Not my bangs mind you...
On the radio today they have been advertising that there will be a special campaign on the roads today due to the ridiculous number of road accident related deaths since the beginning of the year. The radio is constantly reminding us that the police will be out in force all day today and that more than 400 people have died in traffic accidents since the beginning of the year, which is since September, Rosh Hashana the Jewish new year (so the radio claimed but I have since had it pointed out that it cannot be so).
However, in the 1 hour and twenty minutes it took me to get to work this morning. I passed 3 accidents and not a single police car.
Way to go!
Monday, December 18, 2006
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Lest We Forget Darfur
It is reported that Eli Wiesel is to receive an honorary knighthood next November in recognition of his services to Shoah education in the UK.
While it is important for us to always remember and educate about the Holocaust, we as Jews need to remember that everyday there are people suffering at the hands of tyrants around the world. If we don't speak up, if we don't pressure our governments to do everything in their power to try and stop these people, whether in Iran, Iraq, Darfur, Cosovo or wherever in the world it is happening, then we are no better than the Germans and its' allies were in the 1930's and 40's.
As Eli Wiesel said:
"How can a citizen of a free country not pay attention? How can anyone, anywhere not feel outraged? How can a person, whether religious or secular, not be moved by compassion? And above all, how can anyone who remembers remain silent? As a Jew who does not compare any event to the Holocaust, I feel concerned and challenged by the Sudanese tragedy. We must be involved. How can we reproach the indifference of non-Jews to Jewish suffering if we remain indifferent to another people's plight?"
While it is important for us to always remember and educate about the Holocaust, we as Jews need to remember that everyday there are people suffering at the hands of tyrants around the world. If we don't speak up, if we don't pressure our governments to do everything in their power to try and stop these people, whether in Iran, Iraq, Darfur, Cosovo or wherever in the world it is happening, then we are no better than the Germans and its' allies were in the 1930's and 40's.
As Eli Wiesel said:
"How can a citizen of a free country not pay attention? How can anyone, anywhere not feel outraged? How can a person, whether religious or secular, not be moved by compassion? And above all, how can anyone who remembers remain silent? As a Jew who does not compare any event to the Holocaust, I feel concerned and challenged by the Sudanese tragedy. We must be involved. How can we reproach the indifference of non-Jews to Jewish suffering if we remain indifferent to another people's plight?"
Monday, October 09, 2006
CALM: How can anyone equate Suicide with Intent to Kill others?
People have now started calling them "Homicide Bombers" because the intent to kill others is more prevalent than the intent to commit suicide, which in the case of these men, is the consequential result. Now we have a legitimate reason to change the name... Well done CALM!
Rachel at Rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com has an excellent piece about this latest scandal in the british press!
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Homicidal not suicidal
''Controversial posters featuring the aftermath of the London bombings are to appear next week as part of a charity's attempt to stop the number of men who commit suicide each year reaching four figures. The billboard-sized posters feature the image of the devastated No. 30 bus which exploded in Tavistock Square, killing 14 people including Hussain the bomber, and injuring over 110. It has the strapline ''Last year, 4 suicidal British men got our attention. Unfortunately, 973 others didn't. Help stop suicide. Text CALM to 80082''.
( Brand Republic 6/10/05)
The Evening Standard have just rung me up wanting a reaction. I explained, as usual, that I can't speak for all survivors, only for myself, and that I probably wasn't going to be able to muster the reaction of gibbering weeping outrage that they were looking for. But, okay, having seen it, I think that advertisement, whilst achieving one of its objectives of grabbing coverage and raising awareness, is a dud.
This advertisement, whilst achieving one of its objectives of grabbing coverage and raising awareness, is a total dud. For a charity, CALM ( Campaign Against Living Miserably) to use the 7/7 bombers' deaths in an anti-suicide billboard campaign is wholly counter-productive. As well as being in poor taste and upsetting to bereaved families and survivors of the London bombings, it is also misrepresentative, and it is likely to alienate and distress those whom the advertisements are aimed at.
It implies that the London bombers primary aim was suicide, rather than homicide. It infers that they were simply feeling suicidally depressed, like 973 other young men who committed suicide last year. It seems to be saying that the 4 bombers could have been stopped from committing suicide, perhaps if they had been made aware of the charity paying for the ads. But there is no official evidence to support the idea that the young men who killed 52 and injured almost 800 last summer were depressed. In fact, the Official Account of the July 7th bombings describes the young bombers caught on CCTV as ''hugging, seeming happy, even euphoric'' before they killed themselves.
Khan's gang of four were nothing like the target audience for this campaign - young British men who are suffering from depression, and who are thinking about killing themselves.
Okay, the bombers were technically suicidal, in that they were intending to commit suicide, but they were intending to commit suicide as a weapon, to turn themselves into human bombs in what their alleged ring-leader called a ''war''. For them, suicide seemed to be a means to an end - to a gruesome notoriety, an eternal heavenly reward, and a political act of retaliation for what they saw as the sufferings heaped upon the Ummah ( the global Muslim faithful) by the UK and US foreign policy.
What comes across from the Official Report is a picture of 4 highly radicalised young men in a small terrorist gang who were deeply immersed in extremist Islamist thinking and who saw ''martyrdom'' as ''evidence of a supreme religious commitment''. Unfortunately, their warped interpretation of their religion made their planned suicide seem heroic and praiseworthy to them - a way, Mohammed Sidique Khan said in his video statement released after his death ''to raise me amongst those I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri...''
Perhaps early therapeutic intervention could have changed their course. Perhaps texting the charity or a chat with a mental health cousellor might have stopped the death-cult gang mentality taking hold in these four British men. It's rather hard to know, as we haven't had much experience of the effect of counselling on radicalised terrorist cells plotting destruction and mixing home-made explosives in their bathtubs.
There is a world of difference between a young man contemplating ending it all, and being a suicide bomber who sees vengeful suicide-homicide as ''martyrdom''. If I was young man who was depressed and feeling suicidal, I would not like to be compared to a suicide bomber. I would be very upset at the stigmatisation. It's bad enough being depressed without people thinking you're contemplating killing innocent commuters as well. Depression is not the same as terrorism, for heaven's sake. Khan and his fellow-terrorists are not remembered as young men who tragically committed suicide. They are remembered for being mass-murderers. It is deeply offensive to make any comparison between the 973 young men who killed themselves last year, and who did not come to the charity's attention until it was too late, and the perpetrators of the worst act of terrorism on British soil.
And what's with the ''Last year, 4 suicidal British British men got our attention'' strapline? The bombings certainly got our attention. That seems to have been one of the bombers' political aims. But is suicide all about ''getting our attention''? That seems to me to demonstrate a woeful lack of comprehension as to what drives many people to commit suicide. Being unable to bear the pain of going on living is the most common reason left in suicide notes. Depression is an illness that can make life no longer bearable. I am shocked that an anti-suicide charity is running with the ''suicide = attention-seeking'' line.
The more you look at this advert, the more of a mess it is. It's a bad ad, and it's a damn shame, because the numbers of suicides in young men is a big, terrible issue, and it needs to be talked about. The charity's aims are praiseworthy. Anything that might stop young men killing themselves in anger and despair is a good thing. But O&M, the ad agency behind the campaign, and whoever signed this off, have made a bad mistake of judgement. The suicide of nearly a thousand young men each year is shocking enough. Why court this controversy with a picture and strapline that don't even make sense in the campaign's context?
British advertising has a reputation for being some of the best in the world. What a pity that this ill-conceived, thoughtless campaign is going to grab headlines for all the wrong reasons. Attempts to save young lives should not resort to linking to mass murderers in their advertising campaigns. They shouldn't need to.
posted by Rachel at 12:14 PM 1 comments
Rachel at Rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com has an excellent piece about this latest scandal in the british press!
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Homicidal not suicidal
''Controversial posters featuring the aftermath of the London bombings are to appear next week as part of a charity's attempt to stop the number of men who commit suicide each year reaching four figures. The billboard-sized posters feature the image of the devastated No. 30 bus which exploded in Tavistock Square, killing 14 people including Hussain the bomber, and injuring over 110. It has the strapline ''Last year, 4 suicidal British men got our attention. Unfortunately, 973 others didn't. Help stop suicide. Text CALM to 80082''.
( Brand Republic 6/10/05)
The Evening Standard have just rung me up wanting a reaction. I explained, as usual, that I can't speak for all survivors, only for myself, and that I probably wasn't going to be able to muster the reaction of gibbering weeping outrage that they were looking for. But, okay, having seen it, I think that advertisement, whilst achieving one of its objectives of grabbing coverage and raising awareness, is a dud.
This advertisement, whilst achieving one of its objectives of grabbing coverage and raising awareness, is a total dud. For a charity, CALM ( Campaign Against Living Miserably) to use the 7/7 bombers' deaths in an anti-suicide billboard campaign is wholly counter-productive. As well as being in poor taste and upsetting to bereaved families and survivors of the London bombings, it is also misrepresentative, and it is likely to alienate and distress those whom the advertisements are aimed at.
It implies that the London bombers primary aim was suicide, rather than homicide. It infers that they were simply feeling suicidally depressed, like 973 other young men who committed suicide last year. It seems to be saying that the 4 bombers could have been stopped from committing suicide, perhaps if they had been made aware of the charity paying for the ads. But there is no official evidence to support the idea that the young men who killed 52 and injured almost 800 last summer were depressed. In fact, the Official Account of the July 7th bombings describes the young bombers caught on CCTV as ''hugging, seeming happy, even euphoric'' before they killed themselves.
Khan's gang of four were nothing like the target audience for this campaign - young British men who are suffering from depression, and who are thinking about killing themselves.
Okay, the bombers were technically suicidal, in that they were intending to commit suicide, but they were intending to commit suicide as a weapon, to turn themselves into human bombs in what their alleged ring-leader called a ''war''. For them, suicide seemed to be a means to an end - to a gruesome notoriety, an eternal heavenly reward, and a political act of retaliation for what they saw as the sufferings heaped upon the Ummah ( the global Muslim faithful) by the UK and US foreign policy.
What comes across from the Official Report is a picture of 4 highly radicalised young men in a small terrorist gang who were deeply immersed in extremist Islamist thinking and who saw ''martyrdom'' as ''evidence of a supreme religious commitment''. Unfortunately, their warped interpretation of their religion made their planned suicide seem heroic and praiseworthy to them - a way, Mohammed Sidique Khan said in his video statement released after his death ''to raise me amongst those I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri...''
Perhaps early therapeutic intervention could have changed their course. Perhaps texting the charity or a chat with a mental health cousellor might have stopped the death-cult gang mentality taking hold in these four British men. It's rather hard to know, as we haven't had much experience of the effect of counselling on radicalised terrorist cells plotting destruction and mixing home-made explosives in their bathtubs.
There is a world of difference between a young man contemplating ending it all, and being a suicide bomber who sees vengeful suicide-homicide as ''martyrdom''. If I was young man who was depressed and feeling suicidal, I would not like to be compared to a suicide bomber. I would be very upset at the stigmatisation. It's bad enough being depressed without people thinking you're contemplating killing innocent commuters as well. Depression is not the same as terrorism, for heaven's sake. Khan and his fellow-terrorists are not remembered as young men who tragically committed suicide. They are remembered for being mass-murderers. It is deeply offensive to make any comparison between the 973 young men who killed themselves last year, and who did not come to the charity's attention until it was too late, and the perpetrators of the worst act of terrorism on British soil.
And what's with the ''Last year, 4 suicidal British British men got our attention'' strapline? The bombings certainly got our attention. That seems to have been one of the bombers' political aims. But is suicide all about ''getting our attention''? That seems to me to demonstrate a woeful lack of comprehension as to what drives many people to commit suicide. Being unable to bear the pain of going on living is the most common reason left in suicide notes. Depression is an illness that can make life no longer bearable. I am shocked that an anti-suicide charity is running with the ''suicide = attention-seeking'' line.
The more you look at this advert, the more of a mess it is. It's a bad ad, and it's a damn shame, because the numbers of suicides in young men is a big, terrible issue, and it needs to be talked about. The charity's aims are praiseworthy. Anything that might stop young men killing themselves in anger and despair is a good thing. But O&M, the ad agency behind the campaign, and whoever signed this off, have made a bad mistake of judgement. The suicide of nearly a thousand young men each year is shocking enough. Why court this controversy with a picture and strapline that don't even make sense in the campaign's context?
British advertising has a reputation for being some of the best in the world. What a pity that this ill-conceived, thoughtless campaign is going to grab headlines for all the wrong reasons. Attempts to save young lives should not resort to linking to mass murderers in their advertising campaigns. They shouldn't need to.
posted by Rachel at 12:14 PM 1 comments
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Open letter to Jerusalem Post
(Background information. JP distributed a booklet that covers such subjects as Common-law Relationships and all the legal ramifications, the children of these "relationships", including artificial means needed if for some reason "natural" doesn't seem to be working -{ wonder why?}, Same-sex relationships beautifully illustrated with a picture of a Catholic actress, and such other happy Jewish subjects)
It is a sad day when your newspaper can see it as proper to distribute a booklet such as the New Family "guide book for cohabitation" that came with the paper last week, especially in the days immediately preceding Yom Kippur. Maybe your reasoning is that it's an advert and covered by your usual disclaimer that content of paid material is not your responsibility, but that's a weak excuse in this case.
It's especially sad that a publication that could have made such a strong case to right a specific wrong in Israeli society - the domination in marriage law of the Orthodox courts - has allowed itself to be hijacked into a polemic justifying, indeed, praising, the destruction of the family as a basic fundamental component of society.
A clue to where this travesty get's its morals from comes in columnist Irit Rosenblum's opening statement. "The definition of 'family' underwent a global earthquake some 200 years ago when the Western world began to worship the individual and individual rights on the altar of social progress". Her word-picture is exactly right - worship at an altar, which calls to mind sacrifice, blood-letting and pain. "Individual rights" has turned into an iconic catch-phrase which seems to trump all other moral and social concerns. And what has been sacrificed at her altar is the idea of a target, a "golden fleece", to which people should aspire. She tells us that rights to marriage in Israel are improperly restricted. She's absolutely correct, but the solution is not to do away with marriage, as she is advocating, but to correct the law to remove the restrictions.
To extend her argument. Anyone should be able to "cohabit" with whomever they want. It's purely a matter of "individual choice". If that's OK, then anyone should be able to imbibe whatever chemical substances they want - dope, smack, coke - it's their choice. Next, anyone should be able to have sex with whomever (or whatever) they want - it's their right. The slippery slope leads to the total breakdown of society, till we end up with a collection of individuals who have no absolute standards by which they can interact, other than "it's right for me!".
Marriage between consenting men and women must remain the target to which we want people to aspire. It carries within it the future of an ordered, functional society. The law should allow for other choices, but they are not the norm and there should be a clear, positive message coming out of our publications, courts and schools that point to the desired outcome instead of elevating the alternatives.
It is a sad day when your newspaper can see it as proper to distribute a booklet such as the New Family "guide book for cohabitation" that came with the paper last week, especially in the days immediately preceding Yom Kippur. Maybe your reasoning is that it's an advert and covered by your usual disclaimer that content of paid material is not your responsibility, but that's a weak excuse in this case.
It's especially sad that a publication that could have made such a strong case to right a specific wrong in Israeli society - the domination in marriage law of the Orthodox courts - has allowed itself to be hijacked into a polemic justifying, indeed, praising, the destruction of the family as a basic fundamental component of society.
A clue to where this travesty get's its morals from comes in columnist Irit Rosenblum's opening statement. "The definition of 'family' underwent a global earthquake some 200 years ago when the Western world began to worship the individual and individual rights on the altar of social progress". Her word-picture is exactly right - worship at an altar, which calls to mind sacrifice, blood-letting and pain. "Individual rights" has turned into an iconic catch-phrase which seems to trump all other moral and social concerns. And what has been sacrificed at her altar is the idea of a target, a "golden fleece", to which people should aspire. She tells us that rights to marriage in Israel are improperly restricted. She's absolutely correct, but the solution is not to do away with marriage, as she is advocating, but to correct the law to remove the restrictions.
To extend her argument. Anyone should be able to "cohabit" with whomever they want. It's purely a matter of "individual choice". If that's OK, then anyone should be able to imbibe whatever chemical substances they want - dope, smack, coke - it's their choice. Next, anyone should be able to have sex with whomever (or whatever) they want - it's their right. The slippery slope leads to the total breakdown of society, till we end up with a collection of individuals who have no absolute standards by which they can interact, other than "it's right for me!".
