Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, August 06, 2006

3 Palestinian Arab kids killed. Oops!

Last Thursday, 3 Palestinian Arab kids were shot to death in Jenin.

For reasons that are unclear, there was no international outcry. Their deaths were barely mentioned in the newspapers. There were no UN condemnations, no shows of anguish from the EU, no peace protesters demonstrating, no pictures of crying mothers in the Reuters wire photos,, no huge funerals demanding justice.

Here's why:

Last Thursday, three children were killed in a wedding celebration during which gunshots were fired in celebration. PCHR's preliminary investigation indicates that at approximately 21:15 on Thursday, 3 August 2006, three children were killed in a wedding ceremony when a gunman lost control of his assault rifle as he was shooting in the air in celebration. The killed children are Naser Salim El-Asmar (13), Ahmad Samir Abu Jilda (15), and Ala Adel Faris Hardan (17). The wedding ceremony was in El-Marah Quarter in the eastern part of Jenin. Several gunmen were firing in the air during the wedding.

Ah, I forgot. People only care about dead Palestinian kids when they can blame Jews for their deaths.

Even when one tries to explain to these moral midgets that Israel is never aiming at the civilians and that their deaths are accidental, they always retort with "Every human life is precious! They are just as dead! How could you be so inhuman!"

But for some reason, dead Palestinian Arab kids who are killed by Palestinian men with assault rifles are not worth anything. Their blood isn't just cheap - it is worthless, based on how much the world ignores the phenomenon of Palestinian Arabs killing their own. After all...who in their right mind would demand that Arabs stop firing rifles at weddings? That would be imposing Western values on them!

So, these kids plus two more PalArabs who were killed in a "clan clash" means the PalArab self-death count since the end of June is now at ...46.

Jordan's Abdullah shows his support for terror

Like the wimp he is, Abdullah waited a few weeks before he decided that declaring support for Islamists who want to take over his kingdom is a smarter strategy than coming out against terror:

Amman, Aug. 6 (Petra)--His Majesty King Abdullah II said the core of the problem in the region is the continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Arab lands.

Addressing distinguished students from Jordanian universities at the Royal Court, the King said that Jordan's position on the Israeli aggression was frank and clear, indicating it condemned the aggression, and called for an immediate ceasefire and for full sovereignty of the Lebanese government on all Lebanese lands.

He linked the continuation of resistance with the continuation of occupation. "As long as there is occupation, there will be resistance," the King added.

His Majesty said that efforts he has been making over the past weeks and months on more than one level, were designed to crystallize and Arab position on events and the conflict in the region.

I guess none of the "distinguished students" bothered asking him some basic questions:

If occupation is so bad, how come Jordan occupied the territories and didn't bother giving Palestinian Arabs a state before 1967?
When he says "occupation" is he referring to only the West Bank or all of Israel, as Hezbollah does?
Is he acting out of fear for what would happen to him if he came out against unprovoked Islamist attacks against Israel?
Is it abundantly clear to him that he can never afford to offend radical Islam, but he can afford to offend Israel and America with impunity?
Does he have the ability to condemn any Jewish or Israeli deaths, ever?

Someone should ask Abdullah these questions. But no one will.

Pakistani women protestors wear headbands reading 'stop the killing children' and raise machine guns during a rally to show their support for Hezbollah and condemn the ongoing Israeli strikes against Lebanon and Palestinian territories, Sunday, Aug. 6, 2006 in Lahore, Pakistan. (AP Photo/K M Chaudhry)

Somehow, I don't think Israeli children are included.

If anyone thinks that this characterization is unfair, I will happily post pictures of any Muslim rally worldwide that condemns the deaths of all children including the ones murdered by Hezbollah.

I've looked at hundreds, and here is the closest I've ever seen, to the credit of at least one woman in Jordan who implies that Israelis are human:

Jordanians attend a silent sit-in against Israeli air strikes on Lebanon and Gaza Strip outside the United Nations office in Amman August 6, 2006. REUTERS/Ali Jarekji (JORDAN)

And not to be cynical, but the absence of hijabs makes me think that these women are more likely the American women from Code Pink who visited Jordan this weekend.

