From PLO Terrorist to Lover of Zion

Interesting article on Walid Shoebat, a former Islamofascist terrorist, now a Christian Zionist.

"After reading the Hebrew Bible, about all of the righteous wars of Israel – from biblical times until the present – it dawned on me," said Shoebat. "How could it be that Allah is the true God if the Six-Day-War in 1967 resulted the greatest victory for the Jews since Joshua’s encirclement of Jericho. What’s more is that Israel’s victory – unlike Muslim conquests full of rape, pillaging and massacre – brought freedom for all peoples and religions. Everyone [his fellow Arabs living in Jericho at the time –ed.] saw and everyone remembers this but unfortunately people today deny the truth of what they."

Shoebat decided at that point to turn away from the path of terrorism and Jihad.

He explains what we face.

When confronted with what has become somewhat of a mantra since September 11th – that “true Islam is a religion of peace,” Shoebat responds, “I grew up there – I was there at the mosques, the ummahs and the religious schools. I know what is still being taught today in the textbooks and by the religious leaders – so my challenge to those who claim Islam is not the religion of terror we see today, is what have you done to stand against it and say ‘this is wrong’?”

“What the West does not understand about Islam,” Shoebat said on Tovia Singer’s radio broadcast, “is that Jihad has stages. If Muslims have the upper hand then Jihad is waged by force. If Muslim’s don’t have the upper hand then Jihad is waged through financial and political means. Since Muslims do not have the upper hand in America or Europe, they talk about peace while supporting Hamas and Hezballah. The whole idea of Islam being a peaceful religion emanates from that silent stage of Jihad."

The Imam (Islamic cleric) of Orange County, California, a guest on Singer’s radio show as well, took issue with Shoebat’s claims, saying that ‘Jihad’ represents an inner struggle and not the genocidal slaughter of infidels called for by Osama bin Ladin. Shoebat unblinkingly refuted the cleric’c claims, reciting verse after verse of Koranic scripture in its original Arabic and translating into English. “There are over one hundred quotes by Mohammad regarding Jihad – I could recite each one of them but we would be here all day. Every single one refers specifically to Jihad by the sword, by killing, by taking no prisoners – with only one quote referring to an internal struggle – called for by Mohammad after the complete conquest and occupation of Arabia.” He said that such claims were typical of the Islamic leadership in America, and are consumed eagerly by western audiences who do not want to believe that one of the major world religions poses such a danger to humanity.

Asked whether he believes that Musims in America truly adhere to the program of Jihad he described, Shoebat qualified his statements saying, “Afghans in the U.S. and Iranians who left Iran are predominately peaceful people. The Arabic speaking communities in America, however, do indeed support Osama bin Ladin and Hamas.” He cites a direct correlation between adherence to Islam and support of terrorism. “The less they know about Islam the more peaceful they are,” he said.

“There are those that reject many of the classical sources and truly focus on the peaceful verses of the Koran, seeking to twist the verses because they truly do not want to engage in violence,” said Shoebat, “but if those preachers would debate Osama bin Ladin, bin Ladin would clearly win because the words of the Koran are on his side.”

...

The fact is that Mohammed clearly demanded that one who changes his faith must be killed. What part of 'kill' is not understood by those who claim Islam is a religion of peace? Is it any wonder why I have to live in hiding and be so careful even though I live in a free society here in America?”

...

“Most Jews believe in a two-state solution,” answered Shoebat, “I do not believe in this. A Palestinian state will concoct its own rules and laws to continue the killing of Jews.” He suggested instead that Israel, “Wake up and smell the Hummus. We must return to the status quo – the occupation. There were jobs, people went to work and supported their families, and whoever got involved with terrorism was exiled or imprisoned – like any modern country in the world. I think Israel should stand strong and fight – dismantle Hamas and take away all the weapons, the way it used to be. The introduction of weapons into Palestinian society by Israel [under the Oslo accords, Israel gave assault rifles to Arafat’s ‘police force’ –ed.] was a disaster and they must be confiscated.”

Answering another question about life in Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza) before the 1967 war, Shoebat described what life was like in Jericho at the time:

“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians – they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all of the sudden we had a Palestinian flag.”

Shoebat feels very strongly that the ongoing war against Israel has nothing to do with an Arab desire for a Palestinian state. “Never in history was there a Palestinian state,” said Shoebat, “we never wanted a Palestinian state – even today the Palestinians do not want a Palestinian state…”

“Then what do they want?” asked Tovia Singer.

“They want the destruction of the Jews, period,” Shoebat said. “It’s a religious holy war. It’s in the culture, the tradition. Arafat is a chip off the same block as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Ahmed Yassin – they are all birds of a feather, they have small differences but are birds of a feather.”

Asked by Singer what his message to the Jewish people today is, Shoebat thought for a moment and responded: “Your God is an awesome God and your land and your people are awesome. Hold tight and be strong. Do not be weakened by the nations of the world and all those trying to weaken you and take your land.”

As an afterthought, but said with a sense of great urgency, the former terrorist turned lover of Zion implored the Nation of Israel, “Please take back the holy Temple Mount.”

Is France on the way to becoming an Islamic state?

Is France on the way to becoming an Islamic state?
By Barbara Amiel

France is facing the problem that dare not speak its name. Though French law prohibits the census from any reference to ethnic background or religion, many demographers estimate that as much as 20-30 per cent of the population under 25 is now Muslim. The streets, the traditional haunt of younger people, now belong to Muslim youths. In France, the phrase "les jeunes" is a politically correct way of referring to young Muslims.

Given current birth rates, it is not impossible that in 25 years France will have a Muslim majority. The consequences are dynamic: is it possible that secular France might become an Islamic state?

The situation is not dissimilar elsewhere in the EU. Europeans may at some young point in the 21st century have to decide whether they wish to retain the diluted but traditional Judaeo-Christian culture of their minority or have it replaced by the Islamic culture of the majority.

In theory, the cultural and legal assimilation of Europe's Muslims would be the ideal. This was supposed to be the notion behind the vision of the French interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, of a "French church of Islam" with homegrown imams.

But knowledgeable observers say his "moderate" Council of Muslims has made radical Islam the government-sanctioned norm for all Muslims.

For Islamists, assimilation is contamination since, in Professor Bernard Lewis's words, "Muslims must not sojourn in the land of the infidel". Intermarriage should be another route to assimilation, though in France this usually involves an Islamic male and often the wife converts to Islam.

Meanwhile, the state of Christendom in France is perilous. Catholics may not have reached the secular nirvana of the Church of England's working party that declared the Sunday Sabbath redundant, but French Catholicism, except for little pools of the faithful, is taken with the notion that their Church will be borne forward only if the next Pope is ready to "dialogue" with Islam - a code word that augurs dilution of the faith.

