflict in the Middle East. Bush criticized the position taken by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, and said he would soon send Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region.
"What they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over," Bush says with his mouth full as he buttered a piece of bread.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)