Adding another charity to the Challenge

AbbaGav writes a posting about the great work of Lema'an Achai, which is directly helping Israeli refugees from the North.

I am adding this worthy organization to the Elder "Double Your Donation" Challenge, so please send money to Lema'an Achai via secure credit card and send us a copy of the receipt so we can match it.

The situation in Israel is not getting any better, and even if you have given before, please give again and know that your money can go twice as far.

Thanks so much.

The Rules of War (Moshe Yaalon)

A great op-ed in today's Washington Post. Stuff I've said before but he says it better:

The Rules of War
By Moshe Yaalon
The conflict in the Middle East is about much more than Israel and Hezbollah, or even Hezbollah's Syrian and Iranian sponsors. What is at stake are the very rules of war that underpin the entire international order.
Sadly, judging from how most of the world has responded to Israel's military action against Hezbollah, these rules have been completely abandoned.
The rules of war boil down to one central principle: the need to distinguish combatants from noncombatants. Those who condemned Israel for what happened at Qana, rather than placing the blame for this unfortunate tragedy squarely on Hezbollah and its state sponsors, have rewarded those for whom this moral principle is meaningless and have condemned a state in which this principle has always guided military and political decision making.
Faced with enemies who openly call for its destruction and victimized by unremitting wars and terrorism since well before it was born, Israel has risked the lives of its citizens and its soldiers to abide by this principle in a way that is unprecedented in the history of nations.
Here is but one of countless examples: In 2003, at the height of the Palestinian terror war against Israel, our intelligence services discovered the location of a meeting of the senior leadership of Hamas, an organization pledged to the annihilation of the Jewish state and responsible for some of the deadliest terrorist attacks ever carried out against Israel.
We knew that a one-ton bomb would destroy the three-story building and kill the Hamas leadership. But we also knew that such a bomb would endanger about 40 families who lived in the vicinity. We decided to use a smaller bomb that would destroy only the top floor of the building. As it turned out, the Hamas leaders were meeting on the ground floor. They lived to terrorize another day.
Imagine for a moment that the United States had advance knowledge of the meeting place of al-Qaeda's senior leadership. Does anyone believe that there would be a debate about what size bomb to use, much less that any leader would authorize insufficient force to do the job?
So while it is legitimate to question whether Israel should go to such extreme lengths to avoid civilian casualties, it is preposterous to argue that Israel uses excessive force. Even more absurd was the shameful statement last week that Israel appeared to have deliberately targeted U.N. officials -- a statement fit for a knave or a fool, not for the secretary general of the United Nations. Rather than lead the fight against those who target civilians and use them as human shields, Secretary General Kofi Annan has strengthened them.
It is clear to any objective observer that Hezbollah is using Lebanese civilians as human shields. It builds its headquarters in densely populated areas, embeds its fighters in towns and villages, and deliberately places missiles in private homes, even constructing additions to existing structures specifically to house missile launchers.
The reason terrorist groups such as Hezbollah use human shields is elementary. They try to exploit the respect for innocent human life that is the hallmark of any civilized society to place that society in a no-win situation. If it fails to respond to terror attacks, it endangers its own citizens. If it responds, it runs the risk of killing innocents, earning world opprobrium and inviting diplomatic pressure to stand down.
Hoping to retain its high moral standards in the face of such a cynical enemy, Israel has made every effort to avoid harming civilians. We have dropped fliers, sent telephone messages and broadcast radio announcements so that innocents can get out of harm's way. In doing so, we imperil our own citizens since, by losing the element of surprise, we invariably allow some of the enemy to escape with their missiles.
But at Qana, Hezbollah responded to Israel's compassion with more cynical brutality. After launching missiles at Israel, the terrorists rushed inside a building. When Israel fired a precision-guided missile to strike at the terrorists, scores of civilians, including children, were killed.
The difference between us and the terrorists is clear: We endanger ourselves to protect their civilians. They endanger their own civilians to protect themselves.
If tragedies such as Qana are not to be repeated, then, rather than condemning Israel, the world should be directing its anger at Hezbollah and at the Syrian and Iranian regimes that support it.
Terrorists are fanatics, but they are not idiots. If the terrorist tactic of using human shields helps them achieve their goals, they will utilize it. If it undermines their goals, they will abandon it.
If we want to live in a world where civilians are never used as human shields, then we must create a world in which employing such measures results in the unequivocal condemnation of terrorists and in forceful action against them by the civilized world.
If the world were now blaming Hezbollah, Syria and Iran for the innocent Lebanese killed, hurt or displaced in this conflict, then it would be sending a powerful message to every terrorist group on the planet: We will not tolerate the use of human shields. Period.
Instead, those who condemn Israel have sent precisely the opposite message. They have told every terrorist group around the world that the use of human shields will pay huge dividends, thereby providing them with a powerful weapon that endangers innocents everywhere.
The writer, a retired lieutenant general, was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces from 2002 to 2005. He is now a distinguished military fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