Marriage between consenting men and women must remain the target to which we want people to aspire. It carries within it the future of an ordered, functional society. The law should allow for other choices, but they are not the norm and there should be a clear, positive message coming out of our publications, courts and schools that point to the desired outcome instead of elevating the alternatives.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Pluto! Pluto! Home, boy. Home!
Pluto is shrinking. Used to be a full-grown planet, certified member of the Solar System, up there with the big boys. Able to stay up late, drink beer with his mates Saturn and Jupiter, all that stuff.
Now, Pluto is nothing more than an "object", only allowed to play with Eris (aka Xena), Sedna and other kids we've never heard of.
This is it. Pluto is shrinking, and it's all because of Global Warming. As always, Gore has it right! We must stop it before the next smallest planet is also lost.
Mickey Mouse - Down Pluto!
Al Gore - Up Uranus!!!
Now, Pluto is nothing more than an "object", only allowed to play with Eris (aka Xena), Sedna and other kids we've never heard of.
This is it. Pluto is shrinking, and it's all because of Global Warming. As always, Gore has it right! We must stop it before the next smallest planet is also lost.
Mickey Mouse - Down Pluto!
Al Gore - Up Uranus!!!
A new Eurovision song contest
Welcome back, Kotter!
The Europeans have done it again. They announced that they are restarting direct payments to Palestinian families before ramadan. (Deutsche Presse Agentur Published: Monday September 25, 2006 )
Any possibilities that one or two of the 40K "families" they're slushing has a Kalashnikov or two stashed away in the cupboard, looking for a friendly Jewish head to bury it's bullets in?
Anyways, to celebrate the PC "vision" of the Euro bureaucrats, I would like to start a new competition to compose song lyrics that set out in clear terms the reality that these guys simply cannot see through their blinkers.
Please try to keep it clean, just as I have done.
My first submission (to the tune of Clementine):
In a cavern, in a canyon
sewing burkhas for his kit.
Sits the leader of al Quaida,
nothing wrong, he's fighting fit.
He's the victor, he's the winner,
mighty ruler, wise Caliph!
So how come we never see him?
Could it be he's just scared stiff.
Tells a young boy
"It's the greatest joy,
kill yourself and take a Jew.
When you die and get to heaven,
Lots of pretty girls, just for you".
Chorus:
Oh, great leader, clever mullah
Pray to allah for such luck,
when you finally get to hell there's
one old virgin left to ....
The Europeans have done it again. They announced that they are restarting direct payments to Palestinian families before ramadan. (Deutsche Presse Agentur Published: Monday September 25, 2006 )
Any possibilities that one or two of the 40K "families" they're slushing has a Kalashnikov or two stashed away in the cupboard, looking for a friendly Jewish head to bury it's bullets in?
Anyways, to celebrate the PC "vision" of the Euro bureaucrats, I would like to start a new competition to compose song lyrics that set out in clear terms the reality that these guys simply cannot see through their blinkers.
Please try to keep it clean, just as I have done.
My first submission (to the tune of Clementine):
In a cavern, in a canyon
sewing burkhas for his kit.
Sits the leader of al Quaida,
nothing wrong, he's fighting fit.
He's the victor, he's the winner,
mighty ruler, wise Caliph!
So how come we never see him?
Could it be he's just scared stiff.
Tells a young boy
"It's the greatest joy,
kill yourself and take a Jew.
When you die and get to heaven,
Lots of pretty girls, just for you".
Chorus:
Oh, great leader, clever mullah
Pray to allah for such luck,
when you finally get to hell there's
one old virgin left to ....
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Nothing to write about - too much time!
STOP REVERSE THAT!
Too much to write about - not enough time.
Nushwolrd is on Hiatus in the UK and brain freeze has sent it. Wish I could say it is from the weather - but just been too busy to write and surprisingly it is not cold here.
Topics I promised myself to write about:
I just arrived in the UK from my 1st ever trip to Germany - The places is... well... full of Germans! need I say more? I didn't like it one bit because I could not separate my thoughts from those of the Holocaust and I did not enjoy being there.
I tried one night to pick up a wireless network from my hotel room. I swear that there was a wireless network I picked up called "SS". Co-incidence - I think NOT!
On the hot water tap in my room there was a red symbol that I had to do a double/tripple take because it so resembled the swatstika.
My German colleague kept telling us that the bus was coming to "transfer" us to our next destination.
and... the final straw... We walked through the center of Munich one night where they were filming a scene from a movie set in WWII. The street was lined with cars from the 1930's era, uniformed SS men walking around. I swear if anyone had walked up and asked to check my papers - I would have had to be flown out of there in a straight-jacket.
What I really couldn't get over - is that I was the only one (almost, there was one other person who piped up about it) out of a group of 6 Israeli's who seemed to be totally affected by my thoughts and memories of the holocaust. In fact, when we all went out to eat one day, and some of my colleagues ordered the Pork special, I honestly couldn't help wondering 'is this what 6 million Jews died for?' Perhaps I am niaive, but it just seems such a shame, and this is not the first time I have thought this too.
Sooooo I am not sure I will be too keen to jump on a plane back to Germany any time soon. Would rather go to East Jerusalem anyday!
Too much to write about - not enough time.
Nushwolrd is on Hiatus in the UK and brain freeze has sent it. Wish I could say it is from the weather - but just been too busy to write and surprisingly it is not cold here.
Topics I promised myself to write about:
I just arrived in the UK from my 1st ever trip to Germany - The places is... well... full of Germans! need I say more? I didn't like it one bit because I could not separate my thoughts from those of the Holocaust and I did not enjoy being there.
I tried one night to pick up a wireless network from my hotel room. I swear that there was a wireless network I picked up called "SS". Co-incidence - I think NOT!
On the hot water tap in my room there was a red symbol that I had to do a double/tripple take because it so resembled the swatstika.
My German colleague kept telling us that the bus was coming to "transfer" us to our next destination.
and... the final straw... We walked through the center of Munich one night where they were filming a scene from a movie set in WWII. The street was lined with cars from the 1930's era, uniformed SS men walking around. I swear if anyone had walked up and asked to check my papers - I would have had to be flown out of there in a straight-jacket.
What I really couldn't get over - is that I was the only one (almost, there was one other person who piped up about it) out of a group of 6 Israeli's who seemed to be totally affected by my thoughts and memories of the holocaust. In fact, when we all went out to eat one day, and some of my colleagues ordered the Pork special, I honestly couldn't help wondering 'is this what 6 million Jews died for?' Perhaps I am niaive, but it just seems such a shame, and this is not the first time I have thought this too.
Sooooo I am not sure I will be too keen to jump on a plane back to Germany any time soon. Would rather go to East Jerusalem anyday!
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Daft Parents and their Poor Children
I realize that I may be getting myself into serious trouble with this post, but I simply can't hold back any longer.
Yes - this post is dedicated to all those Anglo parents living in Israel who get carried away with themselves by foisting the most hideous names on their newborn children. Monstrous carbuncles of the first order! Is there something in the water? I can only imagine that they believe that through bestowing weird and wonderful names upon their offspring, they are somehow immersing themselves in the holiness and beauty of the Land of Israel. No doubt, they think they are clever. I think they are deluded and even pretentious. They despoil the aural landscape.
We are simply astounded by some of the grotesque names that our friends have given their children! They are trying too hard. I will concede that this phenomenon is not unique to Israelis - I daresay that these Anglo parents are actually adhering to a global trend- indeed, they are following in the footsteps of celebrities such as Paula Yates, Woody Allen and, of course, Frank Zappa. Lest we forget, Zappa named his son Dweezil and his daughter Moon Unit. Allen named his son Satchel - now that's what I call child abuse! Yates called her children Fifi Trixibelle, Peaches Honeyblossom and wait for it.....Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily. Nebbich!
I would like to quote some of the names that our neighbours have given their children, but with the Days of Awe just around the corner, perhaps it would not be a good idea. I think that the culprits know who they are. I only hope that these misguided parents beg their children for forgiveness. The poor little kids are the victims of over-imaginative minds, and they are now scarred for life!
Yes - this post is dedicated to all those Anglo parents living in Israel who get carried away with themselves by foisting the most hideous names on their newborn children. Monstrous carbuncles of the first order! Is there something in the water? I can only imagine that they believe that through bestowing weird and wonderful names upon their offspring, they are somehow immersing themselves in the holiness and beauty of the Land of Israel. No doubt, they think they are clever. I think they are deluded and even pretentious. They despoil the aural landscape.
We are simply astounded by some of the grotesque names that our friends have given their children! They are trying too hard. I will concede that this phenomenon is not unique to Israelis - I daresay that these Anglo parents are actually adhering to a global trend- indeed, they are following in the footsteps of celebrities such as Paula Yates, Woody Allen and, of course, Frank Zappa. Lest we forget, Zappa named his son Dweezil and his daughter Moon Unit. Allen named his son Satchel - now that's what I call child abuse! Yates called her children Fifi Trixibelle, Peaches Honeyblossom and wait for it.....Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily. Nebbich!
I would like to quote some of the names that our neighbours have given their children, but with the Days of Awe just around the corner, perhaps it would not be a good idea. I think that the culprits know who they are. I only hope that these misguided parents beg their children for forgiveness. The poor little kids are the victims of over-imaginative minds, and they are now scarred for life!
global warming - a cure for gore?
Once upon a time, there was a man who was Vice President of the USA. Being vice president meant that he was, literally, one breath away from being the real thing. If Clinton stopped breathing, he was IT!
So, I think he should promote this solution. All mammals breath in pure, clean, cool air, and breath out hot, fetid, saturated mist. This obviously contributes to global warming. And which mammals contribute most - humans of course. Do the arithmetic - 6.5 billion people, average mass 50Kg = 325 MEGATONS (nice word that, it will get the attention of environmentalists and peaceniks alike) of air-polluting flesh. By contrast, there isn't even one megaton of elephant around.
Now, the proposal is for all humans to stop breathing. Stop spoiling the atmosphere with your unwanted heat. Leave the Earth the way you found it - pure and clean. I'm sure Gore of all people can see the merits of this argument - it has a much stronger scientific basis than all his other stuff, and it's at least as doable as his other suggestions!
So, I think he should promote this solution. All mammals breath in pure, clean, cool air, and breath out hot, fetid, saturated mist. This obviously contributes to global warming. And which mammals contribute most - humans of course. Do the arithmetic - 6.5 billion people, average mass 50Kg = 325 MEGATONS (nice word that, it will get the attention of environmentalists and peaceniks alike) of air-polluting flesh. By contrast, there isn't even one megaton of elephant around.
Now, the proposal is for all humans to stop breathing. Stop spoiling the atmosphere with your unwanted heat. Leave the Earth the way you found it - pure and clean. I'm sure Gore of all people can see the merits of this argument - it has a much stronger scientific basis than all his other stuff, and it's at least as doable as his other suggestions!
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.
The story is told that Hitler, during the disaster that we now call the battle of Stalingrad, forbade his generals to read, or even possess, the memoirs written by Armand de Caulaincourt, adviser to Napoleon during his own catastrophic invasion of Russia 120 years earlier. (I'm indebted, as always, to my literary hero Herman Wouk, for teaching me this and so much more about the last war from his majestic books). Reading this work, the madman reasoned, would open his army's eyes to the possibility of defeat, and his crooked mind couldn't countenance such things.
Why is this relevant today. Because there's an old saying - "Generals train to fight the last war". But probably more importantly, politicians plan for the last war. So we need to see what went wrong in the last war in Lebanon, and make sure we get a set of politicians that understand where, why and how we failed, and prepare for round two.
To do this, we need a thorough, independent and strong investigation. Its purpose is not to point the finger at who made mistakes last time (although hopefully that will happen too), but to tell us how to prevent the same, and worse mistakes, happening again. Every citizen of Israel should be crying out to the heavens for this investigation, and should make sure they understand what it says, because the next government we elect MUST do better than the one we've got now.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
greatest athlete ever???
ESPN columnist Gene Wojciechowski has a column in which he makes the following statement ...
Tiger Woods is the greatest individual athlete of our time. OK, of all time.
Now, I'm not going to say anything bad about Woods, who is a phenomenal sportsman, but I think Gene's going over the top. You can see why, when you see who he's comparing Tiger to -
"one-namers (Pele, Babe, Jack), your initialers (MJ), your nicknamers (The Great One, The Greatest), your oldies (Jim Thorpe, Willie Mays, Joe Louis), your Olympians (Mark Spitz, Carl Lewis), your netters (Martina Navratilova, Pete Sampras), your others (Lance Armstrong). "
With just one exception, they're all Americans, and they're all involved in sports that are popular in America (and in some cases, nowhere else).
I have a strong recollection of an article in Time Magazine s few years ago, titled "and quiet goes the Don" published shorlty after Sir Donald Bradman passed away in Adelaide. That writer makes my point much better that I can, when he says that if Tiger Woods keeps winning like he had until then for another 15 years, then maybe he could seriously be considered a rival, but until that time, there simply is no other individual in any sport, any time, anywhere, who comes near the perfection of the Don.
Think about ... a life-time batting average of 99.94 runs, in a career spanning 20 years! The next best is Greg Pollock, with average of 65, but over a much shorter period. Where else will you find a sportsman that is 50% better/faster/stronger than his nearest rival, ever! To come even close, Woods would need to be winning consistently with scores in the 50's. It's like running the 100 meters in 7 seconds, high jumping over 3 meters - and not just once, but over your whole career.
This will be a hard point to sell to the Yanks, who don't understand any sports that aren't played on their home turf, and who are also convinced that they have it right, even though they have to split the country into pieces in order to have a "World Series" contest in baseball. But truth is, the Don was so far ahead of anyone else that it's difficult to see even Woods taking the title off him.
Anyone else got opinions on this?
Tiger Woods is the greatest individual athlete of our time. OK, of all time.
Now, I'm not going to say anything bad about Woods, who is a phenomenal sportsman, but I think Gene's going over the top. You can see why, when you see who he's comparing Tiger to -
"one-namers (Pele, Babe, Jack), your initialers (MJ), your nicknamers (The Great One, The Greatest), your oldies (Jim Thorpe, Willie Mays, Joe Louis), your Olympians (Mark Spitz, Carl Lewis), your netters (Martina Navratilova, Pete Sampras), your others (Lance Armstrong). "
With just one exception, they're all Americans, and they're all involved in sports that are popular in America (and in some cases, nowhere else).
I have a strong recollection of an article in Time Magazine s few years ago, titled "and quiet goes the Don" published shorlty after Sir Donald Bradman passed away in Adelaide. That writer makes my point much better that I can, when he says that if Tiger Woods keeps winning like he had until then for another 15 years, then maybe he could seriously be considered a rival, but until that time, there simply is no other individual in any sport, any time, anywhere, who comes near the perfection of the Don.
Think about ... a life-time batting average of 99.94 runs, in a career spanning 20 years! The next best is Greg Pollock, with average of 65, but over a much shorter period. Where else will you find a sportsman that is 50% better/faster/stronger than his nearest rival, ever! To come even close, Woods would need to be winning consistently with scores in the 50's. It's like running the 100 meters in 7 seconds, high jumping over 3 meters - and not just once, but over your whole career.
This will be a hard point to sell to the Yanks, who don't understand any sports that aren't played on their home turf, and who are also convinced that they have it right, even though they have to split the country into pieces in order to have a "World Series" contest in baseball. But truth is, the Don was so far ahead of anyone else that it's difficult to see even Woods taking the title off him.
Anyone else got opinions on this?
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
trust the BBC
We should be grateful for the services provided by the Beeb. Just today, they have given a fascinating story that tells us volumes about the nature of Israel's battle.
First, notice the picture - a young child posed next to an armed but unexploded bomb. Now, in the real world, what's your first reaction to walking into a room that could at any moment be blown to smithereens ...
1. Run for your life or
2. Pick up your children, and run for their lives or
3. get your kids to stand close to the bomb, posing while the photographers get the right shot.
When we say that the Islam is a religion with a death-wish, why does the West continue to doubt it. A picture is worth a thousand words, and who would doubt the Beeb!
Second, read this bit ...
The eastern Mihaniya area, where Um Ali lives, is also largely destroyed, mostly the result of aerial bombing and artillery fire from over a hill which separates Bin Jbeil from the Israeli border less than 5km (three miles) away....There was also house-to-house fighting here, after Israeli troops entered Mihaniya and were engaged by Hezbollah fighters at close quarters.
But hang on, weren't we told, endlessly, that Israel was deliberately attacking civilian/residential areas that posed no military target. Why then was Hizbollah fighting "house-to-house" - everyone else says they weren't ever there, but who would doubt the Beeb!