Currently, Islamists are only a fraction of France's Muslim population. In last week's demonstrations against the headscarf law, only 20,000 people turned out. But as in all radical movements, the young are the driving force. As their numbers increase, the militancy of Islam is likely to increase as well.

Europe's chickens are coming home to roost. ...

European countries are not organically immigrant societies. The groups that went to America in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries did so specifically to become Americans. They wanted to shed their past and, within a generation, they did. America's emphasis today on faith and God is just an echo of the founding Pilgrims for whom Christianity was central.

Their beliefs were reinforced by many Christian groups, from Baptists to Mennonites, all in search of religious freedom. These founding fathers decreed separation of church and state, not to make sure the nation was secular, as in France, but to make sure no state religion could interfere with religious freedom.

European countries have none of this melting-pot principle. You cannot become German or Italian with the same ease with which you become American. Also, into this very different European environment came a very different sort of immigrant - people who had no interest in assimilation at all.

They came as settlers, wanting to establish their own communities; at best they favoured a merger - at worst, a takeover. Their approach was nurtured by notions of multiculturalism, a creed appealing to intellectuals, administrators and enforcers, but having almost zero appeal to the home population.

The cultural abrasions that developed, especially between the rapidly growing Muslim community and the French, became the problem that could not be talked about. All respectable political parties, journalists and academics felt it too volatile and far too politically incorrect. The field was abandoned to extreme Right-wingers and nativists who, by default, established the unpleasant tone of the debate and became exclusive owners of a subject affecting the whole nation.

In the absence of openness, the government's response was a cover-up - or, rather, an uncovering: to outlaw Muslim headscarves, shave beards worn for reasons of faith, or ban crucifixes if too large. In Britain, some school Nativity plays were forbidden.

There seemed to be a genuine belief among governments that they could solve this problem by violating Western traditions of religious freedom and by outlawing their own cultural traditions. Far from alleviating the situation, this only aggravated it. Worse, it gave fodder to the extreme Right.

Tribal friction has only two solutions: groups will either unite in the manner of Normans and Saxons, melding into a society that may have different religious practices but subscribes to the same laws and values - in which case headscarves, beards and demographics don't matter a fig. Or they will follow the pattern of warring tribes throughout history.

He Meant What He Said

Omer Bartov reviews Adolph Hitler's second book, published posthumously to see the lessons we might learn from it.

For we still do not seem to have learned a simple crucial lesson that Hitler taught us more definitively than anyone else in history: some people, some regimes, some ideologies, some political programs, and, yes, some religious groups, must be taken at their word. Some people mean what they say, and say what they will do, and do what they said.

Most liberal-minded, optimistic, well-meaning people are loath to believe this. They would rather think that fanaticism is merely an "epiphenomenal" fa?ade for politics, that opinions can be changed, that everyone can be corrected and improved. In many cases, this is true--but not in all cases, and not in the most dangerous ones. There are those who practice what they preach and are proud of it. They view those who act otherwise, who compromise and pull back from ultimate conclusions, as opportunists, as weaklings, as targets to be easily conquered and subdued by their own greater determination, hardness, and ruthlessness. When they say they will kill you, they will kill you--if you do not kill them first.

QOTD: The Root Source of Anti-Semitism

QOTD: Motty Berger, The Root Source of Anti-Semitism

In every generation, there are those who are plotting the absolute and total destruction of the Jewish people. The only question in each generation is how much power evil gets by those who are capable of creating tremendous amount of good not doing enough of that, how much power does evil get to carry out their drive.

At the Shul on the Other Side of the Mechitza: Ann Coulter

Ben Shapiro does an excellent job of dissecting the response to Ann Coulter's editorial on the Democratic Party pandering to the Jews.

"In addition to having a number of family deaths among them," she writes, "the Democrats' other big idea -- too nuanced for a bumper sticker -- is that many of them have Jewish ancestry. There's Joe Lieberman: Always Jewish. Wesley Clark: Found Out His Father Was Jewish in College. John Kerry: Jewish Since He Began Presidential Fund-Raising. Howard Dean: Married to a Jew. Al Sharpton: Circumcised."

As Coulter points out, claiming that you have a Jew in the family or Jewish blood running in your veins doesn't mean anything when push comes to shove: "The Democrats' urge to assert a Jewish heritage is designed to disguise the fact that the Democrats would allow the state of Israel to perish as Palestinian suicide bombers slaughter Jewish women and children." Coulter rightly criticizes the Jewish community for falling for this ridiculous campaign ploy: "And that, boys and girls, is how the Jews survived thousands of years of persecution: by being susceptible to pandering."

Of course, an assertion like that arouses liberal Jews, who feel that they fulfill their Jewish obligations by eating bagels and lox, and only proclaim their Jewishness when they sense any hint of anti-Semitism from the political right wing.

Never mind that Coulter is clearly on target with regard to the Jewish community. In the distant past, the Democratic Party earned the respect of Jewish voters by representing religious tolerance while maintaining moral values. Today, the Democratic Party buys the Jewish vote with a few pints of Jewish blood. Democrats secure the Jewish vote by suddenly discovering a Jewish relative or appointing a Jew to a position of power.

Method for Waging Low-conflict War in Israel

Benjamin Shapiro suggests these 3 measures for ending the reign of terror of the PA.

Exile Arafat [This one I disagree with. Put him on trial in a glass cage and hang him after the world sees the evidence and he is found guilty.]

Turn off the water and electricity to Palestinian Arab towns (not Israeli Arabs)

Israel has been supplying water and electricity to its enemies since the start of the intifada, free of charge. The Palestinian Authority owes Israel millions in utility bills, yet Israel forgives the debt. If Israel stops supplying water and electricity, the PA will fall. The groundswell of support for terrorist groups among the Palestinian people will dissolve once they realize that their support means they can no longer flush their toilets.

Institute a new land-for-peace deal

Since the Oslo Accords in 1993, Israel has forked over land in return for violence. It is time that Israel changed the equation back to what it was supposed to be: land for peace -- if there is no peace, Israel will take back land. After each attack on Israel, Israel should catch the culprits and find their place of origin. The Israeli Defense Force should then broadcast to the residents of that city that they have 48 hours to evacuate their homes and take whatever belongings they need and that after that the Israeli Air Force will destroy the city. Israel should then annex the territory, and take it off the negotiating table -- permanently. Some would call this collective punishment, but the Oslo Accord was a collective treaty giving collective benefits -- if the Palestinians fail to uphold their side of the bargain, they must be collectively punished. Either the Palestinians will realize that violence reaps no reward and return to the negotiating table, or Israel will have its land back and the terrorists will have no bases.