PalArabs keep killing each other

I haven't done an update in a while of the PalArab self-death count, , so for you fans keeping score here are some more:

An assassination in Khan Younis
One dead in an explosion in Gaza City
One dead in "friendly fire" in Khan Younis
A bullet to the head in a family dispute, again in Khan Younis
Another assassination in Khan Younis
Six prisoners shot dead by "gunmen" disguised as police.

So our grand total of PalArabs who were killed by other PalArabs since the Gaza incursion began is now at....41!

But if they get their own state, we know they will behave like human beings. It's all that oppression that forces people to shoot their own people. I mean...it has to be Israel's fault somehow.

So when Hamas says that they welcome Al Qaeda with open arms, we know they are interested in building a stable, safe government for their people.

Domino theory

The "domino theory" was popular during the Cold War. Wikipedia summarizes it like this:

The domino theory was a 20th Century foreign policy theory that speculated if one land in a region came under the influence of Communists, then more would follow in a domino effect. The domino effect indicates that some change, small in itself, will cause a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence, by analogy to a falling row of dominoes standing on end. (See butterfly effect.)
The theory was used by many United States leaders during the Cold War to justify U.S. intervention in the Vietnam War. The domino theory was applied by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his top advisers in 1954 to describe the prospects of communist expansion in Asia if Indochina were to fall. Eisenhower argued that all of southeast Asia could fall. The theory's ultimate validity remained mixed, and debatable. After the U.S. left Vietnam, the North took over the South, and Cambodia and Laos had also turned to Communism, although Cambodia is no longer a communist state. This limited spread of Communism in Indochina provides ammunition for opponents of the theory, but both sides argue that the historical record overall supports their position.

In the 1980s, the domino theory was used again to justify the Reagan administration's interventions in Central America and the Caribbean region.

From its first conception, many have disputed central assumptions of the domino theory, for instance by arguing that Communist States lacked the tradition of cooperation the theory assumes (eg Cambodia attacked Vietnam, to which Vietnam responded by overthrowing the Khmer Rouge government). Supporters however have continued to argue it was a sensible policy in the context of the times.

Then at the end the article mentions

Similarly, another new form of the domino theory has been advocated by those who seek to oppose Islamic terrorism. Some foreign policy advocates in the United States refer to the potential spread of both Islamic theocracy and liberal democracy in the Middle East as representing a sort of domino theory. During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States and many other western nations supported Iraq, fearing the spread of Iran's radical theocracy throughout the region. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, neoconservatives argued that by invading Iraq a democratic government could be implemented, which would then help spread democracy and liberalism across the Middle East.

As I've argued 18 months ago, this push to democratize without first ensuring basic freedoms is not only useless, but counterproductive. In this case just the existence of democratic elections has not brought about the hoped for domino effect of democracy - it achieved gains instead for fanatical Islamic theocracy.

Radical Islam is the one place where the domino theory really does appear to exist. Thirty years ago, Islamism as a political movement was relegated to the fringes of the Arab and Muslim world, but since then (starting with the 1979 revolution in Iran) it has grown into a major worldwide political force, threatening not only the Western world but also the secular Arab world. It also has an advantage over Communism - the ascetism it demands and the religious virtues it claims makes it somewhat less vulnerable to internal dissent.