So be grateful to the BBC, because they time and again show themselves for what they are - unredeemable anti-Semites who wouldn't know the truth from a bucket of their own turds.
First, notice the picture - a young child posed next to an armed but unexploded bomb. Now, in the real world, what's your first reaction to walking into a room that could at any moment be blown to smithereens ...
1. Run for your life or
2. Pick up your children, and run for their lives or
3. get your kids to stand close to the bomb, posing while the photographers get the right shot.
When we say that the Islam is a religion with a death-wish, why does the West continue to doubt it. A picture is worth a thousand words, and who would doubt the Beeb!
Second, read this bit ...
The eastern Mihaniya area, where Um Ali lives, is also largely destroyed, mostly the result of aerial bombing and artillery fire from over a hill which separates Bin Jbeil from the Israeli border less than 5km (three miles) away....There was also house-to-house fighting here, after Israeli troops entered Mihaniya and were engaged by Hezbollah fighters at close quarters.
But hang on, weren't we told, endlessly, that Israel was deliberately attacking civilian/residential areas that posed no military target. Why then was Hizbollah fighting "house-to-house" - everyone else says they weren't ever there, but who would doubt the Beeb!
So be grateful to the BBC, because they time and again show themselves for what they are - unredeemable anti-Semites who wouldn't know the truth from a bucket of their own turds.
Errr Derrrr!
In this article from CNN, US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton said.
"As long as Hezbollah fighters remain armed," the international peacekeeping force and the Lebanese forces "would be vulnerable."
No shit Sherlock...
So why didn't you shut up and let Israel do the job for you - you pansies!
"As long as Hezbollah fighters remain armed," the international peacekeeping force and the Lebanese forces "would be vulnerable."
No shit Sherlock...
So why didn't you shut up and let Israel do the job for you - you pansies!
Hizbullah have perfected time travel
Browse your way to Hizbullah's Iran-based website, and you'll see this fascinating picture, together with the claim (non-Arabic readers will have to trust my sources) saying that it's a photo of them destroying an Israeli warship in their victorious war last month.
Now look again. Israel doesn't have destroyer-class vessels. This picture shows all guns have been removed. And the Australian Navy shows the same picture, dated 1998, of the decommissioned HMAS Torrens being used for submarine target practice off WA coast (hats off to Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun).
So here's the story. Either Hizbollah are blatant liars (what??? never!!!) or they've discovered the secret of time travel, picked up an Israeli destroyer (which doesn't exist yet), moved it back in time to 1998, disguised themselves as RAN sailors on a RAN sub, and sank it. For my money, I'll believe the latter, just like all the 1.5 billion followers of the religion of Peace do.
Monday, August 21, 2006
the crystal ball is still working
Sometimes, the naiveté of both our media and our Government astound me.
Headline on front page of today's Jerusalem Post - Annan to give UNIFIL "teeth". And the gist if the story is that Israel's good and true friend, in response to persuasive arguments by our Foreign Minister, is going to amend the rules of engagement to include "opening fire on Hizbullah where necessary".
I didn't know crystal balls could laugh, but mine does. Sure, UNIFIL will get orders allowing it to open fire on Hizbullah. And the moon is made of green cheese!
This "persuasive argument" by Israel's FM comes exactly one day after we sent our brave troops into Lebanon in what even JP describes as a "brazen Israeli commando raid into the heart of Lebanon". Now, what do YOU imagine is uppermost in Coffee Anal's mind, that he's going to write rules allowing UNIFIL to shoot at Hizbullah, or he's going to say something like "UNIFIL can resist any violation of the cease fire agreement, by any party, with force of arms"?
And what is that rule other than a mandate for UNIFIL to get in our way when we decide to try and stop Hizbullah re-arming and redeploying. What is this rule other than a carte-blanche for Hizbullah to go back to the good-old-days of the past six years, except now we have another enemy to contend with.
I've said it before, it's time for Egghead Omlette and his Merry Men to be shown the door.
Headline on front page of today's Jerusalem Post - Annan to give UNIFIL "teeth". And the gist if the story is that Israel's good and true friend, in response to persuasive arguments by our Foreign Minister, is going to amend the rules of engagement to include "opening fire on Hizbullah where necessary".
I didn't know crystal balls could laugh, but mine does. Sure, UNIFIL will get orders allowing it to open fire on Hizbullah. And the moon is made of green cheese!
This "persuasive argument" by Israel's FM comes exactly one day after we sent our brave troops into Lebanon in what even JP describes as a "brazen Israeli commando raid into the heart of Lebanon". Now, what do YOU imagine is uppermost in Coffee Anal's mind, that he's going to write rules allowing UNIFIL to shoot at Hizbullah, or he's going to say something like "UNIFIL can resist any violation of the cease fire agreement, by any party, with force of arms"?
And what is that rule other than a mandate for UNIFIL to get in our way when we decide to try and stop Hizbullah re-arming and redeploying. What is this rule other than a carte-blanche for Hizbullah to go back to the good-old-days of the past six years, except now we have another enemy to contend with.
I've said it before, it's time for Egghead Omlette and his Merry Men to be shown the door.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
an excellent post-event analysis of the fiasco in Lebanon
As I've been saying here, the time is rapidly approaching when the people of Israel should get their chance to show Egghead Omlette and his band of merry men the door. There's a great summation of my feelings in this piece posted tonight in The New Republic, and I urge all to read it. Especially, take note of the closing paragraph ...
"Whether or not Hezbollah won this war, Iran did. It encouraged and supported Hezbollah in this catastrophic mischief, and it emerges from the adventure satisfied with its ability to hurt Israel and damage regional stability and thwart American strategy. At this moment, therefore, it is important to remember that Iran is not only Israel's problem. It is also America's problem. Indeed, it is the West's problem. There is no figure in the world right now--not Osama bin Laden, not Nasrallah, not Ayman Al Zawahiri, not the Sunni insurgency or the Shia death squads in Iraq, not the cells, Al Qaeda or otherwise, in any European or American city--that represents the Islamist danger more perfectly, with greater ideological and physical force, than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And he has been enjoying his summer immensely. "
"Whether or not Hezbollah won this war, Iran did. It encouraged and supported Hezbollah in this catastrophic mischief, and it emerges from the adventure satisfied with its ability to hurt Israel and damage regional stability and thwart American strategy. At this moment, therefore, it is important to remember that Iran is not only Israel's problem. It is also America's problem. Indeed, it is the West's problem. There is no figure in the world right now--not Osama bin Laden, not Nasrallah, not Ayman Al Zawahiri, not the Sunni insurgency or the Shia death squads in Iraq, not the cells, Al Qaeda or otherwise, in any European or American city--that represents the Islamist danger more perfectly, with greater ideological and physical force, than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And he has been enjoying his summer immensely. "
Thursday, August 17, 2006
was I right, or was I right !
10 days ago, I made a prediction here about the likely outcome of the arrests in Britain ...
"My crystal ball tells me that within a matter of days, many left-wing pollies (I think I see the names Galloway and Livingstone, but there are more I can't read) will start a campaign for the immediate release of all prisoners, for an apology from the Home Office, and for an official complaint to the Pakistani government about the torture of the British citizens innocently going about their business in Lahore. Furthermore, they will demand that any evidence gained from following up the interrogation in Pakistan be ignored as "tainted evidence" since the techniques of "interrogation" do not conform to the British standards required for a court case."
So go have a look here in today's Guardian (hats-off to OpinionJournal - still the bechmark) ...
"Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all." If this is shown to be the case, the prospect of securing convictions in this country on his evidence will be complicated."
"My crystal ball tells me that within a matter of days, many left-wing pollies (I think I see the names Galloway and Livingstone, but there are more I can't read) will start a campaign for the immediate release of all prisoners, for an apology from the Home Office, and for an official complaint to the Pakistani government about the torture of the British citizens innocently going about their business in Lahore. Furthermore, they will demand that any evidence gained from following up the interrogation in Pakistan be ignored as "tainted evidence" since the techniques of "interrogation" do not conform to the British standards required for a court case."
So go have a look here in today's Guardian (hats-off to OpinionJournal - still the bechmark) ...
"Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all." If this is shown to be the case, the prospect of securing convictions in this country on his evidence will be complicated."
blame Canada? no need - there's always Bibi
It's time for the Establishment to start doing the only PR thing they actually know how to do - shifting the blame onto some-one else. Instead of Egg Omlette standing up like a mensch and saying "the buck stops here, it was on my watch, I resign", we're starting to see the spin-doctors coming into play, and telling us that he did a WONDERFUL job, and if anything was even slightly wrong it was because of Joe Shmo or, as we now hear, Benyamin Netanyahu.
The case in point is an article in the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday August 16, titled "Cost of a tragically botched war" by Jonathan Lipow, who is described as "an economist". He says, basically, that we lost (I agree), and that it's all Bibi's fault.
"It's one thing to shave NIS 1 billion off a 33 billion budget given six months of advanced warning" says he, "It is quite another to shave off a billion 6 months into the current fiscal year when that money has already been allocated or spent. Faced with the need to slash spending fast, the IDF did the only thing possible - it cut readiness and training expenditures". So lets see, the IDF has been under notification by the Treasury that they have to review expenditure for at least 3 years, but not in the last year, since Bibi wasn't Treasurer for most of it. They had to find (incredible!) THREE PERCENT, so in anticipation of this they, by all accounts from reservists, stopped training 3 years ago (they being both omniscient and flawless predictors).
What else is Bibi's fault? The economy is stagnating. Unemployment is standing at the "staggering" level of 9 per cent, stuck there for four months (during which Bibi, again, was not Treasurer), having [start sarcasm]rocketed there from the much better level of 11 per cent [end sarcasm] when Bibi took the reins. Lipow rabbits on in this vein for 4 columns of drivel, all saying the same thing, basically that anything that went wrong in the war was due to the financial catastrophe that Bibi nurtured (average 6% GDP growth, lowest inflation, declining unemployment, etc,etc,etc).
Oh, and it's not all Bibi's fault. The head of the Bank of Israel also gets his, because he raised interest rates by one half a per cent. Clearly, this has ruined our economy. After all, the exchange rate, in a time of war, actually improved! What other sign do we need that Fischer was Bibi's accomplice in spoiling Omlettte's victory.
Let's keep an eye on this game - looks like it's only the opening shots in a long campaign to pull the wool over our eyes - again.
The case in point is an article in the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday August 16, titled "Cost of a tragically botched war" by Jonathan Lipow, who is described as "an economist". He says, basically, that we lost (I agree), and that it's all Bibi's fault.
"It's one thing to shave NIS 1 billion off a 33 billion budget given six months of advanced warning" says he, "It is quite another to shave off a billion 6 months into the current fiscal year when that money has already been allocated or spent. Faced with the need to slash spending fast, the IDF did the only thing possible - it cut readiness and training expenditures". So lets see, the IDF has been under notification by the Treasury that they have to review expenditure for at least 3 years, but not in the last year, since Bibi wasn't Treasurer for most of it. They had to find (incredible!) THREE PERCENT, so in anticipation of this they, by all accounts from reservists, stopped training 3 years ago (they being both omniscient and flawless predictors).
What else is Bibi's fault? The economy is stagnating. Unemployment is standing at the "staggering" level of 9 per cent, stuck there for four months (during which Bibi, again, was not Treasurer), having [start sarcasm]
Oh, and it's not all Bibi's fault. The head of the Bank of Israel also gets his, because he raised interest rates by one half a per cent. Clearly, this has ruined our economy. After all, the exchange rate, in a time of war, actually improved! What other sign do we need that Fischer was Bibi's accomplice in spoiling Omlettte's victory.
Let's keep an eye on this game - looks like it's only the opening shots in a long campaign to pull the wool over our eyes - again.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Has Sharon left the building?
I have it on good authority (although I still hope it is not true) that Sharon has just passed away. Apparently there is a media block on the story until further notice.
Sorry to be vague but I will update if anything worth updating develops.
**UPdate**
Seems not to be true - my hopes were right and my source is crap!
Sorry to be vague but I will update if anything worth updating develops.
**UPdate**
Seems not to be true - my hopes were right and my source is crap!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Coke! Just for the Taste of it?
"COCA-COLA yesterday hit back at claims that its soft drinks in India contain unacceptably high levels of pesticide residue by publishing a British laboratory report showing that they are safe to drink. "
Surely ANY level of pesticide residue is unacceptable?
Read the full report.
Surely ANY level of pesticide residue is unacceptable?
Read the full report.
Monday, August 14, 2006
My response to the Auschwitz Holocaust museum
I do not think very much of the response I received after sending an email in response to this article:
Herein my response to the Museum:
Dear Teresa,
Thank you so much for your reply. However I still strongly feel that the suitcase needs to be returned to the original owner's son. You claim in your letter that a great part of your resistance in this case is due to the fact that the suitcase was on loan. But what would you say if Mr Michael Levi-Leleu had visited your exhibition and seen the suitcase - would it make his claim any more legitimate. Furthermore you also claim that this is not the first time that the museum has dealt with a situation like this - but that normally, with dialogue, you are able to convince the claimant to leave the item in your possession. What would you have done if you had indeed managed to hold negotiations with Mr Levi-Leleu and failed? Would you then have returned to him the suitcase?
The fact remains that although education and preservation of the remnants of the camps seem to be your claimed purpose - and I quote "the view of the Museum's Board of Directors is that it certainly understands, most profoundly, the feelings of the families of victims of the Shoah. Nevertheless, the Museum has a responsibility towards what is left of the camp." The camps existed as extermination centers for millions of Jews, gypsies, dissidents and others. The pain suffered by the families who lost loved ones and suffered horrible conditions themselves for so many years at the hands of the Nazi's is no excuse for depriving any living person a remaining physical memory of their loved one. It just shows that you really do NOT understand, most profoundly, the feelings of the families of victims of the Shoah. If you did then there would be no question that this suitcase needs to be returned immediately.
You offered Mr Levi-Leleu a photograph of the suitcase. Perhaps this is what you should do yourselves, give him the suitcase back and put a photo of the suitcase on display, or even better turn this into an educational and PR success. Make the right choice and return the suitcase, document its return in a video and (if he agrees) interview Mr Levi-Leleu about his memories of his father. THAT is education.
Send an email to the Museum
Herein my response to the Museum:
Dear Teresa,
Thank you so much for your reply. However I still strongly feel that the suitcase needs to be returned to the original owner's son. You claim in your letter that a great part of your resistance in this case is due to the fact that the suitcase was on loan. But what would you say if Mr Michael Levi-Leleu had visited your exhibition and seen the suitcase - would it make his claim any more legitimate. Furthermore you also claim that this is not the first time that the museum has dealt with a situation like this - but that normally, with dialogue, you are able to convince the claimant to leave the item in your possession. What would you have done if you had indeed managed to hold negotiations with Mr Levi-Leleu and failed? Would you then have returned to him the suitcase?
The fact remains that although education and preservation of the remnants of the camps seem to be your claimed purpose - and I quote "the view of the Museum's Board of Directors is that it certainly understands, most profoundly, the feelings of the families of victims of the Shoah. Nevertheless, the Museum has a responsibility towards what is left of the camp." The camps existed as extermination centers for millions of Jews, gypsies, dissidents and others. The pain suffered by the families who lost loved ones and suffered horrible conditions themselves for so many years at the hands of the Nazi's is no excuse for depriving any living person a remaining physical memory of their loved one. It just shows that you really do NOT understand, most profoundly, the feelings of the families of victims of the Shoah. If you did then there would be no question that this suitcase needs to be returned immediately.
You offered Mr Levi-Leleu a photograph of the suitcase. Perhaps this is what you should do yourselves, give him the suitcase back and put a photo of the suitcase on display, or even better turn this into an educational and PR success. Make the right choice and return the suitcase, document its return in a video and (if he agrees) interview Mr Levi-Leleu about his memories of his father. THAT is education.
Send an email to the Museum
The Auschwitz Holocaust Museum Responds to my letter
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your e-mail. For us, this case is also difficult and extremely painful. Putting aside the legal aspects, we are faced with a conflict between natural and understandable emotions of the individual, and a complex unity, whose primary and universal goal is to preserve collective memory of the European Jewry’s tragedy through education and material testimony. The lawsuit, which we did not want, is now in progress.
In response to your questions we would like to provide you with a statement of the Museum’s standpoint.
In the autumn of 2003, a representative of the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine (CDJC), Paris, visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Oświęcim. During this visit, for the first time, he made the request to borrow an exhibit for a planned permanent exhibition in Paris entitled “The Fate of Jews from France during World War II”. The exhibit he asked for was a suitcase that had come from among the transports deported to KL Auschwitz from the occupied French territories.