Sandy Koufax on the Mound

What an amazing pitcher Sandy Koufax was, as we all know. I copied this out of piece quoting from Sandy Koufax : A Lefty's Legacy by Jane Leavy. It shows how much he was actually beyond amazing.

Drysdale started in his [Koufax's] place [on Yom Kippur] and got hammered. The score was 7-1 when Alston came to the mound to relieve him. "Hey, skip, bet you wish I was Jewish today, too," Drysdale said.

***

When Ozark approached him [Koufax] at his locker at Metropolitan Stadium on the eve of the seventh game of the 1965 World Series, Koufax told him, "I'm okay for tomorrow." It would be his third start in eight days. "He didn't want to be known as a person who couldn't have the strength and the ability to take the ball on two days' rest," Wilpon said. He did so eight times in his career, winning six; three were complete-game wins with a combined total of thirty-five strikeouts. He never lasted less than seven innings.

***

Koufax was pitching on fumes. When he walked two batters in the first inning, Drysdale got up in the bullpen. He was a two-pitch pitcher without a second pitch. Roseboro [the Dodger's catcher] kept calling for the curve; Koufax kept shaking him off. Finally, Roseboro went to the mound for a conversation. For the first time, Koufax acknowledged how bad his elbow was. "He said, 'Rosie, my arm's not right. My arm's sore.' I said, 'What'll we do, kid?' He said, 'Fuck it, we'll blow 'em away."'

***

In the ninth inning, the 360th of his season, Koufax faced the heart of the Minnesota order: Tony Oliva, Harmon Killebrew, Earl Battey, and Bob Allison, a two-time batting champion, a six-time home-run leader, a four-time All-Star,
and a onetime Rookie of the Year. With one out, Killebrew singled sharply to left, the Twins' third hit of the game. Battey came to the plate. One swing, he thought, and I could be the world series MVP! By the time the words formed a sentence in his brain, the umpire had signaled, "Strike three."

Up to the plate strode Allison, a formidable slugger whose two-run home run off Osteen had forced the seventh game. He fouled off the first pitch and looked at two others for balls and then swung at the next. "It's two and two," announcer
Ray Scott informed the television audience. "Koufax is reaching back. Every time he's had to reach back, he's found what he needed."

Killebrew watched from first base as Allison swung through strike three for the final out of the series. "I told Bob, 'If you'd have swung at the ball as hard as you swung at the ground after you struck out, you might have hit it."'

***

It was his second shutout in four days, his twenty-ninth complete game of the season.

Scientific Basis for Sea of Reeds Crossing

Via Arutz7

Explaining A Miracle
18:24 Jan 21, '04 / 27 Tevet 5764


A six-month study by a senior researcher at St. Petersburg's Institute of Oceanology and a Hamburg-based colleague seeks to explore and detail the physics behind the Biblical account of the Jews crossing the sea during their flight from slavery in Egypt.

The study, published in the Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences and reported upon today in The Moscow Times, concludes that a reef running along the north side of the sea could have been the "dry land" upon which the Jews crossed - providing that a 30-meter-per-second (67 mph) wind blew across the sea all night, leaving the reef dry. The cessation of the wind would then lead to the drowning of the pursuing Egyptian forces, trapped on the reef as the waters returned, as recorded in the Bible.

The Russia-based researcher, Naum Volziger, who specializes in flooding and tidal waves, told a Moscow Times reporter, "It would take the Jews - there were 600,000 of them [male Jews "aged 20 and over" - ed. note] - four hours to cross the seven-kilometer reef that runs from one coast to another. Then, in half an hour, the waters would come back."

Volziger said he and his colleague studied the issue "strictly from Isaac Newton's point of view." However, the researcher did acknowledged, "I am convinced that G-d rules the Earth through the laws of physics."

Life Is Great

Gregg Easterbrook via Pete Du Pont in the WSJ

• Life expectancy in America has increased from 41 years at the beginning of the 20th century to 77 in 2000; we live almost twice as long as we did a century ago. And both longevity and health are bound to get better. Infant mortality is down 45% since 1980, and we spent 50% more on health care per person in 2002 than in 1982. For example, there were 200,000 knee replacements in 2001 at an average cost of $26,000. That's $5.2 billion for a health-care procedure that didn't exist a decade ago.

• Incomes are up. Inflation-adjusted per capita income has doubled since 1960. And we're working less for more money. The average American worked 66 hours a week in 1850, 53 hours in 1900 and 42 today. The total number of working hours in the average lifetime has declined linearly for 15 consecutive decades. In 1880 the typical American spent two hours a week relaxing; today it is 40.

• Poverty is down. Twenty-two percent of Americans lived in poverty in 1960; by 2001 that rate had declined to 11.7%. Mr. Easterbrook concludes that to avoid becoming poor in the U.S. "you must do three things: graduate from high school, marry after the age of 20, and marry before having your first child." Only 8% of those who do all three become poor; 79% of the poor failed to do them. Contrary to pessimist mantra, democratic capitalism forces poverty on no one.

We are not running out of any resource--oil, natural gas, copper, aluminum or anything else. Pollution is down; today's new cars emit "less than 2% as much pollution per mile as a car of 1970." Man and technology are not the enemies of the natural environment. In Connecticut the population tripled and agricultural production quadrupled in the 20th century, yet the state is 59% forested today compared with 37% in the 19th century.

• Illegal drug use, alcohol consumption, teen pregnancy and the divorce rate are all down. Crime is substantially down. Food production, educational attainment (12.3 years on average, the highest in the world), white-collar jobs (which now outnumber blue-collar ones) and house size and ownership (70% own their own homes today, compared with 20% a century ago) are all up.

• The goods available to us are overwhelming, and getting cheaper all the time. Mr. Easterbrook notes there were 11 million cell phones in the world in 1990; there are now more than a billion. Regular gasoline costs the same in real terms as it did in 1950. Cheeseburgers that cost 30 minutes of work at typical wages when the first McDonald's opened now can be bought for three minutes of work. The 1880s prairie farmer knew little of what was happening in the outside world; today television and the Internet give him hourly access to global information on the economy, war and peace and the NFL playoffs, and of course he can see every fire, crime, disaster and political accusation produced.

All this progress is not just in America or wealthy nations. Middle-class men and women in Europe and America live better than 99.4% of humans who have ever lived. In 1975 the average income in developing nations was $2,125 per capita; today (inflation adjusted) it is $4,000. Global adult literacy was 47% in 1970; 30 years later it was 73%.