One cannot understate the fact that the goals of radical Islam is nothing short of world domination, with the infidels dead and the dhimmis subjugated.

This is why the war with Hezbollah is not just a regional conflict, not just a local spat. A victory (or perceived victory) by the terrorists is a huge boost tothe worldwide Islamicist movement in terms of recruitment and prestige. It is all too easy to imagine an Islamist revolution in Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco and the Gulf states. And the idea that one would cascade into the next doesn't seem far-fatched - it seems inevitable.

So even if one tries hard to forget that Iran is racing to get the Bomb, the threat on the horizon is having a much-more empowered Iran or similar minded Islamists turn off the spigot of oil just to punish the West for not enforcing UN resolutions on Israel, or tolerating cartoons, or allowing R-rated movies, or any of a thousand other perceived injustices against Islam.

The fight against Hezbollah is a fight on behalf of the entire civilized world.

The compassion of the left

A couple of days ago when I was getting lots of hits and comments from Huffington Post readers on a posting that was linked there, I decided to try a little test in the comment section:

I also invite my new lefty fans to donate money to Israeli charities that help out Israeli refugees and victims of terror. I have a program that matches donations - check out my latest blog entry. (I'll understand if you don't want to donate to Friends of the IDF )

I'm sure that as compassionate people you donate money to help innocent victims, no matter whose side they are on. Right?

OK, it was obvious baiting, but I still wanted to see a reaction.

Most ignored it, but one of them took the bait:

You've got to be kidding. Israel already gets 1/3 of the U.S. taxpayers' foreign aid even though the last I heard it was the 12th or 16th richest country in the World.

Give me a break. How about spreading some of that wealth among the poor Palestinians instead of stealing the money that Israel owes them because Israel doesn't like the democratically elected politicians they chose?

So by this stunning logic, there must be no poor people who need help in the US or Canada either, since our nations are so rich.

While I usually do not like to generalize a group of people based on a single comment, this appears to be illustrative of the hypocrisy of those who claim to be equally compassionate towards those who need help.

Although if you are a liberal and want to prove me wrong, feel free to donate - I'll get the money matched.

Amazing Fox News coverage this morning

Fox right now has Jeff Goldblatt covering live Katyusha rocket fire in Kiryat Shmona. The whizzing of the rockets and explosions could be clearly heard. At least one house was on fire; the rest landed in the forest. At one point a rocket itself could be seen flying by on its downward trajectory.

The hosts were asking why Hezbollah is shooting at Kiryat Shmona when it has been essentially deserted. Goldblatt answered "pure terror" and he is partially right, but I think that the video I posted yesterday shows that Katyushas (as opposed to the longer-range rockets) are generally being shot very hastily from wherever the terrorists can find cover, meaning they are just aiming south, firing, and hoping to hit some Jews.

DailyMuslims.com supports Mel's remarks

DailyMuslims.com, "the voice of Muslim America," has this to say about Mel's anti-semitic rant:

Mel Gibson is telling the truth when he said to a Los Angeles County Sheriff July 29, 2006 that "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" during the early morning hours of July 28 near his home in Malibu, California. God bless Mel Gibson for his courage!
Mr. Gibson, producer and director of the highly successful film "The Passion of the Christ", has again provided a great service to the world by utilizing his celebrity status in stating a truth that most ordinary gentiles are afraid to say. Mel Gibson is now being crucified, as was done during the production of his film on Jesus Christ, for saying a very inconvenient truth about world Jewry, especially during the current Israeli murderous rampage in Lebanon.
It did not take long for the Jewish dominated media to inflict pain on Mel Gibson for his statement. One reporter by the name of Harvey Levin said, "Mel Gibson is garbage. What an awful person he is. True enough, I'm Jewish, so the grotesque remarks didn't please me none". The truth never matters to Jews even when confronted by irrefutable evidence.
Do they ever ask themselves, "what is it that we do that makes the world dislike us"? Why do they have to have such high security in their Jewish centers? Why did a Muslim shoot up the Jewish Federation in Seattle two days ago? There is no doubt, Jews suffer from "collective denial!"
There are many questions concerning the incident that occurred on Friday when Mel Gibson, driving in his automobile, was stopped by a Los Angeles County Sheriff near his home. There is no doubt that certain Jews were out to get Mr. Gibson ever since he produced "The Passion of the Christ". Was Sheriff's Deputy James Mee, a Jew, lying in wait for Mel Gibson. Pacific Coast Highway in this part of Malibu is a well known police trap. Here they can wait for celebrities that live in Malibu and that they know are coming home from restaurants, social engagements and parties where drinks are served. Why was Deputy Mee ordered to redo his police report by his superiors? Most important of all, how did Jewish reporter Harvey Levin end up with a copy of the original and unapproved report written by Deputy Mee and which Levine used to justify calling Mel Gibson "garbage".
Was there collusion here between Deputy Mee, Levine and other Jews?

To be fair, DailyMuslims didn't write this insane bigoted rant. It was written by La Voz De Aztlan, which followed this up with an even more bizarre conspiracy theory that you've got to read to believe.

But the fact that DailyMuslims chose to publish it shows that many American Muslims are on the same page as the nutcase that wrote this.

And it was then picked up by KavkazCenter, my new favorite place to see what radical Muslims are really thinking.

Bill Maher: "The world IS Mel Gibson"

From his column in the Huffington Post:

As I watch so much of the world ask Israel for restraint in a way no other country would (Can you imagine what Bush would do if a terrorist organization took over Canada and was lobbing missiles into Montana, Maine and Illinois?) - and, by the way, does anyone ever ask Hezbollah for restraint. you know, like, please stop firing your rockets aimed PURPOSEFULLY at civilians? - it strikes me that the world IS Mel Gibson. Most of the time, the anti-semitism is under control, but that demon lives inside and when the moon is full, or there's been enough alcohol consumed, or Israel is forced to kill people in its own defense, then it comes out.

Andrew Sullivan agrees.

Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone disagrees:

The reason the world doesn’t ask Hezbollah for restraint is precisely because they’re a terrorist militia that purposefully targets civilians. These people are not reasonable; they are a vicious anti-Semitic virus, an organization with American blood on its hands that needs to be disarmed and defanged, if not annihilated.

But what is supposed to differentiate a civilized democracy like Israel from the enemy they face is precisely a sense of restraint: an unwillingness to massacre women and children and U.N. peacekeepers in pursuit of its righteous goal of eliminating Hezbollah’s army.

Now don’t, please, purposefully misunderstand me. I do not believe that Israel intentionally targets civilians. (I reserve judgment, however, about the intention behind the strike on UNIFIL). But Qana happened because Israel has opted for a strategy of collective punishment of Lebanon for the sins of Hezbollah. And in so doing it has debased itself.

Yes, Hezbollah hides out among the civilian population. But, under all but the most extreme of circumstances, that does not excuse bombing apartment buildings and towns that are home to desperate civilians unable or unwilling to abandon their homes. Israel’s apparent indifference to the “collateral damage” that is the inevitable consequence of its urban bombing campaign might — might — be excusable if these attacks were sure to produce a swift victory: three weeks of death and destruction to eliminate a pernicious threat once and for all.
But Israel appears to be having little luck in degrading Hezbollah’s leadership or its military might. Indeed, with 200 rockets fired into Israel yesterday, the campaign seems to be most successful at defanging the dogs of Hezbollah by goading them into mauling Haifa with their katyushas.

I commented there:

What should Israel do?
Seriously. It is easy to criticize - but if you can find a more moral alternative that doesn’t involve Israel letting its citizens die for the sake of your “morality”, please let the world know.

Also, it is a little sanctimonious to declare that since the “Party of God” shot 200 missiles yesterday then Israel’s strategy is counterproductive. Let the Israeli people who are under attack make that decision, not you.