The suitcases of those deported to Auschwitz which are today in the possession of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum are among the most valuable exhibit-relics of its collections. They constitute a small remnant of the personal effects left behind by the victims of the KL Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers which the Nazis did not have time to recycle for their own purposes in the Reich. The names appearing on some of the suitcases are, at the same time, one of the few proofs of the death of individual people in KL Auschwitz. In the Museum’s collections there are just a handful of suitcases, whose characteristics, such as inscriptions on them or attached labels, indicate that they were brought to Auschwitz by deportees from France. For this reason, the Museum initially rejected the above-mentioned request, and offered a photograph of such a suitcase instead. The French party was not satisfied with such a solution and continued asking for an original suitcase, declaring at the same time that it would be borrowed from the Museum only for the period of the exhibition opening, i.e. the first half of 2005.
Considering the fact that one of the basic tasks of the Museum is to spread knowledge of KL Auschwitz, as well as the fact that the opening of the exhibition in Paris coincided with the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and that the exhibition was to be presented in the capital of France, the Museum decided to change its initial decision.
In the second half of 2004, the Museum chose a suitcase for the purpose. This was inventory number PMO- II-1-1786. It carried a paper label bearing the following inscription: “Boul. Villette, Paris” (typewritten), “Pierre Levy”, “48 Gruppe 10” [?] (handwritten, barely legible). The suitcase was then subjected to conservation, and the necessary formalities for the loan were prepared. Signing of the Loan/Borrowing contract and the physical taking possession of the exhibit by the French party took place in January 2005. The contract stated that by the end of June 2005 the suitcase would be returned to the Museum in Oświęcim.
At the end of May 2005, the French party informed the Museum that a person claiming to be the son of the original owner of the suitcase had been in touch with their institution. In order to respect the feelings of this relative of a victim of KL Auschwitz, the CDJC therefore asked for a change to be made to the contract such that the suitcase could remain in Paris for a “long-term” period. In making this request the CDJC told the Museum that if the Museum would agree to this it would help them to “persuade the family into not demanding its [the suitcase’s] restitution”.
The Museum raised the matter at the meeting of the International Auschwitz Council on June 21, 2005. The members of the Council, consisting of 25 experts from many countries around the world (among others, from Yad Vashem), expressed numerous doubts about CDJC’s request and expressed the view that the suitcase should be returned forthwith to the Museum. However, at the request of the French member of the Council, it was finally agreed that a temporary extension of the contract should be made. In its reply to the CDJC, the Museum thus declared that for the sake of maintaining good mutual relations, and to avoid any sense of bitterness, it was willing to extend the deadline for returning the suitcase until January 2006, stressing that this was the final date for the return of the loan. The Museum also asked for the address of the victim’s relative in order to establish contact with that person and to explain the role of the exhibits and collections of the Museum in its educational mission about Auschwitz and the Holocaust.
Unfortunately the Museum has never received the address, nor has this relative at any time contacted the Museum. It has therefore not been possible to engage in a dialogue about this matter. The Museum has had experience in the past of claims made by former prisoners or relatives of victims to claim ownership of objects from its collections, and in such cases – by clarifying the purpose of the Museum and its collections -- it has always succeeded in negotiating with such people and dissuading them from pursuing such claims.
At the end of December 2005, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum was informed by the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine in Paris about a decision that had been taken allowing a distraint to be made on the suitcase-exhibit being displayed at the exhibition organised by the Memorial de la Shoah (Shoah Memorial) in Paris. The proposer of this distraint was Mr. Michel Georges Adam Levi-Leleu, residing in Paris, the son of Pierre Levi, whose name corresponds with the one inscribed on the suitcase’s label. Shortly afterwards, the Museum received a summons from a court in France, where Mr. Michel Georges Adam Levi-Leleu claimed the right to the suitcase. He did so regardless of the letter in which the Museum had explained its opinion and had stressed the utmost importance of the integrity of its collections and of the authenticity of the site of the former KL Auschwitz-Birkenau. A similar letter was written to Mme Simone Veil by Prof. Władysław Bartoszewski, a former prisoner of KL Auschwitz, co-founder of the Council for Aid to Jews (“Żegota”), former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland, Citizen of Honour in Israel, and the Chairman of the International Auschwitz Council. At present, the case is in progress, and is due to be held in September this year.
The Museum has been considering its position and has taken advice from the International Auschwitz Council and its Board, the Polish Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, and the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. se In any case, as time goes by, the memory of what happened at Auschwitz and the educational activity promoted by the Museum will increasingly rest on what physically remains of the camp, as well as the grounds on which it stands. The plunder was originally made in criminal fashion by the Nazis: every object had its owner before the war. But in terms of preserving memory and promoting education, dispersing these physical remnants today is a road to nowhere. The Museum believes that such difficult questions should be the subject of negotiations and dialogue; it is neither appropriate not productive to settle such matters through the courts. In this particular case, the claimant has not so far demonstrated any interest in dialogue, and for the first time in the Museum’s history, we have been sued. We are afraid that, whatever the outcome, the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of this case may be the tightening of restrictions on the Museum’s willingness to lend objects at all, anywhere, to the detriment of Holocaust education worldwide.
Yours sincerely,
Teresa Świebocka
Deputy Director of
State Museum Auschwitz - Birkenau
in Oświęcim POLAND
Thank you for your e-mail. For us, this case is also difficult and extremely painful. Putting aside the legal aspects, we are faced with a conflict between natural and understandable emotions of the individual, and a complex unity, whose primary and universal goal is to preserve collective memory of the European Jewry’s tragedy through education and material testimony. The lawsuit, which we did not want, is now in progress.
In response to your questions we would like to provide you with a statement of the Museum’s standpoint.
In the autumn of 2003, a representative of the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine (CDJC), Paris, visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Oświęcim. During this visit, for the first time, he made the request to borrow an exhibit for a planned permanent exhibition in Paris entitled “The Fate of Jews from France during World War II”. The exhibit he asked for was a suitcase that had come from among the transports deported to KL Auschwitz from the occupied French territories.
The suitcases of those deported to Auschwitz which are today in the possession of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum are among the most valuable exhibit-relics of its collections. They constitute a small remnant of the personal effects left behind by the victims of the KL Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers which the Nazis did not have time to recycle for their own purposes in the Reich. The names appearing on some of the suitcases are, at the same time, one of the few proofs of the death of individual people in KL Auschwitz. In the Museum’s collections there are just a handful of suitcases, whose characteristics, such as inscriptions on them or attached labels, indicate that they were brought to Auschwitz by deportees from France. For this reason, the Museum initially rejected the above-mentioned request, and offered a photograph of such a suitcase instead. The French party was not satisfied with such a solution and continued asking for an original suitcase, declaring at the same time that it would be borrowed from the Museum only for the period of the exhibition opening, i.e. the first half of 2005.
Considering the fact that one of the basic tasks of the Museum is to spread knowledge of KL Auschwitz, as well as the fact that the opening of the exhibition in Paris coincided with the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and that the exhibition was to be presented in the capital of France, the Museum decided to change its initial decision.
In the second half of 2004, the Museum chose a suitcase for the purpose. This was inventory number PMO- II-1-1786. It carried a paper label bearing the following inscription: “Boul. Villette, Paris” (typewritten), “Pierre Levy”, “48 Gruppe 10” [?] (handwritten, barely legible). The suitcase was then subjected to conservation, and the necessary formalities for the loan were prepared. Signing of the Loan/Borrowing contract and the physical taking possession of the exhibit by the French party took place in January 2005. The contract stated that by the end of June 2005 the suitcase would be returned to the Museum in Oświęcim.
At the end of May 2005, the French party informed the Museum that a person claiming to be the son of the original owner of the suitcase had been in touch with their institution. In order to respect the feelings of this relative of a victim of KL Auschwitz, the CDJC therefore asked for a change to be made to the contract such that the suitcase could remain in Paris for a “long-term” period. In making this request the CDJC told the Museum that if the Museum would agree to this it would help them to “persuade the family into not demanding its [the suitcase’s] restitution”.
The Museum raised the matter at the meeting of the International Auschwitz Council on June 21, 2005. The members of the Council, consisting of 25 experts from many countries around the world (among others, from Yad Vashem), expressed numerous doubts about CDJC’s request and expressed the view that the suitcase should be returned forthwith to the Museum. However, at the request of the French member of the Council, it was finally agreed that a temporary extension of the contract should be made. In its reply to the CDJC, the Museum thus declared that for the sake of maintaining good mutual relations, and to avoid any sense of bitterness, it was willing to extend the deadline for returning the suitcase until January 2006, stressing that this was the final date for the return of the loan. The Museum also asked for the address of the victim’s relative in order to establish contact with that person and to explain the role of the exhibits and collections of the Museum in its educational mission about Auschwitz and the Holocaust.
Unfortunately the Museum has never received the address, nor has this relative at any time contacted the Museum. It has therefore not been possible to engage in a dialogue about this matter. The Museum has had experience in the past of claims made by former prisoners or relatives of victims to claim ownership of objects from its collections, and in such cases – by clarifying the purpose of the Museum and its collections -- it has always succeeded in negotiating with such people and dissuading them from pursuing such claims.
At the end of December 2005, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum was informed by the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine in Paris about a decision that had been taken allowing a distraint to be made on the suitcase-exhibit being displayed at the exhibition organised by the Memorial de la Shoah (Shoah Memorial) in Paris. The proposer of this distraint was Mr. Michel Georges Adam Levi-Leleu, residing in Paris, the son of Pierre Levi, whose name corresponds with the one inscribed on the suitcase’s label. Shortly afterwards, the Museum received a summons from a court in France, where Mr. Michel Georges Adam Levi-Leleu claimed the right to the suitcase. He did so regardless of the letter in which the Museum had explained its opinion and had stressed the utmost importance of the integrity of its collections and of the authenticity of the site of the former KL Auschwitz-Birkenau. A similar letter was written to Mme Simone Veil by Prof. Władysław Bartoszewski, a former prisoner of KL Auschwitz, co-founder of the Council for Aid to Jews (“Żegota”), former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland, Citizen of Honour in Israel, and the Chairman of the International Auschwitz Council. At present, the case is in progress, and is due to be held in September this year.
The Museum has been considering its position and has taken advice from the International Auschwitz Council and its Board, the Polish Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, and the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. se In any case, as time goes by, the memory of what happened at Auschwitz and the educational activity promoted by the Museum will increasingly rest on what physically remains of the camp, as well as the grounds on which it stands. The plunder was originally made in criminal fashion by the Nazis: every object had its owner before the war. But in terms of preserving memory and promoting education, dispersing these physical remnants today is a road to nowhere. The Museum believes that such difficult questions should be the subject of negotiations and dialogue; it is neither appropriate not productive to settle such matters through the courts. In this particular case, the claimant has not so far demonstrated any interest in dialogue, and for the first time in the Museum’s history, we have been sued. We are afraid that, whatever the outcome, the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of this case may be the tightening of restrictions on the Museum’s willingness to lend objects at all, anywhere, to the detriment of Holocaust education worldwide.
Yours sincerely,
Teresa Świebocka
Deputy Director of
State Museum Auschwitz - Birkenau
in Oświęcim POLAND
Message Lost in the Storm
A few days ago, I wrote about Panorama - the flagship news programme of the BBC, which reported last week on the sinister fundraising activities of the Islamic charity Interpal.
The message of my original posting on the Panorama expose' was lost amidst the incendiary blog debate that followed. Quite simply, I stated that although the BBC has a reputation (among Jews) as an anti-Israeli media outlet (not without some justification), it has attracted opprobium from others for being too kind to Israel. Don't take my word for it. Bermants Blog has also commented on this, and has drawn my attention to the Panorama feedback .
Here's one example from the feedback: I have always thought that the BBC is a reliable source of news and reflect the situation where ever as it is, last night it was very disappointing, panorama was very baised to the Israeli side of the story, and did not even get close to the facts.
I find it tiresome to hear Foreign Ministry officials moaning continuously about BBC hatred of Israel (Gideon Meir is the worst offender) - see the Jerusalem Post. It might sound like a cliche but there is some truth in it - "Media Bias is in the Eye of the Beholder".
I believe that it would be counterproductive for Israel to start another anti-BBC campaign, as it probably won't make an ounce of difference to the Corporation's coverage - and as I have already pointed out, there are plenty of people out there who feel the Beeb is soft on Israel.
I will give Shankar Vedantam the last word. In an eye-opening article in the Seattle Times, the journalist described how Pro-Arab and Pro-Israeli audiences were shown the same news clips of Israeli troops in Lebanon in 1982, and how the audience reactions diverged:
Partisans, it turns out, don't just arrive at different conclusions; they see entirely different worlds. In one especially telling experiment, researchers showed 144 observers six television news segments about Israel's 1982 war with Lebanon. Pro-Arab viewers heard 42 references that painted Israel in a positive light and 26 references that painted Israel unfavorably.
Pro-Israeli viewers, who watched the very same clips, spotted 16 references that painted Israel positively and 57 references that painted Israel negatively.
Both groups were certain they were right and the other side didn't know what it was talking about. The tendency to see bias in the news, now the raison d'etre of much of the blogosphere is such a reliable indicator of partisan thinking that researchers coined a term, "hostile media effect," to describe the sincere belief among partisans that news reports are painting them in the worst possible light.
The message of my original posting on the Panorama expose' was lost amidst the incendiary blog debate that followed. Quite simply, I stated that although the BBC has a reputation (among Jews) as an anti-Israeli media outlet (not without some justification), it has attracted opprobium from others for being too kind to Israel. Don't take my word for it. Bermants Blog has also commented on this, and has drawn my attention to the Panorama feedback .
Here's one example from the feedback: I have always thought that the BBC is a reliable source of news and reflect the situation where ever as it is, last night it was very disappointing, panorama was very baised to the Israeli side of the story, and did not even get close to the facts.
I find it tiresome to hear Foreign Ministry officials moaning continuously about BBC hatred of Israel (Gideon Meir is the worst offender) - see the Jerusalem Post. It might sound like a cliche but there is some truth in it - "Media Bias is in the Eye of the Beholder".
I believe that it would be counterproductive for Israel to start another anti-BBC campaign, as it probably won't make an ounce of difference to the Corporation's coverage - and as I have already pointed out, there are plenty of people out there who feel the Beeb is soft on Israel.
I will give Shankar Vedantam the last word. In an eye-opening article in the Seattle Times, the journalist described how Pro-Arab and Pro-Israeli audiences were shown the same news clips of Israeli troops in Lebanon in 1982, and how the audience reactions diverged:
Partisans, it turns out, don't just arrive at different conclusions; they see entirely different worlds. In one especially telling experiment, researchers showed 144 observers six television news segments about Israel's 1982 war with Lebanon. Pro-Arab viewers heard 42 references that painted Israel in a positive light and 26 references that painted Israel unfavorably.
Pro-Israeli viewers, who watched the very same clips, spotted 16 references that painted Israel positively and 57 references that painted Israel negatively.
Both groups were certain they were right and the other side didn't know what it was talking about. The tendency to see bias in the news, now the raison d'etre of much of the blogosphere is such a reliable indicator of partisan thinking that researchers coined a term, "hostile media effect," to describe the sincere belief among partisans that news reports are painting them in the worst possible light.
get the full story on Reuters & AP photo doctoring
An excellent analysis on what the news media have been up to, on Aish website.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
we learn something new every day
Perusing the thousands of blogs posted about the war in Lebanon, I learned something worth sharing.
Israel is the only country in the world that has more trees today than there were 100 years ago!
This fact came up in the context of an environmental blog dealing with the oil-spill coming from the Lebanese power station bombed in the opening day of the war. Environmentalists are pointing the finger at us, but ignoring the enormous damage done to out forested areas by Hizbolla rockets.
All credit to KKL/JNF for giving us this unique gold medal!
Israel is the only country in the world that has more trees today than there were 100 years ago!
This fact came up in the context of an environmental blog dealing with the oil-spill coming from the Lebanese power station bombed in the opening day of the war. Environmentalists are pointing the finger at us, but ignoring the enormous damage done to out forested areas by Hizbolla rockets.
All credit to KKL/JNF for giving us this unique gold medal!
Holocaust Museum double standard
I read a story on YNet news and Times Online about a French man, Michael Leleu Levi, who claims that the Auschwitz Holocaust Museum have his fathers' suitcase, he is seeking legal action to get it back.