And democratic capitalism triumphed over communism without a shot being fired. The best governmental and economic system the world has ever known simply crushed the century's worst idea.

Quotes of the Day

QOTD: Three by Peter Worthington

Since Vietnam, we like to think a negotiated peace is more permanent than peace by force of arms.

This is patently false. Wars usually have to be won before peace with security is possible.

...what is irrefutable is that from its controversial creation in 1948, Israel, above all else, wants peace and security while its enemies want it destroyed, even if it means suicide.

"The 'peace of the brave' that Arafat spoke of in 1993 is available only to the brave, not to the murderers of schoolchildren and bus passengers. Now it's time for the 'peace of the just,' which begins with the defeat and punishment of the unjust."

Racism in Sweden

Amnon Rubinstein in Ha'aretz

A Greek gallery in Athens exhibited a work of art in the shape of an explosives belt made of macrame, of a Palestinian female terrorist wishing to kill Israelis. Only against Israel are these sorts of masterpieces exhibited - never against other countries, never out of an understanding for suicide bombers who murder civilians that are not Israelis. There is no macrame for Chechnyans. There is no installation in Sweden that understands the suicide bombers in Riyadh. If this is not racism, it is unclear what is.

Kaddoumi: Oslo Brought Tens of Thousands of Armed Palestinians into the Territories

NewsFirstClass-Hebrew, translation via Daily Alert of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Farouk Kaddoumi, head of the PLO's Political Department, said Monday that the Oslo Accords "made possible the return of the leadership from Tunis and the entrance of tens of thousands of armed Palestinians into the territories."

QOTW

QOTW: Animal House

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! ... What the f**k happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts... huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you're going to let it be the worst. "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Neidermeyer—Dead!

More from Yamin Yisrael

Yamin-The State Paramount Principle:
Yamin Israel advocates a Permanent Law that proclaims Israel's Jewish essence as the paramount principle of the State. We shall therefore demand that the Government enforce the law prohibiting any party that negates the State's Jewish character!

National Loyalty:
All public officials must be required to pledge their loyalty to the State of Israel as a Jewish State. Yamin Israel also insists on enforcement of the Citizenship Law, which empowers the Minister of Interior to revoke citizenship of any Israel national that commits as act of disloyalty to the State. (This law has never been enforced!)

Yamin on The Law of Return:
Yamin Israel advocates repeal of the "grandfather clause" of the Law of Return, which has enabled hundreds of thousands of gentiles to enter Israel. (We also advocate a special program of education to endear these gentiles to the Jewish State.

Political Empowerment:
To preserve the State's Jewish essence, the Knesset must represent the abiding convictions of the Jewish People. This can only be achieved by making Knesset Members (MK's) individually accountable to the people in regional elections. Also:

*Citizen review boards should be established to prevent bureaucratic tyranny.

*Israelis abroad should be enfranchised, if only to increase the power of the Jewish vote and preserve the Jewish essence of the State.

Economic Empowerment:
The Government owns or controls most of the country's resources and assets. Yamin Israel advocates privatization qualified by Jewish ethics. This means less bureaucracy and lower taxes. We favor a market economy that allows the worker's income from wages to be supplemented by shares in his company. Such an economy will preclude strikes that paralyze essential public services.

Yamin on Justice:
YAMIN ISRAEL endorses an American law that enables a private citizen who suffers injury from the act of any public official to sue the official for compensatory and punitive damages. Implementation of such a law would dramatically reduce not only police brutality, but also thousands of false arrests that occur each year in Israel.

We shall propose legislation enabling the victims of Arab terrorism to sue, with-out any statute of limitations, the terrorist as well as any Arab state or organization responsible for such criminal acts.

We shall propose legislation that no person convicted of a felony be released from jail prior to the termination of his sentence without the approval of a parole board consisting of qualified private citizens. This will preclude the release of terrorists.

The Land of Israel:
The Land of Israel. The Land of Israel, as stated in the Torah, belongs exclusively to the Jewish People. Yamin Israel therefore demands an immediate cessation of the suicidal policy of "land for peace," which the Government subsidizes by transferring Millions of dollars of our tax money each year to Yasir Arafat's private account in Bank Hapoalim

Ideological Principles of Yamin Yisrael

1) Eretz Yisrael is the eternal, God-given patrimony of the Jewish People. The right of the Jews to settle in all of this land is absolute.

2) Therefore, the Oslo Agreement is null and void and must be explicitly abrogated.

3) Israel’s essence as a Jewish State must be the State’s paramount principle.

4) Therefore, an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish State is a precondition of participating in elections to, or holding any appointment in, any office of this State.

5) All necessary measures will be taken to preserve a sufficient Jewish majority in Eretz Yisrael, including encouragement of elements hostile to Israel’s existence to immigrate to other countries.

6) Accordingly, the “grandfather clause” of the Law of Return must be amended to curtail the influx of non-Jews into Eretz Yisrael.

7) Arabic must be removed as an official language of the Jewish State.

8) Since the eternal ideas and values of the Torah constitute the basis of the Jewish State, they must also constitute the basis of the State’s educational system, supplemented by a solid science curriculum.

9) To promote accountability and preserve Israel as a democratic Jewish State, members of the Knesset must be individually elected by the voters in regional elections; a Presidential system must replace multi-party cabinet government; and judges of Supreme Court must not have the power to choose their own successors.

10) The continued imprisonment of Israel’s agent Jonathan Pollard is a national disgrace as well as a violation of simple justice. Therefore, the Government must take firmer and more persistent efforts to bring Jonathan home to Eretz Yisrael.

How to Solve the Israel-Palestinian Conflict

Professor Paul Eidelberg of the Yamin Party in Israel presents an excellent plan for solving the current issues.

How to Solve the Israel-Palestinian Conflict
Israel’s internal demographic problem can be solved by vigorously addressing the more urgent Palestinian problem. An honest and honorable government will:

(1) Abrogate the Oslo Agreement and, in one swift and sweeping attack, eliminate the entire Palestinian Authority and its terrorist network. There is no moral difference whatever between the U.S. destruction of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan—6,000 miles from Washington—and Israel’s destruction of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure next door to Jerusalem.

(2) Declare Jewish sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (including unequivocal jurisdiction over the Temple Mount) while broadcasting evidence from Biblical and American sources confirming Israel’s God-given as well as superior legal right to these areas. (The Arabs in these areas will of course retain the civil rights they enjoyed under Israeli law.)

(3) Relocate certain cabinet ministries into Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. (This will convince Arabs that the Jews intend to remain in these areas permanently.)