This has been my main question for the critics of Israel who don't hate Israel. What is the alternative? No one is happy that Lebanese civilians are dying (although the numbers are somewhat suspect, certainly way too many are dying.) But not to attack Hezbollah heavily means that they, and the Islamists who will copy them, now have a surefire way to achieve any aim they want against the West - just hide behind civilians.

The world reaction should be horror at Hezbollah, and despite Dickinson's justification, one can be sure that when Israel is criticized in Europe and elsewhere it is not out of concern for Israel's losing the moral high ground. Because if the world is so concerned about morality, the EU would not hesitate to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization, depriving it of funds used to kill Jews. If the world was concerned about morality, it would not have grieved over Arafat.

It is obvious that Israel should act far better than her enemies. But from reading the news, what is not so obvious is that Israel always has, and clearly always will. Criticizing only Israel for defending itself - which necessarily means sometimes making mistakes and adjusting tactics to the evolving threat - gives the impression that only one side is doing something wrong. Over time of reading coverage filled with such "loving" criticisms inevitably makes people think that Israel is in the wrong, or that at best "both sides do immoral things."

This is the worst and most dangerous kind of misrepresentation of the conflict, and it is one that Dickinson is unconsciously a part of.

Terror rockets being shot from within a house (video)

Along with a happy ending.

Of course, this would be reported by most media as "Civilians killed in Israeli airstrike."

From the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, I uploaded it to YouTube.
Hat tip: Israellycool

A reason to keep mourning on Tisha B'Av

Ha'aretz published a typical anti-religious op-ed yesterday about Tisha B'Av. Here is a large part of it:

After the Six-Day War in 1967, a few important rabbis from the national-religious camp proposed making changes to the Nahem prayer recited on Tisha B'Av. The idea was that since we had established a sovereign state and resumed control of Jerusalem, it was no longer appropriate to continue to speak about "a desolate and vacant city... laid waste and deserted." Most Orthodox rabbis, however, wanted to continue to mourn the destruction, even when Jerusalem was quite rebuilt, and were unwilling to lend a hand in even this small and very sensible reform. It is unlikely that anyone thought about turning this day of mourning into a festival.

Tonight, many non-observant Israeli Jews will be wondering why the cafes are closed. Yes, indeed, tomorrow is Tisha B'Av, a day of mourning over the destruction of both the First and Second Temples and the dispersion (as well as a long list of other calamities). It is interesting to consider how many of our readers knew that it is tomorrow, how many will feel themselves to be in mourning, and how many of them even deem it significant. It is doubtful that anyone should even feel bad about this, with the possible exception of the rabbis, who have not bothered to make the fast day relevant.

It is no accident that so many non-observant Jews feel no connection to Tisha B'Av. Some people say it is because it falls during summer vacation, so children do not learn about it in school. But the source of the resistance seem to be deeper. In many ways, Tisha B'Av is the negative of Independence Day. Everything that a secular Zionist could wish for -- an independent, sovereign, democratic, Jewish state, the in-gathering of the exiles of the Law of Return, a strong army, model academic and scientific institutions -- already exists. That is why Independence Day is celebrated.
[...]
Is it really possible to create a secular alternative to Tisha B'Av?

Former Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg proposed changing Tisha B'Av, making the first half a time for mourning and the second half a meal of thanksgiving, in a combination that echoes the rapid succession of Israel's Memorial and Independence days. But Burg's proposal cannot be implemented without cooperation from the Orthodox. You cannot celebrate while many of your co-religionists are mourning, even if they are mourning an exile that has ended, and even if it is unclear whether they are mourning for the Jerusalem that was destroyed or for the ruins that no longer exist and to which they cannot say goodbye.

And anyway, the religious community does not need to celebrate the liberation of Jerusalem on Tisha B'Av. It has demonstrated a remarkable ability to celebrate Jerusalem Day as if there was no Tisha B'Av, and commemorates Tisha B'Av as if Jerusalem had not been liberated.