How can they NOT return the suitcase to him? It is unacceptable when Nazi looted art and other items turn up in museums around the world and the museums do not return them to the claimants. Just because they are a holocaust museum does not mean that their cause is any more important than the standards we expect of other museums holding looted artifacts, nor does it make the claim of Mr Levi any less important. This is the only remnant of this man's father and if he wishes to have it returned then they need to do that.
So... they will have one less suitcase in their exhibition, surely that is less important than the connection that Mr Levi feels (whether logical or not) to his father's suitcase.
Please return the suitcase to Mr Levi, why should he have to go to court to get back what is rightfully his. It is bad enough that Jews all over the world have to fight museums and private collectors in legal battles to claim back the things that were stolen from their relatives.
Send the museum an email
How can they NOT return the suitcase to him? It is unacceptable when Nazi looted art and other items turn up in museums around the world and the museums do not return them to the claimants. Just because they are a holocaust museum does not mean that their cause is any more important than the standards we expect of other museums holding looted artifacts, nor does it make the claim of Mr Levi any less important. This is the only remnant of this man's father and if he wishes to have it returned then they need to do that.
So... they will have one less suitcase in their exhibition, surely that is less important than the connection that Mr Levi feels (whether logical or not) to his father's suitcase.
Please return the suitcase to Mr Levi, why should he have to go to court to get back what is rightfully his. It is bad enough that Jews all over the world have to fight museums and private collectors in legal battles to claim back the things that were stolen from their relatives.
Send the museum an email
AbbaGav outdoes himself
Abba Gav is normally very funny. His comedy blogging about Oprah in Jenin is a jem.
BUT THIS is is funniest yet - sad but true.
enjoy...
BUT THIS is is funniest yet - sad but true.
enjoy...
Saturday, August 12, 2006
You think Jew hatred is dead?
This was posted on The Guardian website earlier today (scroll down to the comment by langenkraut), and nobody has objected to it as offensive or unsuitable...
"OBL had nothing to do with 9/11 and of the 19 mickey mouse arabs who supposedly carried it out almost half are known to be still alive. If we had some investigative journalism in the mainstream media this would have been looked in to long ago along with endless other facets of this case.
As Robin Cook pointed out a few months before he so conveniently died, Al-Quaida is nothing more than a database of useful idiots. OBL has been set up as the boogey man that everybody has to be afraid of.
Perhaps he had something to do with the earlier attacks but I doubt it. They all stink of Zionist false flags. The official story about 7/7 is also absolute nonsense.
Zionist false flags go back at least 50 years and before that they bombed the British out of Palestine before attacking the local Palestinian population. Well actually they did both at the same time. The bombing of Arab buses began in 1939:
See:http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/jewish-terrorism.htm
In 1967 unmarked Israeli planes attacked the unarmed USS Liberty and tried to sink it. This was an attempt to provoke the US into attacking Egypt. Over 170 US sailore were killed or injured. The captain of the ship is still alive and together with his surviving crew is trying to get justice. President Johnson covered the whole thing up.
See: www.ussliberty.org
Now why were the British in Palestine in the first place? They got allocated Palestine at Versailles in 1919. 80 per cent of the delegates at Versailles were Zionist Jews. Not present, but manipulating proceedings through their many agents, was the Rotshchild family. Their main agents present were the Warbourg brothers.
The Warbourg Merchant Bank based in Hamburg is the biggest merchant bank in the world. Max Warbourg of the Reichsbank, the German Central Bank owned by the Warbourgs and other Rothschild Cabal members, was in the delegation advising the German Government. During the war he had advised the Kaiser.
His brother Paul, of Kuhn Loeb in New York, and of the Federal Reserve, another Central Bank owned and controlled by the Rothschild Cabal, was advising the US delegation. It was here that the Germans found out what was behing the Balfour Declaration of November 1917. In this declaration the UK Government made it known that it recognised the rights of Zionist to have a homeland in Palestine.
How come the Uk government had time for this when a war was going on? A war that they would have lost had the US not intervened? In late 1916 with the Germans offering peace negotiations the Zionist Jews approached the UK Government and offered to get the US in the war in return for a promise that they could have a homeland in Palestine. The UK agreed and after the US entered the war the Balfour Declaration was issued.
The Zionist controlled media in the US changed from supporting Germany to attacking it and inventing lots of wild stories about them being canibals and so on. In the White House, Colnel House, President Wilsons main advisor and a Rotshchild agent began working on the President. The banking families also increased their lending to the British and decreased it to the Germans.
It was also in 1917 that the British Royal Family changed its name from the House of Hannover to the House of Windsor, just in time for an allied victory."
"OBL had nothing to do with 9/11 and of the 19 mickey mouse arabs who supposedly carried it out almost half are known to be still alive. If we had some investigative journalism in the mainstream media this would have been looked in to long ago along with endless other facets of this case.
As Robin Cook pointed out a few months before he so conveniently died, Al-Quaida is nothing more than a database of useful idiots. OBL has been set up as the boogey man that everybody has to be afraid of.
Perhaps he had something to do with the earlier attacks but I doubt it. They all stink of Zionist false flags. The official story about 7/7 is also absolute nonsense.
Zionist false flags go back at least 50 years and before that they bombed the British out of Palestine before attacking the local Palestinian population. Well actually they did both at the same time. The bombing of Arab buses began in 1939:
See:http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/jewish-terrorism.htm
In 1967 unmarked Israeli planes attacked the unarmed USS Liberty and tried to sink it. This was an attempt to provoke the US into attacking Egypt. Over 170 US sailore were killed or injured. The captain of the ship is still alive and together with his surviving crew is trying to get justice. President Johnson covered the whole thing up.
See: www.ussliberty.org
Now why were the British in Palestine in the first place? They got allocated Palestine at Versailles in 1919. 80 per cent of the delegates at Versailles were Zionist Jews. Not present, but manipulating proceedings through their many agents, was the Rotshchild family. Their main agents present were the Warbourg brothers.
The Warbourg Merchant Bank based in Hamburg is the biggest merchant bank in the world. Max Warbourg of the Reichsbank, the German Central Bank owned by the Warbourgs and other Rothschild Cabal members, was in the delegation advising the German Government. During the war he had advised the Kaiser.
His brother Paul, of Kuhn Loeb in New York, and of the Federal Reserve, another Central Bank owned and controlled by the Rothschild Cabal, was advising the US delegation. It was here that the Germans found out what was behing the Balfour Declaration of November 1917. In this declaration the UK Government made it known that it recognised the rights of Zionist to have a homeland in Palestine.
How come the Uk government had time for this when a war was going on? A war that they would have lost had the US not intervened? In late 1916 with the Germans offering peace negotiations the Zionist Jews approached the UK Government and offered to get the US in the war in return for a promise that they could have a homeland in Palestine. The UK agreed and after the US entered the war the Balfour Declaration was issued.
The Zionist controlled media in the US changed from supporting Germany to attacking it and inventing lots of wild stories about them being canibals and so on. In the White House, Colnel House, President Wilsons main advisor and a Rotshchild agent began working on the President. The banking families also increased their lending to the British and decreased it to the Germans.
It was also in 1917 that the British Royal Family changed its name from the House of Hannover to the House of Windsor, just in time for an allied victory."
Friday, August 11, 2006
is Bernard Lewis wrong?
I never thought I was capable of improving anything Prof. Lewis wrote, but today I think I can.
In an analysis of the significance of the forthcoming key date of August 22nd, he says ...
In this context, MAD (mutual assured destruction), the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead – hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
Can I suggest a better version of the final sentence ...
For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is a description.
In an analysis of the significance of the forthcoming key date of August 22nd, he says ...
In this context, MAD (mutual assured destruction), the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead – hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
Can I suggest a better version of the final sentence ...
For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is a description.
is my crystal ball working?
The date and time of this posting is important. It's August 11 2006 06:26 AM GMT.
News this morning about the Muslim terrorist plot to explode multiple airplanes over the Atlantic included the bit about how the unravelling of the plot started with the arrest of some 10 Muslims in Pakistan, including two British Muslims, who gave up information of the plot while under interrogation. Subsequently 21 Muslims have been arrested in the UK.
My crystal ball tells me that within a matter of days, many left-wing pollies (I think I see the names Galloway and Livingstone, but there are more I can't read) will start a campaign for the immediate release of all prisoners, for an apology from the Home Office, and for an official complaint to the Pakistani government about the torture of the British citizens innocently going about their business in Lahore. Furthermore, they will demand that any evidence gained from following up the interrogation in Pakistan be ignored as "tainted evidence" since the techniques of "interrogation" do not conform to the British standards required for a court case.
Who's prepared to bet me that my ball is wrong??
All I can say is - thank G-d for the Pakistani interrogation techniques.
News this morning about the Muslim terrorist plot to explode multiple airplanes over the Atlantic included the bit about how the unravelling of the plot started with the arrest of some 10 Muslims in Pakistan, including two British Muslims, who gave up information of the plot while under interrogation. Subsequently 21 Muslims have been arrested in the UK.
My crystal ball tells me that within a matter of days, many left-wing pollies (I think I see the names Galloway and Livingstone, but there are more I can't read) will start a campaign for the immediate release of all prisoners, for an apology from the Home Office, and for an official complaint to the Pakistani government about the torture of the British citizens innocently going about their business in Lahore. Furthermore, they will demand that any evidence gained from following up the interrogation in Pakistan be ignored as "tainted evidence" since the techniques of "interrogation" do not conform to the British standards required for a court case.
Who's prepared to bet me that my ball is wrong??
All I can say is - thank G-d for the Pakistani interrogation techniques.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
There was something in the air tonight...
Fernando! should be the new code-name for the current UK and US terror investigations - especially after Scotland yard arrested suspects and upped the terror alert at all international airports - and after US authoritied arrested 2 suspects in Ohio...
I can't help wondering where those missing Egyptian students really are.
If you are planning a flight in the next few weeks - maybe now is the time to cancel... *hint*
I can't help wondering where those missing Egyptian students really are.
If you are planning a flight in the next few weeks - maybe now is the time to cancel... *hint*
Told you so!
Further to my earlier Post about Malaysia sending foreign troops to Lebanon.
Told You So! (As per Ynet News)
Told You So! (As per Ynet News)
"Malaysia urges nations to break ties with Israel over offensive in Lebanon
Malaysia urged countries Thursday to cut off diplomatic ties with Israel to show they care enough about the lives of Muslims under attack in Lebanon.
"This is one incident in history where the world seems to close its eyes ... As if the lives of Muslims or the Arabs or the Lebanese are not as important as others," Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar told a news conference. "Definitely the view of (many in) the international community is that Israel has breached international law," Syed Hamid said. "If that is so, it is only proper for countries ... to cut diplomatic relations with Israel, especially countries in the Middle East." (AP)
is the gap between Europe and America bridgeable
In today's issue of The Economist, there's an editorial that outlines the differences between American and European views of the war in Lebanon. Although the body of the article (see it here) seems to make a clear case of the strength of US pro-Israel sentiment, it also makes some disturbing conclusions, amongst them that this support is wavering ....
There are growing worries both about Israel's conduct of the war and its wider impact on the Middle East. Many of these anxieties are expressed by the “realist faction”. Chuck Hagel, a Republican maverick, has given warning that America's relationship with Israel “cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships”. Richard Haass, a State Department official under George Bush senior who now heads the Council on Foreign Relations, has laughed publicly at the president's “birth of a new Middle East” optimism about the crisis. Some of the worries extend to conservatives. Tony Blankley, a former press secretary for Newt Gingrich and a fire-breathing columnist for the Washington Times, says that “We ignore world opinion at our peril.”
I found this paragraph disturbing. Do the Europeans (and The Economist is one of the most reliable, level-headed and "unbiased" commentators in Europe) see American domestic support slipping, in which case they will go even further over to the pro-Arab stance that has dogged all steps to bring a concerted effort to bear on the menace of radical Islam forces now breaking out.
So I went browsing to find out what I could about these American voices that are pushing US policy aware from solid support for Israel in our hour of need. And what do we find?
In the Washington Times, by no means a strong pro-Israel medium, Tony Blankly says ...
In the short and early middle term, a policy of appealing to the hearts and minds of the Arab street ... will be indistinguishable from a policy of appeasement to radical Islamist sentiments. (Of course, "leaning on Israel" is always well received on the Arab Street.) And, oh dear, that last phrase: "We have to make up [for not spending so much blood or treasure as over the past few years] with diplomacy backed by a hint of steel." More likely a hint of lavender. Somehow, I doubt that Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Hamas and their fellow cutthroats are going to take the "hint."
Reading these assessments from someone very high up in the Bush foreign policy hierarchy, it is hard to take in the distressing conclusion that even now, after all we have seen and been through these past five years, it is still believed that we can somehow finesse radical Islamist terrorism with sweet talk. This is going to be a bloody fight to the death between civilization and Islamist barbarity -- made more bloody the longer we wait to take the threat seriously.
Maybe the gap between Europe and the US is unbridgeable. It certainly looks that way if conservative views like The Economists can so completely mis-understand the thinking of US policy makers. And we have today seen a radical split between what was hoped-for as vital alliance between US and France in steering the Security Council along a neutral path. Now France is parroting the Arab line, that Israel must pull out before any peace settlement can begin. Let's hope the bridge allows one-way traffic only, and the US doesn't go against the tide and join Europe in is appeasement strategy.
There are growing worries both about Israel's conduct of the war and its wider impact on the Middle East. Many of these anxieties are expressed by the “realist faction”. Chuck Hagel, a Republican maverick, has given warning that America's relationship with Israel “cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships”. Richard Haass, a State Department official under George Bush senior who now heads the Council on Foreign Relations, has laughed publicly at the president's “birth of a new Middle East” optimism about the crisis. Some of the worries extend to conservatives. Tony Blankley, a former press secretary for Newt Gingrich and a fire-breathing columnist for the Washington Times, says that “We ignore world opinion at our peril.”
I found this paragraph disturbing. Do the Europeans (and The Economist is one of the most reliable, level-headed and "unbiased" commentators in Europe) see American domestic support slipping, in which case they will go even further over to the pro-Arab stance that has dogged all steps to bring a concerted effort to bear on the menace of radical Islam forces now breaking out.
So I went browsing to find out what I could about these American voices that are pushing US policy aware from solid support for Israel in our hour of need. And what do we find?
In the Washington Times, by no means a strong pro-Israel medium, Tony Blankly says ...
In the short and early middle term, a policy of appealing to the hearts and minds of the Arab street ... will be indistinguishable from a policy of appeasement to radical Islamist sentiments. (Of course, "leaning on Israel" is always well received on the Arab Street.) And, oh dear, that last phrase: "We have to make up [for not spending so much blood or treasure as over the past few years] with diplomacy backed by a hint of steel." More likely a hint of lavender. Somehow, I doubt that Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Hamas and their fellow cutthroats are going to take the "hint."
Reading these assessments from someone very high up in the Bush foreign policy hierarchy, it is hard to take in the distressing conclusion that even now, after all we have seen and been through these past five years, it is still believed that we can somehow finesse radical Islamist terrorism with sweet talk. This is going to be a bloody fight to the death between civilization and Islamist barbarity -- made more bloody the longer we wait to take the threat seriously.
Maybe the gap between Europe and the US is unbridgeable. It certainly looks that way if conservative views like The Economists can so completely mis-understand the thinking of US policy makers. And we have today seen a radical split between what was hoped-for as vital alliance between US and France in steering the Security Council along a neutral path. Now France is parroting the Arab line, that Israel must pull out before any peace settlement can begin. Let's hope the bridge allows one-way traffic only, and the US doesn't go against the tide and join Europe in is appeasement strategy.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
an important read to understand where "militant Islam" comes from
I have just finished reading a marvellous paper by one of the foremost writers in the study of Islamic terrorism Most importantly, it was written 6 month ago, but it could just have well been penned this morning, clarifying as it does the origins, methods and aims of the movements behind the current war in Lebanon. Read it and you will come out with a much deeper and clearer understanding of the fight we have on our hands today, and why Israel must get the backing of the whole free world as the first line of defense against a vicious, evil enemy.
THE RADICAL POLITICS OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM by Daniel Goldhagen
The most telling paragraphs, for me, were these ...
Political Islam is on the march in the three loci of politics: the street, the halls of power, and the field of battle. Its targets are both domestic (to suppress freedom and dissent within Islamic countries; sharia is already becoming the rule in Gaza) and international (to spread its sway and impose its orthodoxy abroad). While its international power is still circumscribed, political Islam's ambitions are extensive, violent, and frightening-- with its members sensing its growing potential (fueled also by America's geostrategic weakening in the Iraq quagmire). Political Islam's leaders and masses watch a Western world in evident disarray about what to do regarding each aspect of this partly coordinated, partly fortuitous offensive. We must consider that we are witnessing the beginning of political Islam's intensifying social and political mobilization into a new multipronged, intercontinental intifada.
and these ...