(4) Sell small plots of land in these areas at very low prices to Jews in Israel and abroad with the proviso that they settle on the land, say for a period of six years. This would diminish the dangerous population density of Israel’s large cities and, at the same time, encourage Jewish immigration to Israel. (Enfranchising Israelis living abroad would encourage tens of thousands of these Jews to return to their homeland.)

(5) Develop model cities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza by attracting foreign capital investment on terms favorable to the investors. Based on past experience, and given Israel’s Gross Domestic Product of $106 billion, another 200,000 Jews can be settled in Judea and Samaria within a few years. Their presence will prompt more and more Arabs to leave, as they have done in the past and as tens of thousands are doing even now.

(Had such policies been implemented shortly after the Six-Day War, the idea of a Palestinian state would have died before it was born.)

Once Israel seizes the initiative vis-à-vis the Palestinian Arabs, it will be psychologically primed to deal with the internal Arab demographic problem.

How to Solve the Arab Demographic Problem

Few people realize that the influence of the Arab vote on Israeli politicians is a basic cause of the Arab Palestinian problem and will continue to hinder the dissolution of that problem. Arab voting power can decisively influence who will be Israel’s prime minister and thereby shape not only the character but the borders of the state. Israel’s political elites have long been aware of this fact. Thus, on May 6, 1976, then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said this to high school graduates about to enter the army:

The majority of the people living in a Jewish State must be Jewish. We must prevent a situation of an insufficient Jewish majority and we dare not have a Jewish minority....There is room for a non-Jewish minority on condition that it accept the destiny of the State vis-a-vis the Jewish people, culture, tradition, and belief. The minority is entitled to equal rights as individuals with respect to their distinct religion and culture, but not more than that.

Rabin’s last sentence obviously refers to Israel’s Arab inhabitants. It clearly implies that their rights as individuals do not include equal political rights! In May 1976, however, Rabin’s Labor Party was not dependent on the Arab vote as it was to become a year later when Labor’s 29-year control of Israel’s Government came to an end. Labor’s electoral base was shrinking. Religious Jews, with a much higher birthrate than secular Jews, were shifting to the less secular Likud Party, a loss magnified by the tens of thousands of secularists leaving the country. To regain power Labor had to win the votes of Israel’s burgeoning Arab population whose kinsmen were the Palestinian Arabs and whose champion was Yasser Arafat. To put the Arab vote solidly in Labor’s camp in the 1992 Knesset elections, it would be necessary (in violation of the law) to contact and solicit the support of Yasser Arafat in Tunis. The price was Oslo.

Now we can better understand how the Israel’s internal demographic problem is intimately related to the Palestinian problem.

Inasmuch as no Government of Israel is going expel the country’s million and more Arabs despite their hostility to the Jewish state—and no Arab state will accept them—what should be done to save the Jewish state from its burgeoning, hostile Arab population?

The only solution is to make the State of Israel increasingly Jewish and proud on the one hand, and classically democratic on the other! This will result in a steady emigration of Arabs and, at the same time, erode the nationalist ambitions of their party leaders. How can this be done?

Most commentators will say: "Increase the Jewish content of public education." Of course, but no less important, indeed, more urgently necessary, is radical reform of Israel’s political and judicial institutions.

(1) Democratize Israel’s parliamentary electoral system to increase the impact of Jewish convictions on those who make the laws and policies of the State. The only way to do this is to make legislators individually accountable to the voters in multi-district elections—the practice of 74 democracies. The existing system makes the entire country a single electoral district in which parties compete on the basis of proportional representation. This makes every vote count in apportioning Knesset seats. As a consequence, virtually every Jewish party seeks the support of Arab voters, which can only be purchased by compromising Jewish national interests.

(2) Replace the inept, divisive, and irresponsible system of multi-party cabinet government with a Presidential system comparable to that of the United States.

(3) Democratize the method of appointing the Supreme Court, which has become a self-perpetuating oligarchy whose decisions diminish the Jewish character of the state. Presidential nomination of judges (initially recommended by a professional counsel) and confirmation by the legislature would make the Court more representative of Israeli society, the bulk of whose population more or less identifies with the Jewish heritage, which the Court frequently scorns. (Alternatively, it may be wise to replace the Supreme Court with a "Constitutional Court" whose jurisdiction would extend only to laws that directly affect the organization of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government.)

(4) Enforce Basic Law: The Knesset, which prohibits any party that negates the Jewish character of the State.

(5) Enforce the 1952 Citizenship Law, which empowers the Minister of Interior to nullify the citizenship of any Israel national that commits “an act of disloyalty to the State.” (The law should be amended to clarify the term "act" to protect freedom of speech and press.)

(6) Rescind large-family allowances, with the understanding that the Jewish Agency will assume the function of providing such allowances to Jewish families, while Arab philanthropic agencies may do the same for Arab families.

(7) Put an end to the notorious tax evasion of Arab citizens and their countless violations of building and zoning laws.

(8) Terminate subsidies to, or expel, Arab university students who call for Israel’s destruction, and require Arab schools to include Jewish studies in their curriculum.

(9) Rescind the "grandfather clause" of the Law of Return, which, as previously indicated, has enabled hundreds of thousands of gentiles to enter Israel.

(10) As proposed earlier, enfranchise Israelis living abroad. This will increase the power of the Jewish vote.

(11) Phase out U.S. military aid to Israel (now less than 2% of the country’s GDP), as well as American participation in Israel-Arab affairs. Both undermine Israel’s material interests as well as Jewish national pride. (Yamin Israel has a program for this purpose.)

(12) As Kemal Ataturk did in Turkey, terminate Arabic as an official language of the State and its (required) use in all official documents. This will negate the anti-Zionist idea that Israel is a bi-national state or that it should be a "state of its citizens."

QOTD

British Chief Secretary Battershill after 1930's attack by the Arabs on the British

I doubt whether any Arab has really any ethical feeling against murder and I am sure Arabs look upon murder as a justifiable weapon. We shall never get them to change their fundamental belief on this point. Our only way to deal with them is to make them see that it does not pay.

Interesting Background on the Golan Heights

IMRA translation of and article that originally appeared in Yediot Ahronot.

Before we proclaim that "the Golan is Syrian," it is worthwhile doing a quick review of its history. Ever since the establishment of the Syrian state, that country has lost more significant segments of its land than the Golan. In 1920 Mosul was given to Iraq and Tripoli to Lebanon, and in 1937 the Turks took Alexandretta. Yet Syria has maintained correct relations with all three of those annexing neighbors. It would seem that her insistence on getting the Golan back in its entirety stems solely from her desire to weaken Israel.