Political Islam is a transnational movement. Precisely because it cuts across countries and includes political movements and groups that, on some matters, are antagonistic to one another, it can seem somewhat amorphous and diffuse. But its common ideological foundation--and its overarching set of concerns--give it a shared purpose for which its adherents can singly, and in concert, work. Political Islam, which erases the distinction between politics and religion, includes all those in power or aspiring to power who want politics to be merged with, and subordinated to, Islam in a domestic and (for many) ultimately global rule of fundamentalist versions of Islam (which differ from the more tolerant, pluralistic forms that are widely practiced, including by most Muslims in the United States). As Hamas's Musa Abu Marzook, its deputy chief leader-in-exile, said on Israeli radio this month, one of the principles it will never compromise is "government according to the laws of the sharia." Political Islam also includes all those in power or vying for power (including secular leaders) who use an intolerant version of Islam as a political ideology to mobilize Muslims at home or abroad for aggressive political action. These actions are typically directed at those bucking the political Islamic line, especially abroad against non-Muslims, derogatorily called "infidels," against whom it is lawful, even normative, to act in ways that would be criminal if done to Muslims.
By identifying political Islam (a term preferable to Islamofascism, militant Islam, Islamic fundamentalism, or others because it is not Islam itself but a political Islamic movement with a coherent and distinctive political ideology and goals), we emphatically do not implicate all Muslims or all Islam. The phenomenon includes only Islamic-grounded political regimes, organizations, and initiatives that share (whatever their other-- sometimes internecine--differences, Shia versus Sunni, Arab versus Persian, et cetera) a common ideological foundation about Islam's political primacy or its need to systematically roll back the West. It is a conviction that the modern world is fundamentally corrupt and must be reshaped, often through the annihilation of others. Therein, political Islam resembles the international communist movement in its heyday. Political Islam is many things: totalitarian, aggressive, conquering, cocksure about its superiority and destiny to rule, intolerant, bristling with resentment, and only tenuously in touch with aspects of reality. But what marks it most distinctively are two things: its religious consecration of its tenets, emotions, and goals, which are putatively grounded in Allah's will and to which slavish (indeed literally mindless) devotion is due; and its cult of death, which produces its extreme danger and has three central components.
First is the willingness to die (or at least to let political Islam's duped minions die) for the greater earthly and heavenly glory of political Islam and for a martyr's place in paradise. This is rhetorically and behaviorally manifest throughout the movement, including in the well-known glorification of suicide bombers' deaths by the videotaped killers and their families, and in public ceremonies and speeches of political leaders, including Mashal's broadcast to the world in the wake of Hamas's election victory: "Today, you are fighting the army of Allah. You are fighting against peoples for whom death for the sake of Allah- -and for the sake of honor and glory--is preferable to life."
Second is the well-established willingness to slaughter entire categories of opponents and the drive to attain the weaponry to do so.
And third is the unabashed rhetorical ease and lurid excess of trumpeting fantasies of killing opponents, starting with Israelis, for any real or imagined bucking of political Islam. (In December, according to a poll conducted for the London Times, 37 percent of British Muslims said that British Jews are "legitimate targets as part of the struggle for justice in the Middle East.")
More than the members of any other major modern political movement, political Islamists, including their highest leaders, exhibit an archaic bloodlust of the kind quoted above, repeatedly speaking with evident relish and unmatched openness of killing their enemies, decapitating them, playing with their blood and body parts, and watching them suffer.
THE RADICAL POLITICS OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM by Daniel Goldhagen
The most telling paragraphs, for me, were these ...
Political Islam is on the march in the three loci of politics: the street, the halls of power, and the field of battle. Its targets are both domestic (to suppress freedom and dissent within Islamic countries; sharia is already becoming the rule in Gaza) and international (to spread its sway and impose its orthodoxy abroad). While its international power is still circumscribed, political Islam's ambitions are extensive, violent, and frightening-- with its members sensing its growing potential (fueled also by America's geostrategic weakening in the Iraq quagmire). Political Islam's leaders and masses watch a Western world in evident disarray about what to do regarding each aspect of this partly coordinated, partly fortuitous offensive. We must consider that we are witnessing the beginning of political Islam's intensifying social and political mobilization into a new multipronged, intercontinental intifada.
and these ...
Political Islam is a transnational movement. Precisely because it cuts across countries and includes political movements and groups that, on some matters, are antagonistic to one another, it can seem somewhat amorphous and diffuse. But its common ideological foundation--and its overarching set of concerns--give it a shared purpose for which its adherents can singly, and in concert, work. Political Islam, which erases the distinction between politics and religion, includes all those in power or aspiring to power who want politics to be merged with, and subordinated to, Islam in a domestic and (for many) ultimately global rule of fundamentalist versions of Islam (which differ from the more tolerant, pluralistic forms that are widely practiced, including by most Muslims in the United States). As Hamas's Musa Abu Marzook, its deputy chief leader-in-exile, said on Israeli radio this month, one of the principles it will never compromise is "government according to the laws of the sharia." Political Islam also includes all those in power or vying for power (including secular leaders) who use an intolerant version of Islam as a political ideology to mobilize Muslims at home or abroad for aggressive political action. These actions are typically directed at those bucking the political Islamic line, especially abroad against non-Muslims, derogatorily called "infidels," against whom it is lawful, even normative, to act in ways that would be criminal if done to Muslims.
By identifying political Islam (a term preferable to Islamofascism, militant Islam, Islamic fundamentalism, or others because it is not Islam itself but a political Islamic movement with a coherent and distinctive political ideology and goals), we emphatically do not implicate all Muslims or all Islam. The phenomenon includes only Islamic-grounded political regimes, organizations, and initiatives that share (whatever their other-- sometimes internecine--differences, Shia versus Sunni, Arab versus Persian, et cetera) a common ideological foundation about Islam's political primacy or its need to systematically roll back the West. It is a conviction that the modern world is fundamentally corrupt and must be reshaped, often through the annihilation of others. Therein, political Islam resembles the international communist movement in its heyday. Political Islam is many things: totalitarian, aggressive, conquering, cocksure about its superiority and destiny to rule, intolerant, bristling with resentment, and only tenuously in touch with aspects of reality. But what marks it most distinctively are two things: its religious consecration of its tenets, emotions, and goals, which are putatively grounded in Allah's will and to which slavish (indeed literally mindless) devotion is due; and its cult of death, which produces its extreme danger and has three central components.
First is the willingness to die (or at least to let political Islam's duped minions die) for the greater earthly and heavenly glory of political Islam and for a martyr's place in paradise. This is rhetorically and behaviorally manifest throughout the movement, including in the well-known glorification of suicide bombers' deaths by the videotaped killers and their families, and in public ceremonies and speeches of political leaders, including Mashal's broadcast to the world in the wake of Hamas's election victory: "Today, you are fighting the army of Allah. You are fighting against peoples for whom death for the sake of Allah- -and for the sake of honor and glory--is preferable to life."
Second is the well-established willingness to slaughter entire categories of opponents and the drive to attain the weaponry to do so.
And third is the unabashed rhetorical ease and lurid excess of trumpeting fantasies of killing opponents, starting with Israelis, for any real or imagined bucking of political Islam. (In December, according to a poll conducted for the London Times, 37 percent of British Muslims said that British Jews are "legitimate targets as part of the struggle for justice in the Middle East.")
More than the members of any other major modern political movement, political Islamists, including their highest leaders, exhibit an archaic bloodlust of the kind quoted above, repeatedly speaking with evident relish and unmatched openness of killing their enemies, decapitating them, playing with their blood and body parts, and watching them suffer.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Galgalatz - I have no words!
Ok maybe a few!
On Galgalatz (Israel's Army Radio Music Station) tonight they played a new song that is a culmination of several well-known artists, titled "Kol Hakavod L'Tzahal". I did not catch all the names of the performers, but Ivri Leeder and Shlomo Artzi, both favorite artists of mine, appear in the song.
All I can say is WHY? It is soooooooo bad - would not surprise me if some of our soldiers throw themselves in front of their own tanks to avoid listening to it. Not to mention the fact that it is an exceptionally obnoxious thing to sing "well done IDF" when so many people are dying on both sides.
Israeli's need to grow up!
Yuck (Ushyman requests permission to puke)
NB: No amount of googling could find me a link to the words or any information about the song. I will update if/when I find some.
On Galgalatz (Israel's Army Radio Music Station) tonight they played a new song that is a culmination of several well-known artists, titled "Kol Hakavod L'Tzahal". I did not catch all the names of the performers, but Ivri Leeder and Shlomo Artzi, both favorite artists of mine, appear in the song.
All I can say is WHY? It is soooooooo bad - would not surprise me if some of our soldiers throw themselves in front of their own tanks to avoid listening to it. Not to mention the fact that it is an exceptionally obnoxious thing to sing "well done IDF" when so many people are dying on both sides.
Israeli's need to grow up!
Yuck (Ushyman requests permission to puke)
NB: No amount of googling could find me a link to the words or any information about the song. I will update if/when I find some.
15 French NGO workers killed in gun battle between army and terrorists
Kofi Annan demands immediate cease-fire, calls for emergency Security Council session.
Actually, I made the second bit up. There's been deathly silence from the UN, from the European Union, WCC and all the other vocal critics of Israel.
Why ???
Because the victims were killed in a battle between Sri Lankan forces and Tamil "rebels". Obviously, dead Lebanese civilians are much more important than dead Sri Lankan aid workers. If I wanted to give an illustration of my earlier point about why the liberal West hates Israel, I coudn't have made up a better story than this, but unfortunately it's true. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Annan to stand up and demand UN action to stop the fighting in Sri Lanka (or Somalia, or Tibet, or Congo or ......).
Actually, I made the second bit up. There's been deathly silence from the UN, from the European Union, WCC and all the other vocal critics of Israel.
Why ???
Because the victims were killed in a battle between Sri Lankan forces and Tamil "rebels". Obviously, dead Lebanese civilians are much more important than dead Sri Lankan aid workers. If I wanted to give an illustration of my earlier point about why the liberal West hates Israel, I coudn't have made up a better story than this, but unfortunately it's true. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Annan to stand up and demand UN action to stop the fighting in Sri Lanka (or Somalia, or Tibet, or Congo or ......).
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Give the BBC Credit Where It's Due
It's all too easy to attack the BBC's coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. I don't deny that its reporters have a tendency to dwell overlong on Israel's bombing of Lebanon, without focusing sufficiently on the barbaric tactics of the Hizbullah.
The trouble is that many of those who attack the Beeb for bias against Israel don't even watch BBC News in the ordinary way. BBC reporters such as Fergal Keane and Jim Muir have asked searching questions about Israel's tactics in Lebanon, but the Beeb has asked similar questions about US and British policy in Iraq. In fact, those of us with good memories of the 1980s will remember how Tory Party Chairman Norman Tebbit hit out at the BBC's Kate Adie for her coverage of the American bombings in Libya, in 1986.
The problem with many who attack the BBC for its Anti-Israel bias, is that they look too much like 'single-issue fanatics'. They would be more effective if they attacked it for its general flaws - the best example of this is the BBC's inability to use the word "terrorism" - whether it is carried out in Israel or India.
When the BBC does report in Israel's favour, the Arab side complains. Well, let's give the BBC credit, for a change. About a week ago, their flagship news programme, Panorama, broadcasted an excellent expose of the British-based Islamic charity Interpal, and its covert efforts to fund the Hamas. In fact, the programme is far more effective and credible than organizations such as Honest Reporting in highlighting the sinister Jihadi nature of the Hamas.
You can watch the programme online, and I urge you to do so while you still can.
The trouble is that many of those who attack the Beeb for bias against Israel don't even watch BBC News in the ordinary way. BBC reporters such as Fergal Keane and Jim Muir have asked searching questions about Israel's tactics in Lebanon, but the Beeb has asked similar questions about US and British policy in Iraq. In fact, those of us with good memories of the 1980s will remember how Tory Party Chairman Norman Tebbit hit out at the BBC's Kate Adie for her coverage of the American bombings in Libya, in 1986.
The problem with many who attack the BBC for its Anti-Israel bias, is that they look too much like 'single-issue fanatics'. They would be more effective if they attacked it for its general flaws - the best example of this is the BBC's inability to use the word "terrorism" - whether it is carried out in Israel or India.
When the BBC does report in Israel's favour, the Arab side complains. Well, let's give the BBC credit, for a change. About a week ago, their flagship news programme, Panorama, broadcasted an excellent expose of the British-based Islamic charity Interpal, and its covert efforts to fund the Hamas. In fact, the programme is far more effective and credible than organizations such as Honest Reporting in highlighting the sinister Jihadi nature of the Hamas.
You can watch the programme online, and I urge you to do so while you still can.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Is this World War III? Not Quite Yet...
These last five years have been fun, haven't they?
September 11th, 2001, Islamic Suicide bombings in Madrid, Bali, New Delhi and London, to name a few cities, Israel at war against a Shia Proxy of Iran and Iranian threats to wipe Israel off the map, as Tehran works full speed to acquire nuclear weapons. It's not surprising that we hear people voicing the notion that World War III has arrived.
Not surprising,maybe, but we haven't got there...At least, not yet. Last week, Martin Ivens discussed this question at length in an excellent article in the Sunday Times. Mr. Ivens compares the West's confrontation with militant Islam to the East-West conflict of the Cold War. He warns against the danger that many made in the cold war when they were "seduced by the notion of a monolithic satanic enemy". This was the mistake that the US Government made during the Vietnam War, when all Communists were placed in the same boat. It is forty years since the Vietnam War, and it seems so absurd now that the Johnson Administration saw Communists of all stripes as a monolithic threat - this is what struck me while reading Henry Kissinger's seminal work, Diplomacy. By the early 1970s, Nixon took the opportunity to exploit Sino-Soviet divisions, through his visit to China. Nixon's realpolitik prevailed over Johnson's righteous anti-communist crusade.
The domino theory which was in full sway during the Cold War seems to be back. We are back to spheres of influence, once again, as Iran attempts to build an arc of Shia influence in the Middle East. Still, I feel that we would all benefit if we rejected knee-jerk hysteria, and looked at the world in a more level-headed manner. Yes-fundamentalist Islam is a huge threat to the west. Yes - Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous man who must be contained at all costs. Having said that, we need to adopt a subtle approach in analyzing this problem - something which the Bush Administration has neglected, up until now. Just to quote Mr. Ivens:
Bashar al-Assad of Ba’athist Syria is allied to theocratic Iran by opposition to Israel and America, not ideology. Israel does face real Islamist enemies who would like to see it “wiped off the face of the earth”, but the Palestinian issue has its own dynamics, its own rights and wrongs. Nor is a Sunni Muslim the same as a Shi’ite.
To fight a new cold war against militant Islam at home and abroad takes skill and cunning; it means striking a balance between restraint and the use of force, between security at home and the protection of ancient liberties from the security state. This is the warning from history about the cold war. Some highly principled people then, as now, were seduced by the notion of a monolithic satanic enemy. Some cold warriors saw a single enemy made in Moscow, not realising that Mao’s China and even Tito’s Yugoslavia had their own ambitions. Third World dictators allied to the Soviet Union had their own agendas, too.
Disagreements about how to fight such an enemy are inevitable. Without the benefit of hindsight, if you supported the successful Korean war should you have automatically advocated fighting the communists in Vietnam? If you did should you have tried to play on Sino-Soviet divisions? ....Apply the analogy to the Middle East, Al-Qaeda, the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear programme and the Ba’athists. When to fight and when to contain? Are we uniting our enemies instead of dividing them? We urgently require a synthesis of idealism and realism.
The urgent task is to deal with Blair’s “arc of crisis” in the Middle East. Perhaps we should first find out if we can separate the Palestinians from some of their “friends”. Is Hamas’s leadership in Gaza and the West Bank irrevocably opposed to the existence of Israel or could it be detached from its military leadership in trouble making Syria? We should find out fast.
We need to exploit the divisions in the Arab World. We know, for instance, that Jordan and Saudi Arabia were very critical of Hezbollah's provocations, and weren't afraid to say so. Syria's Bashar Assad is a nasty piece of work who sponsors and shelters terrorists. Still, for all that, I don't think it would be a bad thing if the US opened a dialogue with Assad - at the very least, this could be an opportunity to drive a wedge between Damascus and Tehran. Syria is a major problem for Israel and for the west, in general, but Iran is a far greater danger. In order to deal with Iran, we might have to "sup with the devil" (Assad) as the saying goes, and "use a long spoon". I suspect that the White House is unearthing some long spoons, as we speak.