In the original division between French Syria and British [Mandatory] Palestine [after World War I], most of the Golan Heights was within the borders of Palestine. In the course of the demarcation of the boundary, local landowners applied heavy pressure, and as a result - and due to the absence of Zionist counter-pressure - the line was moved [somewhat] westward. Upon gaining independence, Syrian refused to recognize that line, and ever since they have been demanding that the border run down the middle of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret [the "Sea of Galilee"]. During the [1947-1948] War of Independence [Arab-Israel War], the Syrians gained control of areas west of the Jordan and afterwards demanded that the border coincide with the water line. The response of Israel's foreign minister at that time, Moshe Sharett, was that it was unthinkable that Israel should hand her Syrian enemy what the British had refused to give their French ally.

Un-Moored

BOTW pulls out this nugget and shows why Michael Moore is an amoral lout.

Propagandist Michael Moore has endorsed Wesley Clark for president, saying that he "shares our values." Here's what Moore wrote on Sept. 12, 2001, about the previous day's attack on America:

Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!

What outraged Moore about Sept. 11 was not the murder of innocent people or of Americans, but specifically the murder of Democrats. Are these the "values" that Wes Clark shares?

American Debt to the Kurds

William Safire reviews America's unfortunate history with the Kurds.

Here is what we owe the Iraqi Kurds, targets of genocide, as demonstrated in Saddam's poison-gas massacre of 5,000 innocents in Halabja:

(1) We abandoned Kurds to the shah in the 70's, after Mullah Mustafa Barzani placed his trust in America. We double-crossed them again after the gulf war, when their forces rose at our instigation and were decimated by Saddam's gunships. Despite this double duplicity, Kurds fought on our side with little equipment and great valor against Saddam for over a decade.

(2) After we protected this non-Arab people in a no-flight zone, Kurds overcame tribal differences to establish a working free-enterprise democracy in Iraq's north, now a model of freedom for the rest of the country.

(3) Despite casualties elsewhere in the post-victory war, not a single U.S. soldier has been killed (knock wood) in the area called Iraqi Kurdistan and patrolled by the pesh merga, its battle-hardened Kurdish militia. (But in a blunder, Kurdish leaders suspicious of Turkey blocked the contribution of 10,000 Turkish troops to help us put down the Baathist insurgency.)

Against Business Casual

Miss Manners against business casual in dress and relationships.

An inevitable and unfortunate part of the "I want to be me" movement has been the idea that there is no distinction between your business life and your personal life. People treat colleagues as friends and family—often to disastrous effect. Sexual harassment is a prime example. If you flirt with somebody at a party, that person can't have you arrested. But if you flirt at the office, it could cost you your job. Well, flirting at work has always been unmannerly. The distance of formality should make it obvious that office flirtation is wrong. But because people don't care about etiquette anymore, we have to use the law to make them obey. That is not trivial for the people involved. An exposed office flirt was once just a cad. Now someone who misunderstands the limits of office friendship could become a criminal with a record. The problem with many of today's workplace issues is that they are too subtle and nuanced for the law, which is a very heavy-handed instrument. But if people don't obey the rules of etiquette, we have no choice but to use the law.

She is also against company retreats and gives this story.

At the height of this retreat business, I was president of the board at my children's school. One gentleman kept proposing a retreat until finally I said, "You know my dear sir, you and I disagree on every possible issue within this school. But I give you the benefit of the doubt because I assume your good intentions, and I don't know you that well. Do you want to remove all doubt?" That was the end of that.

Democratic Folly

Ha'Aretz reports on the political outlooks of the broad swath of American Jews.

U.S. Jews would overwhelmingly support any major Democratic candidate over President George W. Bush if the election were held today, according to the 2004 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion.

Joe Lieberman, the only Jewish candidate, would defeat Republican Bush by the largest margin, 71 percent to 24 percent, the poll found.

In one-on-one matchups with the president, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, John Kerry and Richard Gephardt would each receive about 60 percent of the Jewish vote, compared to about 30 percent for Bush, according to the survey conducted for the American Jewish Committee and released Monday...

American Jews tend to vote Democrat, and 66 percent said they backed Al Gore in the 2000 race.

Still, Republican leaders have been courting Jews, and the poll did find a slight increase in the percentage who considered themselves Republican, from 9 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2004.

How out of touch are they? Equating the Religious Right with Muslims? Impugning Christians with the broad stroke of Islamic anti-semitism?

Nearly 70 percent said anti-Semitism was a greater threat to Jewish life in the United States than intermarriage, and said that among U.S. religious groups, Muslims and the "Religious Right" were the most anti-Semitic.

Some people will never learn.

Israel's Security: The Hard-Learned Lessons

Summary from the Daily Alert newsletter of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations of an article in The Middle East Quarterly by Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror.

The most significant aspect of the Oslo experiment, from 1993 to 2000, was the surrender of control over Palestinian populated areas. It was due largely to this that the Palestinians were able to launch and fight a war that, in its first three years, cost Israel nearly 900 lives, mostly civilians. In comparison, during the final seventeen months of Israel's military deployment in southern Lebanon, Israel lost a total of just 21 soldiers - fewer casualties than the number of civilians killed in many single Palestinian terror attacks.

Control of territory is an essential advantage in fighting terror. It is the key to gathering intelligence. A military force without control of the territory from which terrorism emanates cannot destroy the infrastructure of terrorism.

When Israel maintained control of the populated areas of the West Bank and Gaza, its line of defense against terrorism was in the cities and towns from which the terrorists set forth. In the absence of such control, Israel's real line of defense is its own cities and towns.

Based on this experience, Israel must realize that it would be a grave risk if it were to cede total territorial control to the Palestinians in any future agreement.

Israel must insist on retaining the right to operate throughout the territories in perpetuity, not only for a limited number of years, not only in emergency situations, and not only upon the approval of third parties.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror commanded Israel's National Defense College and headed the research and assessment division of Israeli military intelligence. He was the Ira Weiner Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy when he prepared this study.

American Poverty

Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson on the Census Bureau's 35 million US poverty figure in their recent publication "Understanding Poverty in America," produced by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation.

From various government reports they find that: 46 percent of poor households actually own their homes; 76 percent have air conditioning; the typical poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities in Europe; nearly 75 percent of poor households own one car, and 30 percent own two or more cars; 97 percent have at least one color television; 62 percent have cable or satellite reception; and 25 percent have cell phones.

Via Walter Williams on JWR.

Kilroy-Silk is right about the Middle East, say Arabs

Ibrahim Nawar, an Egyptian, is the Head of the Board of Management of Arab Press Freedom Watch, a non-profit organisation based in London that works to promote freedom of expression in the Arab world.

I agree with much of what he says about Arab regimes. There is a very long history of oppression in the Arab world, particularly in the states he mentions: Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, as well as in Sudan and Tunisia.

These regimes are not based on democracy and their legitimacy comes from military dicatorships or inherited systems. The basic right of an individual to voice his or her opinion is not granted in any kind of form in the Arab world.

Indeed.

The Case for Cannibalism

Theodore Dalrymple points out a logical failure of being "only consenting adults" in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.

If everything is permissible between consenting adults, why not?

According to the psychiatrist, Heinrich Wilmer, the German cannibal Armin Meiwes, who killed Bernd Brandes and then ate at least 44 pounds of his flesh, is suffering from “emotional problems.” We might say the same, I suppose, of Brandes, who answered Meiwes’s Internet advertisement for “a young, well-built man who wants to be eaten”—though his problems are now past curing. Brandes also had a slightly offbeat sense of humor. On discovering that both he and Meiwes were smokers, he reportedly said, “Good, smoked meat lasts longer.”

The case raises interesting questions of principle, even for those who take the thoroughly conventional view that eating people is wrong. According to the evidence, Meiwes and Brandes were consenting adults: by what right, therefore, has the state interfered in their slightly odd relationship?

Of course, one might argue that by eating Brandes, Meiwes was infringing on his meal’s rights, and acting against his interests. But Brandes decided that it was in his interests to be eaten, and in general we believe that the individual, not the state, is the best judge of his own interests.

Ah, you say, but Brandes was mad, and therefore not capable of judging what was in his own interests. What, though, is the evidence that he was mad? Well, the fact that he wanted Meiwes to eat him. And why did he want Meiwes to eat him? Because he was mad.

There is a circularity to this argument that robs it of force. It is highly likely that Brandes did indeed have “emotional problems,” but if every person with emotional problems were denied the right to determine what is in his own interests, none of us would be self-determining in the eyes of the law, except those of us who had no emotions to have problems with.

Lest anyone think that the argument from mutual consent for the permissibility of cannibalism is purely theoretical, it is precisely what Meiwes’s defense lawyer is arguing in court. The case is a reductio ad absurdum of the philosophy according to which individual desire is the only thing that counts in deciding what is permissible in society. Brandes wanted to be killed and eaten; Meiwes wanted to kill and eat. Thanks to one of the wonders of modern technology, the Internet, they both could avoid that most debilitating of all human conditions, frustrated desire. What is wrong with that? Please answer from first principles only.

WE OWE ARABS NOTHING

Pretty gutsy, don't you think?

Copyright 2004 EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS
Sunday Express


January 4, 2004


WE OWE ARABS NOTHING

By ROBERT KILROY-SILK


WE ARE told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that "it is destroying the Arab world". So? Should w e be worried about that? Shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim?

After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they? Few of them make much contribution to the w elfare of the rest of the world.

Indeed, apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West - what do they contribute?

Can you think of anything?

A nything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without?

No, nor can I. Indeed, the Arab countries put together export less than Finland.

We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis?

For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them w ith science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States.

What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the w ay they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders?

That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Y emen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, womenrepressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about w hat is really loathsome.

But why, in any case, should we be concerned that they feel angry and loathe us? The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it?

Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime - part of the axis of evil. So is the Saddam Hussein-supporting Syria. So is Libya. Indeed, most of them chant support for Saddam.

That is to say they support an evil dictator who has gassed hundreds of thousands of their fellow Arabs and tortured and murdered thousands more. How can they do this and expect our respect?

Why do they imagine that only they can feel anger, call people loathsome? It is the equivalent of all the European nations coming out in support of Hitler the moment he was attacked by the US, because he was European, despite the fact that he was attempting to exterminate the Jews - and Arabs.

Moreover, the people who claim we are loathsome are currently threatening our civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons. They are promising to let suicide bombers loose in Western and American cities. They are trying to terrorise us, disrupt our lives.

And then they expect us to be careful of their sensibilities?

We have thousands of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries living happily in this country on social security.

This shows what their own people think of the Arab regimes, doesn't it? There is not one single British asylum seeker in any Arab country.

That says it all about which country deserves the epithet loathsome.

GEORGE GALLOWAY, the member of parliament for Baghdad Central, as his tormentors describe him, called the British and American troops "wolves" and called for the Arab countries to rise up and fight them and to cut off oil from the combatants. Later he called upon British troops to refuse to obey "illegal orders".

He has, predictably, been vilified.

His comments have been termed a disgrace, disgusting, outrageous and so on. He has been called a loony, naive, gullible and a traitor.

There have been demands that George's constituency party should deselect him, that his constituents should not vote for him at the next general election, and that he should be deported to Iraq. No one, as yet, has demanded that he be put in the stocks or burnt at the stake, though no doubt this will come.

But why all the fuss?

Why is everyone getting into such an excitable lather over the predictable remarks of a no-mark?

Who with any sense cares an Iraqi dinar for what dear George thinks?

Like Clare Short, George is a licensed court jester. He acts the buffoon while she's the straight part of the act, though she exaggerates her sanctimonious seriousness.

Neither are taken seriously. Both are totally discredited laughing stocks that add to the variety of political life.

At least George is open, honest and sincere.

TRANSFER IS NOT A DIRTY WORD!

Ben Shapiro via A7

After World War II, Poland was recreated by the Allied Powers. In doing so, the Allies sliced off a chunk of Germany and extended Poland west to the Oder-Neisse line. Anywhere from 3.5 million to 9 million Germans were forcibly expelled from the new Polish territory and relocated in Germany. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was pleased with the result. In 1944, he had explained to the House of Commons that "expulsion is the method which, so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble... a clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by the prospect of the disentanglement of populations, nor even by these large transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions than they ever were before." - Ben Shapiro, in an article entitled TRANSFER IS NOT A DIRTY WORD!

No Rising Income Inequality

Irwin Stelzer in The Times of London quoted by Glenn H. Reynolds on JWR.

There is no question that statistics show a rise in inequality. The main reason: America welcomes more immigrants - legal and illegal - than all the other countries of the world combined. These newcomers typically start on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Exclude them from the statistics, calculates Easterbrook, and the increase in inequality disappears. Indeed, for the nine out of ten Americans that are native born, inequality is declining. And here is the reason that will surprise America's critics: the decline in inequality is due in good part to the rising affluence of African Americans.

Transfer As a Solution

Tourism Minister Benny Elon has a plan to solve the Palestinian terrorism issue.