September 11th, 2001, Islamic Suicide bombings in Madrid, Bali, New Delhi and London, to name a few cities, Israel at war against a Shia Proxy of Iran and Iranian threats to wipe Israel off the map, as Tehran works full speed to acquire nuclear weapons. It's not surprising that we hear people voicing the notion that World War III has arrived.
Not surprising,maybe, but we haven't got there...At least, not yet. Last week, Martin Ivens discussed this question at length in an excellent article in the Sunday Times. Mr. Ivens compares the West's confrontation with militant Islam to the East-West conflict of the Cold War. He warns against the danger that many made in the cold war when they were "seduced by the notion of a monolithic satanic enemy". This was the mistake that the US Government made during the Vietnam War, when all Communists were placed in the same boat. It is forty years since the Vietnam War, and it seems so absurd now that the Johnson Administration saw Communists of all stripes as a monolithic threat - this is what struck me while reading Henry Kissinger's seminal work, Diplomacy. By the early 1970s, Nixon took the opportunity to exploit Sino-Soviet divisions, through his visit to China. Nixon's realpolitik prevailed over Johnson's righteous anti-communist crusade.
The domino theory which was in full sway during the Cold War seems to be back. We are back to spheres of influence, once again, as Iran attempts to build an arc of Shia influence in the Middle East. Still, I feel that we would all benefit if we rejected knee-jerk hysteria, and looked at the world in a more level-headed manner. Yes-fundamentalist Islam is a huge threat to the west. Yes - Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous man who must be contained at all costs. Having said that, we need to adopt a subtle approach in analyzing this problem - something which the Bush Administration has neglected, up until now. Just to quote Mr. Ivens:
Bashar al-Assad of Ba’athist Syria is allied to theocratic Iran by opposition to Israel and America, not ideology. Israel does face real Islamist enemies who would like to see it “wiped off the face of the earth”, but the Palestinian issue has its own dynamics, its own rights and wrongs. Nor is a Sunni Muslim the same as a Shi’ite.
To fight a new cold war against militant Islam at home and abroad takes skill and cunning; it means striking a balance between restraint and the use of force, between security at home and the protection of ancient liberties from the security state. This is the warning from history about the cold war. Some highly principled people then, as now, were seduced by the notion of a monolithic satanic enemy. Some cold warriors saw a single enemy made in Moscow, not realising that Mao’s China and even Tito’s Yugoslavia had their own ambitions. Third World dictators allied to the Soviet Union had their own agendas, too.
Disagreements about how to fight such an enemy are inevitable. Without the benefit of hindsight, if you supported the successful Korean war should you have automatically advocated fighting the communists in Vietnam? If you did should you have tried to play on Sino-Soviet divisions? ....Apply the analogy to the Middle East, Al-Qaeda, the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear programme and the Ba’athists. When to fight and when to contain? Are we uniting our enemies instead of dividing them? We urgently require a synthesis of idealism and realism.
The urgent task is to deal with Blair’s “arc of crisis” in the Middle East. Perhaps we should first find out if we can separate the Palestinians from some of their “friends”. Is Hamas’s leadership in Gaza and the West Bank irrevocably opposed to the existence of Israel or could it be detached from its military leadership in trouble making Syria? We should find out fast.
We need to exploit the divisions in the Arab World. We know, for instance, that Jordan and Saudi Arabia were very critical of Hezbollah's provocations, and weren't afraid to say so. Syria's Bashar Assad is a nasty piece of work who sponsors and shelters terrorists. Still, for all that, I don't think it would be a bad thing if the US opened a dialogue with Assad - at the very least, this could be an opportunity to drive a wedge between Damascus and Tehran. Syria is a major problem for Israel and for the west, in general, but Iran is a far greater danger. In order to deal with Iran, we might have to "sup with the devil" (Assad) as the saying goes, and "use a long spoon". I suspect that the White House is unearthing some long spoons, as we speak.
Just what Israel doesn't need!
According to this report on Ynet News, Malaysia have pledged 1000 troops for the international force to defend Lebanon. Yeah - that's just what we need - 1,000 Jew hating Muslims guarding the border between Lebanon and Israel. Unless things have dramatically changed in Malaysia over the last few years - I seem to remember that when flying from Australia to Israel we weren't allowed/able to go via Malaysia because of their rampant anti-semitism. In the airports there were signs saying "No Phylacteries Allowed". Are these the people we want involved in our protection - what's next - Darfur?
No Thanks!
Don't believe me...
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is hardly a key player in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but his address at last week's Islamic leadership conference in Putrajaya, Malaysia, immediately attracted a press spotlight to what might otherwise have been another ho-hum gathering of kings, emirs, presidents, and other mostly unelected leaders.
"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million," Mahathir said to the gathered leaders at the Organization of Islamic Conference summit, "but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." Press reports indicate he was met by a resounding ovation. What exactly the audience was applauding - indeed, what exactly the Malaysian premier, whose country chairs both the 57-member OIC and the 117-member Non-Aligned Movement, intended by his remarks' remains in hot dispute.
full report here!
No Thanks!
Don't believe me...
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is hardly a key player in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but his address at last week's Islamic leadership conference in Putrajaya, Malaysia, immediately attracted a press spotlight to what might otherwise have been another ho-hum gathering of kings, emirs, presidents, and other mostly unelected leaders.
"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million," Mahathir said to the gathered leaders at the Organization of Islamic Conference summit, "but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." Press reports indicate he was met by a resounding ovation. What exactly the audience was applauding - indeed, what exactly the Malaysian premier, whose country chairs both the 57-member OIC and the 117-member Non-Aligned Movement, intended by his remarks' remains in hot dispute.
full report here!
Thursday, August 03, 2006
A load of Tisha B'Av croc
When I ventured out last night I was quite surprised to see many people wearing their bright colored Crocs on Tisha B'Av.
I always thought that the purpose of not wearing leather on Tisha B'Av was because it was considered a symbol of luxury and comfort.
Crocs - though made of synthetic materials - should for all intents and purposes fit in to the 'suitable for wearing on Tisha B'av' category. However, I think all too often these days we follow these kinds of rules without thinking very much about the true meaning behind them.
Claims that Crocs are the most comfortable shoes that people have ever worn should, in my opinion, rule them out of the 'suitable for wearing on Tisha B'av' category. Afterall, comfortableness seems to be the only redeeming factor that these ghastly shoes have.
I always thought that the purpose of not wearing leather on Tisha B'Av was because it was considered a symbol of luxury and comfort.
Crocs - though made of synthetic materials - should for all intents and purposes fit in to the 'suitable for wearing on Tisha B'av' category. However, I think all too often these days we follow these kinds of rules without thinking very much about the true meaning behind them.
Claims that Crocs are the most comfortable shoes that people have ever worn should, in my opinion, rule them out of the 'suitable for wearing on Tisha B'av' category. Afterall, comfortableness seems to be the only redeeming factor that these ghastly shoes have.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Standing ovation for Tony Blair
If you didn't catch Blair's UK Foreign Policy speech to the US World Affairs Council, then I urge you to READ IT NOW.
Well done Tony Blair for finally confronting the Muslim Extremist issue facing the whole world today. Well done Tony Blair for finally criticizing the UN for it's ineffectiveness at protecting the interests of the countries it claims to defend.
...and most importantly well done for this...
...and this...
I am speechless - I have tears in my eyes and in my heart - because I never thought I would hear any foreign prime minister voice so succinctly the exact feelings that every Israeli, Jew and logical person around the world has fought to make heard for so long. Thank you Tony Blair for finally making the most brilliant speech in Israel's very short 58 year existence.
Well done Tony Blair for finally confronting the Muslim Extremist issue facing the whole world today. Well done Tony Blair for finally criticizing the UN for it's ineffectiveness at protecting the interests of the countries it claims to defend.
...and most importantly well done for this...
"However, there was one cause which, the world over, unites Islam, one issue that even the most westernised Muslims find unjust and, perhaps worse, humiliating: Palestine. Here a moderate leadership was squeezed between its own inability to control the radical elements and the political stagnation of the peace process.
When Prime Minister Sharon took the brave step of disengagement from Gaza, it could have been and should have been the opportunity to re-start the process. But the squeeze was too great and as ever because these processes never stay still, instead of moving forward, it fell back. Hamas won the election. Even then, had moderate elements in Hamas been able to show progress, the situation might have been saved. But they couldn't.
So the opportunity passed to Reactionary Islam and they seized it: first in Gaza, then in Lebanon. They knew what would happen. Their terrorism would provoke massive retaliation by Israel.
Within days, the world would forget the original provocation and be shocked by the retaliation. They want to trap the Moderates between support for America and an Arab street furious at what they see nightly on their television. This is what has happened.
For them, what is vital is that the struggle is defined in their terms: Islam versus the West; that instead of Muslims seeing this as about democracy versus dictatorship, they see only the bombs and the brutality of war, and sent from Israel.
In this way, they hope that the arc of extremism that now stretches across the region, will sweep away the fledgling but faltering steps Modern Islam wants to take into the future."
...and this...
"And most contemporaneously, and in some ways most perniciously, a very large and, I fear, growing part of our opinion looks at Israel, and thinks we pay too great a price for supporting it and sympathises with Muslim opinion that condemns it. Absent from so much of the coverage, is any understanding of the Israeli predicament.
I, and any halfway sentient human being, regards the loss of civilian life in Lebanon as unacceptable, grieves for that nation, is sickened by its plight and wants the war to stop now.
But just for a moment, put yourself in Israel's place. It has a crisis in Gaza, sparked by the kidnap of a solider by Hamas. Suddenly, without warning, Hizbollah who have been continuing to operate in Southern Lebanon for two years in defiance of UN Resolution 1559, cross the UN blue line, kill eight Israeli soldiers and kidnap two more. They then fire rockets indiscriminately at the civilian population in Northern Israel.
Hizbollah gets their weapons from Iran. Iran are now also financing militant elements in Hamas. Iran's President has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". And he's trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Just to complete the picture, Israel's main neighbour along its eastern flank is Syria who support Hizbollah and house the hardline leaders of Hamas. It's not exactly a situation conducive to a feeling of security is it?"
I am speechless - I have tears in my eyes and in my heart - because I never thought I would hear any foreign prime minister voice so succinctly the exact feelings that every Israeli, Jew and logical person around the world has fought to make heard for so long. Thank you Tony Blair for finally making the most brilliant speech in Israel's very short 58 year existence.
Kudos to the London Times
It is good to see that the London Times has resisted the knee-jerk reaction to the tragic events in Qana. Here are a couple of excerpts from an excellent editorial in today's newspaper:
There will never be peace in the region as long as Hezbollah, backed by its sponsoring regimes in Iran and Syria, is allowed to threaten Israel militarily. A ceasefire that left Hezbollah claiming victory on the battlefield would hugely strengthen its fighters as well as those of Hamas, draining authority from the Lebanese Government and Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, while unsettling further Western-friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Defeating Hezbollah, though, would strengthen the arm of those Arab leaders who see the benefit of an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution while also curbing the regional influence of Tehran and Damascus.
There are wider reasons why the emotional impact of the past 48 hours must be placed in the right framework. The criticism that Israeli attacks aimed at Hezbollah are disproportionate is lazy and facile in several ways, especially in implying a moral relativism between the two sides that does not exist. This is not the contest between misguided equals that many in the West seem to see. One is the region’s lone democracy, which for much of its existence has faced a very real existential threat and would like, if possible, to live in peace with its neighbours. The other is a terrorist organisation, bent on preventing such a future. ...
Hezbollah is not an emancipation movement. It represents a virulent stream of extremist Islam, characterised by misogyny, homophobia, utter intolerance of difference even within its own religion and a belief system rooted many several centuries past. Whether Hezbollah intended to spark such a ferocious response from Israel is uncertain. That it has been planning this war for some time, though, is clear from its arsenal and fortifications.
News from a war zone will always be grisly, and 21st-century communications bring into the living room the human horrors of armed conflict. But these should not deflect from the clash of values and competing ideologies behind the pictures. It may reassure many in the West that such a threat seems comfortably far away. But the consequences of the current conflict stretch far beyond the region, and they have to be faced.
I also recommend that you read David Aaronovitch in today's Times. Here's an excerpt:
Today, on the website of Hezbollah’s own propaganda agency, al-Manar, you can find the boast that on one day at the end of last week: “Islamic resistance fighters launched barrages of rockets at northern Israeli settlements . . . According to Israeli media, some 20 settlers were injured in today’s attacks.” “Settlements” is Hezbollah for towns and villages, and “settlers” is Hezbollah for civilians. So when a 240lb Hezbollah rocket slammed into the Israeli countryside last week, it should have prompted the thought that when the Israelis miss their targets they hit civilians and when Hezbollah misses, they don’t.
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah (thinks, how exactly did he become leader of Hezbollah?) is a prolific speaker, but is credited with meaning what he says. Nasrallah believes that the Jews “invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities”. That Israel “is a cancerous body in the region” that “must be uprooted”. More magnanimously:
“ Let us spare bloodshed. Let the Yemenite Jews return to Yemen, the Moroccan Jews to Morocco, the Ethiopian Jews to Ethiopia, the European Jews to Europe, and the American Jews to America.” Though even that is generous because: “Anyone who reads the Koran . . . sees what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history . . . Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer.”
This is the chap with the long-range missiles (getting longer range) sitting on Israel’s northern border. And while Hezbollah might bring out the Lebanese flags for the press in Beirut, in their southern fastnesses the only banners are theirs. And what do we say, knowing this? That Bad Blair should lean on Worse Bush who should put the squeeze on Murdering Olmert and it’d all be over. That’s the new orthodoxy.
Good on ya!
There will never be peace in the region as long as Hezbollah, backed by its sponsoring regimes in Iran and Syria, is allowed to threaten Israel militarily. A ceasefire that left Hezbollah claiming victory on the battlefield would hugely strengthen its fighters as well as those of Hamas, draining authority from the Lebanese Government and Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, while unsettling further Western-friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Defeating Hezbollah, though, would strengthen the arm of those Arab leaders who see the benefit of an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution while also curbing the regional influence of Tehran and Damascus.
There are wider reasons why the emotional impact of the past 48 hours must be placed in the right framework. The criticism that Israeli attacks aimed at Hezbollah are disproportionate is lazy and facile in several ways, especially in implying a moral relativism between the two sides that does not exist. This is not the contest between misguided equals that many in the West seem to see. One is the region’s lone democracy, which for much of its existence has faced a very real existential threat and would like, if possible, to live in peace with its neighbours. The other is a terrorist organisation, bent on preventing such a future. ...
Hezbollah is not an emancipation movement. It represents a virulent stream of extremist Islam, characterised by misogyny, homophobia, utter intolerance of difference even within its own religion and a belief system rooted many several centuries past. Whether Hezbollah intended to spark such a ferocious response from Israel is uncertain. That it has been planning this war for some time, though, is clear from its arsenal and fortifications.
News from a war zone will always be grisly, and 21st-century communications bring into the living room the human horrors of armed conflict. But these should not deflect from the clash of values and competing ideologies behind the pictures. It may reassure many in the West that such a threat seems comfortably far away. But the consequences of the current conflict stretch far beyond the region, and they have to be faced.
I also recommend that you read David Aaronovitch in today's Times. Here's an excerpt:
Today, on the website of Hezbollah’s own propaganda agency, al-Manar, you can find the boast that on one day at the end of last week: “Islamic resistance fighters launched barrages of rockets at northern Israeli settlements . . . According to Israeli media, some 20 settlers were injured in today’s attacks.” “Settlements” is Hezbollah for towns and villages, and “settlers” is Hezbollah for civilians. So when a 240lb Hezbollah rocket slammed into the Israeli countryside last week, it should have prompted the thought that when the Israelis miss their targets they hit civilians and when Hezbollah misses, they don’t.
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah (thinks, how exactly did he become leader of Hezbollah?) is a prolific speaker, but is credited with meaning what he says. Nasrallah believes that the Jews “invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities”. That Israel “is a cancerous body in the region” that “must be uprooted”. More magnanimously:
“ Let us spare bloodshed. Let the Yemenite Jews return to Yemen, the Moroccan Jews to Morocco, the Ethiopian Jews to Ethiopia, the European Jews to Europe, and the American Jews to America.” Though even that is generous because: “Anyone who reads the Koran . . . sees what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history . . . Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer.”