Tourism Minister Benny Elon... has long proposed that if the goal is a two-state solution, then the Palestinian state already exists---in Jordan. He avers that the Road Map is merely a rehashing of the "unworkable and dangerous" goal of "trying to seat two peoples on the western side of the Jordan River." Elon's plan, which can be seen at [sic], comprises the following points:

The Palestinian Authority will be dissolved;

Israel will put a firm end to Palestinian terrorism by expelling terrorists, collecting weapons, and dismantling terror-hotbed refugee camps;

The international community will recognize the Hashemite Kingdom as the sole representative of the Palestinians, and will help it economically as it absorbs a limited number of refugees;

Israel will become sovereign over Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the Arabs living there will be Jordanian citizens living under a form of autonomy yet to be determined;

The exchange of Jewish and Arab populations begun in 1948 will be completed, and the international community will help rehabilitate the refugees in their new countries;

Israel and Jordan-Palestine will declare the conflict ended and will work together as neighbors.

Another interesting plan comes from Uzi Cohen, Deputy Mayor of Raanana.

Uzi Cohen, the Deputy Mayor of Raanana and a leading member of the Likud Central Committee, is pushing an initiative to transfer Yesha's Arabs to a relatively empty area in western Jordan. He told Arutz-7 this week about the plan that he presented at the Likud Convention this past Monday night: "There's an area there of about one million dunams [1,000 square kilometers, approx. 10% of the size of Lebanon, and 40% of Luxembourg]. A new state will be established there for the Arabs of Yesha: the Saudis will pay for it, the Americans will build it, and we will plan it, and just like with Israel, little by little all of them would stream into the new state and build it up. Jordan, too, has a problem with Palestinian refugees, which is getting worse and worse. This solution will solve Jordan's problem as well. Once the new state is built and successful, there will be a voluntary emigration to it." Reminded that the Arabs might not agree, Cohen said, "None of the other plans are practical. This plan is in their own interest."

UN versus Israel

Max M. Kampelman has an article in the WSJ on reforming the UN. I'm not sure that I agree with it---I think the situation is hopeless; however, he has this excellent quote.

In 1948, the U.N. recognized Israel as a new state and member. Shortly thereafter, Israel's Arab neighbors--refusing to accept the U.N. decision--invaded Israel. Since that time, and until quite recently, neighboring Arab states have publicly considered themselves in a perpetual state of war with Israel, and have acted accordingly. How has the U.N. responded? Since 1964, the Security Council has passed 88 resolutions against Israel--the only democracy in the region--while the General Assembly has passed more than 400 such resolutions. The U.N., an organization committed to peace, permitted Yasser Arafat to address its General Assembly in 1974 with a pistol on his hip, and subsequently formed--under U.N. auspices and with U.N. funding--three separate entities with large staffs which advance the Palestine Liberation Organization's anti-Israel agenda: the Division for Palestine Rights; the Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People. No Arab state has ever been chastised by the U.N. for actions against Israel and for its defiance of the 1948 U.N. resolution.

Is it any wonder that many Americans hesitate to place our security concerns in the hands of the U.N.? Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as he was leaving his role as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in 1976, called it a "theater of the absurd."

It's Your Fault We Called You Hitler!

BOTW has an excellent piece they entitle It's Your Fault We Called You Hitler!.

The far-left group MoveOn.org has been holding a contest for anti-Bush television ads, and it's come under fire for a pair of ads posted to its Web site that compared the president to Hitler. Now MoveOn founder Wes Boyd has issued a statement. While he acknowledges that "we agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process," he says the real blame lies with the Republicans for drawing attention to them:

The Republican National Committee and its chairman have falsely accused MoveOn.org of sponsoring ads on its website which compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The claim is deliberately and maliciously misleading. . . . None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund.

There's a theme here, isn't there? First we have these ads comparing Bush to Hitler, which show a childish ignorance of history. They seem to be based on the syllogism: Bush is bad, Hitler was bad, therefore Bush was Hitler. (The S factor indeed.) The ads get posted to the MoveOn Web site because of a now-acknowledged lack of adult supervision--and then, rather than simply accept responsibility for this rather grievous error, Boyd lashes out at Republicans, as if his incompetence and his members' stupidity and viciousness were their fault.

This is politics as it might be conducted by 12-year-old boys. No wonder MoveOn types have latched onto Howard Dean, known for such juvenile utterances as "I am somewhat of a street fighter. If someone punches me I am apt to chase them down and I need to be restrained by the people who know better and have been in the game longer than I have." Is the Democratic primary race a political campaign or is it "Lord of the Flies"?

The West must read the meter in Bam and Tehran

Must-read piece by Michael Ledeen in JWR.

Look again at the scenes in Bam. The destruction of that once fabulously beautiful city is a symbol of what the regime has done to Iran, once a wealthy and prosperous and creative country. Look at the many reports on the awful degradation of Iranian society, now leading the region in suicide and teenage prostitution, its standard of living a pitiful shadow of what it was before the Islamic Revolution of 1979, its infrastructure in tatters, its armed forces distrusted by the country's leaders, its students under virtual house arrest, its newspapers and magazines silenced, its talented moviemakers and writers and scientists and artists fleeing to the West whenever they see a crack in the nation's walls. Look at the damning human-rights reports. Read the harsh condemnation of the mullahs' relentless censorship from Reporters sans Frontières," which calls Iran the world's greatest predator of free press. And listen to the cries of the Bam survivors as they ask why this had to happen, why no help arrived until long after the disaster struck, and why the mullahs preferred to see thousands of them die, rather than accept humanitarian assistance from the Jews.

And then ask our leaders what in the world we are waiting for, and why we insist on believing that a regime so demonstrably evil deserves to have good relations with the United States, and why a people so demonstrably on our side, and so demonstrably worthy of freedom, does not deserve our full support.

QOTD: Healing Iraq

Jonathan Swift, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

Consequences of Withdrawal

Moshe Arens writes in Ha'aretz about unilateral withdrawal without a peace agreement.

Under these circumstances, staging a unilateral Israeli withdrawal, which means moving the IDF out of areas it entered during operation Defensive Shield to combat Palestinian terrorism, means leaving those areas under terrorist control and bringing terrorism back to the doorstep of Israel's cities. In other words, a return to the days of the massacres at the Dolphinarium and the Park Hotel.

The inescapable conclusion is that a partner for negotiating a settlement with Israel must be someone that is willing to take on the terrorists and is capable of subduing them. In the absence of such a partner, that mission remains in the hands of the IDF and the Shin Bet security service, who have been doing a creditable job of this difficult and unpleasant task.

Where's the UN?

Palestinians are being humiliated. Quick, let's have sanctions...

The Egyptian authorities have imposed severe restrictions on the entry of Palestinians into Egypt, Palestinian travelers and Palestinian Authority officials said on Thursday. They complained that the Egyptians were deliberately seeking to humiliate them in response to the recent attack on Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher at al-Aksa mosque.