This is the chap with the long-range missiles (getting longer range) sitting on Israel’s northern border. And while Hezbollah might bring out the Lebanese flags for the press in Beirut, in their southern fastnesses the only banners are theirs. And what do we say, knowing this? That Bad Blair should lean on Worse Bush who should put the squeeze on Murdering Olmert and it’d all be over. That’s the new orthodoxy.
Good on ya!
reply to Ian Black - The Guardian
first, read this ...http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1834637,00.html
My reply to him today.
I have to take issue with your equating the abduction of Israeli soldiers by Hamas and Hizbolla with Israeli actions is seeking, and arresting, "wanted men". If you need any single major point of difference, it is to be found in your own words. Israel knows who it is trying to capture, and has reasons for wanting those specific men. Hamas and Hizbolla want any Jew they can get their hands on. This is self-evident in the very first event that kicked off this sorry story. Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier AND a civilian on the same day. Sadly, the civilian was deemed to be "worthless" as a bargaining chip, so they murdered him (may his memory be a blessing).
Don't let your sense of "fair play" blind you to the facts. This isn't a game. We don't walk off the field afterwards saying "it matters not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game". This is a life-and-death struggle for the survival of Israel and its citizens against a vicious killer.
My reply to him today.
I have to take issue with your equating the abduction of Israeli soldiers by Hamas and Hizbolla with Israeli actions is seeking, and arresting, "wanted men". If you need any single major point of difference, it is to be found in your own words. Israel knows who it is trying to capture, and has reasons for wanting those specific men. Hamas and Hizbolla want any Jew they can get their hands on. This is self-evident in the very first event that kicked off this sorry story. Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier AND a civilian on the same day. Sadly, the civilian was deemed to be "worthless" as a bargaining chip, so they murdered him (may his memory be a blessing).
Don't let your sense of "fair play" blind you to the facts. This isn't a game. We don't walk off the field afterwards saying "it matters not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game". This is a life-and-death struggle for the survival of Israel and its citizens against a vicious killer.
Monday, July 31, 2006
ravings of a paranoid ..... OR .....
OK, try this for size.
Either ...
Israel Defense Forces are totally inept, if not stupid, and are targeting known UNIFIL/civilian sites
OR ...
As is well known, IDF relies on a lot of covert information-gathering to find out what's going on behind the lines. We know this because they are so successful at catching suicide murderers before they get to their targets. They MUST have sources inside the various organizations we are fighting. Now what if Hezbolla are using this fact to plant false information with the expectation that Israel will probably act on it.
Imagine this scenario .........
IDF gets "inside information" that Hezbolla forces are occupying a specific site in Qana, maybe even that it's being used as a command-and-control center. At the same time, Hezbolla moves hundreds of civilians (at gunpoint) into the building, and keeps them there. Now Israel, believing the information, targets the building, and you know the result.
Is this paranoid, or is it a more likely scenario than the one Kofi Annan will have us believe, that Israel is deliberately aiming at the civilian population. If anyone goes for the latter argument, then tell me one thing, why have we only managed to kill 500? Why not 50,000?
Either ...
Israel Defense Forces are totally inept, if not stupid, and are targeting known UNIFIL/civilian sites
OR ...
As is well known, IDF relies on a lot of covert information-gathering to find out what's going on behind the lines. We know this because they are so successful at catching suicide murderers before they get to their targets. They MUST have sources inside the various organizations we are fighting. Now what if Hezbolla are using this fact to plant false information with the expectation that Israel will probably act on it.
Imagine this scenario .........
IDF gets "inside information" that Hezbolla forces are occupying a specific site in Qana, maybe even that it's being used as a command-and-control center. At the same time, Hezbolla moves hundreds of civilians (at gunpoint) into the building, and keeps them there. Now Israel, believing the information, targets the building, and you know the result.
Is this paranoid, or is it a more likely scenario than the one Kofi Annan will have us believe, that Israel is deliberately aiming at the civilian population. If anyone goes for the latter argument, then tell me one thing, why have we only managed to kill 500? Why not 50,000?
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Why are we soooo bad at Hasbarah?
Time and time again Israel is slammed for it's actions. Today after 50+ people (mainly women and children) were killed in Qana there was outrage around the world and many more calls for an immediate ceasefire. Israel is once again being hailed as the unprovoked aggressor and embarrassed into cautious fighting - which does nothing but jeopardize the lives of it's brave soldiers.
One should start by asking, what could we have done differently in order to save the lives of innocent people in Qana today.
Should we have warned the residents that we were going to attack and told them to evacuate - check
Should we have used extreme caution in trying to pinpoint exactly where the rockets were being fired from yesterday - check
Should we have bowed to International pressure preventing us from expanding ground operations and use air force instead- check
Perhaps we should be shouting these questions:
Why aren't the foreign media and the so called International peacekeepers following up on many claims that Hizbullah fighters are trying to prevent (and even killing in some cases) residents of Southern Lebanon towns who are trying to flee?
Why were there so many civilians still embedded in towns such as Qana and why weren't they doing more to stop the Hizbullah fighters living amongst them from firing rockets?
If the Lebanese government is so adamant that they too wish to disarm Hizbullah but have never had the power to do so, then why don't they attack from the North and help Israel to destroy the terrorists?
When Israel is slammed for doing what it can to protect itself, when it is raked over the coals for "regretfully and not intentionally" killing innocent people in order to realize this goal. WHY are we unable to clearly and forcefully state our cause, hold our ground and still come out smelling like roses?
Today Israel invited leaders from the UN into it's situation room. Perhaps we should do that some more - invite the leaders of some of our biggest critics to sit in the situation room with us. Let them share in our frustrations and work with us to decide how to deal with the rocket attacks up North. Let them see what it's like to decide that Qana is a legitimate target - only to find out that 50 civilians were killed in the attack. No country is perfect, and Israel is under an awful lot of pressure to conform to so many different critics. The best thing that could happen to us right now would be silence, if everyone would just shut up we would be able to get this over with as soon as we can. Our sons, cousins, nephews, friends and colleagues would be able to return from the army, our Northern residents would be able to come above ground or go back home. But most importantly - innocent people would be allowed to go about their normal lives here and in Lebanon.
Just shut up and let Israel do what Israel has to do and UNIFIL, UN, and Lebanon have been too chicken to do themselves.
Wake up and smell the roses! (written by someone who believes in Peace, who believes the Palestinians have a right to their own state, who does not think it is a crime for Israel to give up land for peace, but who is realistic to know that we have to protect our right to exist as a Jewish homeland without the threat of terrorist attacks)
One should start by asking, what could we have done differently in order to save the lives of innocent people in Qana today.
Should we have warned the residents that we were going to attack and told them to evacuate - check
Should we have used extreme caution in trying to pinpoint exactly where the rockets were being fired from yesterday - check
Should we have bowed to International pressure preventing us from expanding ground operations and use air force instead- check
Perhaps we should be shouting these questions:
Why aren't the foreign media and the so called International peacekeepers following up on many claims that Hizbullah fighters are trying to prevent (and even killing in some cases) residents of Southern Lebanon towns who are trying to flee?
Why were there so many civilians still embedded in towns such as Qana and why weren't they doing more to stop the Hizbullah fighters living amongst them from firing rockets?
If the Lebanese government is so adamant that they too wish to disarm Hizbullah but have never had the power to do so, then why don't they attack from the North and help Israel to destroy the terrorists?
When Israel is slammed for doing what it can to protect itself, when it is raked over the coals for "regretfully and not intentionally" killing innocent people in order to realize this goal. WHY are we unable to clearly and forcefully state our cause, hold our ground and still come out smelling like roses?
Today Israel invited leaders from the UN into it's situation room. Perhaps we should do that some more - invite the leaders of some of our biggest critics to sit in the situation room with us. Let them share in our frustrations and work with us to decide how to deal with the rocket attacks up North. Let them see what it's like to decide that Qana is a legitimate target - only to find out that 50 civilians were killed in the attack. No country is perfect, and Israel is under an awful lot of pressure to conform to so many different critics. The best thing that could happen to us right now would be silence, if everyone would just shut up we would be able to get this over with as soon as we can. Our sons, cousins, nephews, friends and colleagues would be able to return from the army, our Northern residents would be able to come above ground or go back home. But most importantly - innocent people would be allowed to go about their normal lives here and in Lebanon.
Just shut up and let Israel do what Israel has to do and UNIFIL, UN, and Lebanon have been too chicken to do themselves.
Wake up and smell the roses! (written by someone who believes in Peace, who believes the Palestinians have a right to their own state, who does not think it is a crime for Israel to give up land for peace, but who is realistic to know that we have to protect our right to exist as a Jewish homeland without the threat of terrorist attacks)
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
just a reminder of UN position on Shebaa Farms
Since they are now starting to talk about making the "return" of Shebaa Farms a condition to any ceasefire, it's worthwhile remembering what the real UN postition on this subject is, since I'm sure they'll conveniently forget this when it comes to putting pressure on Israel to make a deal.
Letter dated 26 October 2005 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, pursuant to the request of the Security Council expressed in the presidential statement of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), that I continue to report on the implementation of the resolution to the Council every six months.
Many Lebanese continue to maintain that Hizbollah is in fact not a militia, but a "legitimate resistance movement," fighting for the liberation of the Shebaa farms area from Israeli occupation. This interpretation of the status of the Shebaa farms, as I have repeatedly outlined not only in my previous reports on the implementation of resolution 1559 (2004) but also elsewhere, continues to stand in stark contrast to the position of the United Nations (see annex). I confirmed in my report to the Security Council of 16 June 2000 (S/2000/590) that Israel had fulfilled as of that date the requirements of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) that it "withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory". The Council endorsed this conclusion in the statement of its President (S/PRST/2000/21) of 18 June 2000. Both the Council and I have repeatedly stated the position that the Shebaa farms area is not part of Lebanon. Therefore, any Lebanese "resistance" to "liberate" the area from continued Israeli occupation cannot be considered legitimate. In addition, even if the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa farms area were legitimate, it would be the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon only to address this claim in conformity with international law and relevant Security Council resolutions.
Letter dated 26 October 2005 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, pursuant to the request of the Security Council expressed in the presidential statement of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), that I continue to report on the implementation of the resolution to the Council every six months.
Many Lebanese continue to maintain that Hizbollah is in fact not a militia, but a "legitimate resistance movement," fighting for the liberation of the Shebaa farms area from Israeli occupation. This interpretation of the status of the Shebaa farms, as I have repeatedly outlined not only in my previous reports on the implementation of resolution 1559 (2004) but also elsewhere, continues to stand in stark contrast to the position of the United Nations (see annex). I confirmed in my report to the Security Council of 16 June 2000 (S/2000/590) that Israel had fulfilled as of that date the requirements of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) that it "withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory". The Council endorsed this conclusion in the statement of its President (S/PRST/2000/21) of 18 June 2000. Both the Council and I have repeatedly stated the position that the Shebaa farms area is not part of Lebanon. Therefore, any Lebanese "resistance" to "liberate" the area from continued Israeli occupation cannot be considered legitimate. In addition, even if the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa farms area were legitimate, it would be the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon only to address this claim in conformity with international law and relevant Security Council resolutions.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
We was robbed!
Throughout the "liberal" media, the calls that Israel should be condemned for "disproportionate response" and "crimes against humanity" have been growing to a deafening roar. Clearly, there is consensus that Israel is going all-out to massacre civilians in Lebanon, and does not discriminate between military and civilian targets.
Given that in 14 days of fighting, about 400 deaths have occurred in Lebanon (although there's no clear distinction between Hizbollah fighters and Lebanese citizens), we can reach a very important conclusion - Israel should demand full refunds for all the military hardware it has bought and uses in this conflict, since it is clearly not performing up to specifications.
To take a simple example. The F15 fighter which is the backbone of Israel's air attack, is designed to carry the following armaments :
20mm 6 barrel cannon with 980 rounds of ammunition, capable of penetrating several inches of hardened steel
up to 12 air-to-ground missiles with sophisticated electronics to ensure accurate targeting
up to 15 tons of "smart" bombs.
Using one of these aircraft in a densely populated area, I think it is reasonable to estimate that it should have a kill-ratio of between 500 and 1000 people for one full load of munitions. Anything less than that would be a very poor return on investment. Since Israel freely admits to having flown over a thousand sorties over Lebanon, we should expect that about 50,000 and 100,000 people should have been killed by airstrikes alone. Add to this the tens of thousands of artillery and mortar rounds that the rest of the world say have been fired directly into densely populated areas, and any reasonable audit should expect that anything less that a quarter of a million casualties amongst the Lebanese is a sign of very poor planning by the Israeli command.
Clearly the equipment we have bought, that for all this effort has only managed to kill 400 people, is defective, does not meet it's design standards, and we should demand a refund!
Given that in 14 days of fighting, about 400 deaths have occurred in Lebanon (although there's no clear distinction between Hizbollah fighters and Lebanese citizens), we can reach a very important conclusion - Israel should demand full refunds for all the military hardware it has bought and uses in this conflict, since it is clearly not performing up to specifications.
To take a simple example. The F15 fighter which is the backbone of Israel's air attack, is designed to carry the following armaments :
20mm 6 barrel cannon with 980 rounds of ammunition, capable of penetrating several inches of hardened steel
up to 12 air-to-ground missiles with sophisticated electronics to ensure accurate targeting
up to 15 tons of "smart" bombs.
Using one of these aircraft in a densely populated area, I think it is reasonable to estimate that it should have a kill-ratio of between 500 and 1000 people for one full load of munitions. Anything less than that would be a very poor return on investment. Since Israel freely admits to having flown over a thousand sorties over Lebanon, we should expect that about 50,000 and 100,000 people should have been killed by airstrikes alone. Add to this the tens of thousands of artillery and mortar rounds that the rest of the world say have been fired directly into densely populated areas, and any reasonable audit should expect that anything less that a quarter of a million casualties amongst the Lebanese is a sign of very poor planning by the Israeli command.
Clearly the equipment we have bought, that for all this effort has only managed to kill 400 people, is defective, does not meet it's design standards, and we should demand a refund!
Kim Howells - Surgical Strikes can wait
British Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has criticized Israeli actions in Lebanon. Mr Howells told journalists Israel's air strikes over the past 11 days were "not surgical strikes".
It's sometime necessary to bear in mind that not everyone who speaks English has the same cultural background as ourselves, so the words they use may not mean the same for them that they do for us. In the case of Howells, it's important to understand what a phrase like "surgical strike" means in the context of a British Labour MP. After all, under the Labour government ruling Britain for the last 10 years, waiting lists for NHS patients seeking surgical procedures have nearly doubled. Under his party's leadership, people desperately in need of, for example, breast surgery, are experiencing an average delay of 107 days - that's nearly 4 months - in order to receive their life-saving operations. (To prove that I've not taken a "worst case" scenario to illustrate my point, the waiting time for colorectal surgery - an even more life-saving procedure - is 112 days and in some areas patients who can live that long have to wait 6 months.)
So, what does a "surgical strike" mean to Kim Howells. It means delaying taking any action until there's a better chance that your patient will die from "natural causes" than that he or she will be saved by the operation they need. For him, this is a positive outcome, since no doubt the death of Jews is a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of appeasement, just as it was in 1939.
For us in Israel, we'll do without the benefit of Howell's expertise in managing crisis situations. We'll take the action that we need to save our own lives, and not rely on his approval or otherwise, thank you very much.
It's sometime necessary to bear in mind that not everyone who speaks English has the same cultural background as ourselves, so the words they use may not mean the same for them that they do for us. In the case of Howells, it's important to understand what a phrase like "surgical strike" means in the context of a British Labour MP. After all, under the Labour government ruling Britain for the last 10 years, waiting lists for NHS patients seeking surgical procedures have nearly doubled. Under his party's leadership, people desperately in need of, for example, breast surgery, are experiencing an average delay of 107 days - that's nearly 4 months - in order to receive their life-saving operations. (To prove that I've not taken a "worst case" scenario to illustrate my point, the waiting time for colorectal surgery - an even more life-saving procedure - is 112 days and in some areas patients who can live that long have to wait 6 months.)
So, what does a "surgical strike" mean to Kim Howells. It means delaying taking any action until there's a better chance that your patient will die from "natural causes" than that he or she will be saved by the operation they need. For him, this is a positive outcome, since no doubt the death of Jews is a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of appeasement, just as it was in 1939.
For us in Israel, we'll do without the benefit of Howell's expertise in managing crisis situations. We'll take the action that we need to save our own lives, and not rely on his approval or otherwise, thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)