Until a logical, current, relevant and Zionist way to mark Tisha B'Av can be found, perhaps the right way to behave on that day is exactly the way that most non-observant Jews do: to ignore it, as if it did not exist. But even those who ignore this day of mourning find it difficult to ignore the fact that our religious brethren insist on behaving as so many of the things that are so important and precious to us are not even worthy of their attention.

I cannot give the author a good reason why secular Israelis should commemorate Tisha B'Av, for the same reason I cannot give him a reason for them to light Chanukah candles or not work on Saturday. By definition, if you reject the religion, the importance of matzoh on Pesach is exactly the same as the importance of turkey on Thanksgiving, and if you think hard about it there really isn't much reason for Jews to keep identifying as Jews, except in the quaint sense that Irish-Americans show pride for their heritage by drinking green beer on St. Patrick's Day.

But I will answer his implicit question as to why religious Jews continue to mourn over a Jerusalem that is rebuilt. The answer can be seen in a Haaretz editorial from June that I quoted (original is not online):

Israel is having trouble formulating a logical and consistent stance with regard to East Jerusalem, and therefore it has been taking inconsistent and hypocritical steps. The decision to allow East Jerusalem residents to participate in the PA elections is part of this same duality. East Jerusalem's residents live here, vote for the PA and are citizens of Jordan. Instead of removing Palestinian parliamentarians from the eastern part of the city, it would be better to remove East Jerusalem from the State of Israel and transfer it to the Palestinian Authority.

In the Israel that Haaretz writers occupy, Jerusalem has no inherent value, and it can and should be traded for the same kind of peace that Gaza was traded for. In that mindset, the fact that Jews cannot ascend to their own holiest site in a city that they say they control is smart politics, not a tragedy.

Tisha B'Av commemorates many tragedies besides the destruction of the Temples, and unfortunately we can add the deaths of 12 more today to that list. But perhaps the biggest recent tragedy is that the modern state of Israel never truly acted as if all of Jerusalem is ours. The center of Jewish longing has been the Temple Mount for two thousand years but the Jews that this author represents - the ones in charge of Israel today - discount all of this with a wave of the hand, as their new, "improved" Zionism has replaced the old, antiquated Judaism that they despise.

This is indeed a reason to mourn on Tisha B'Av.

Those amazing non-flammable missiles

Here is what a vehicle looks like after an Israeli missile hits it:

Here's what a Red Cross vehicle looks like when a not-too-credible Red Cross worker convinces the MSM that it was hit by an Israeli missile:

This image taken from video made by Lebanese Red Cross workers Sunday, July 23, 2006 in Qana, south Lebanon, and made available to AP Television, shows the roof of a Lebanese Red Cross ambulance destroyed in what they say was an Israeli airstrike.

(Don't be fooled by the tone of the caption above - by Thursday, the AP stated that it was an Israeli airstrike as a fact.)

Notice the very neat "missile" circular hole right in the middle of the Red Cross symbol? Notice the rust?

Now, here's a picture of an intact Red Cross vehicle from the Red Cross website. Look at the one on the right:

See anything interesting right in the middle of the Red Cross symbol?

Riehl World View does a masterful job of destroying the credibility of the story that the Red Cross worker said, along with links to pictures of the inside of the ambulance showing no fire damage, nor floor damage, at all. Thsi reflects only a small part of his proof that the "destroyed ambuance" was probably taken from a junkyard.

Willful denial of Jihadist goals is a psychosis

Today, as every day, many prominent Muslims are calling for the utter destruction of Israel as well as Jihad against the West:

Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Supreme Guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB), Muhammad Mahdi 'Akif, called on all Muslims to "help the resistance in all its forms," both in Lebanon and in the Palestinian areas, describing the current "official" Arab position as "shameful." .

The Islamist leader praised Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian areas, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, calling on his followers to prepare themselves to fight "the Zionist gangs." According to 'Akif, Israel was "planted within the Palestinian lands by the Western crusaders, to perform as representatives of the Western superpowers headed by the United States."

TEHRAN –– Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the answer to the conflict in south Lebanon was the "elimination of the Zionist regime," ISNA agency reported.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blasted United States policy in the Middle East and warned of an impending Muslim “jihad”, or holy war, against the West.

“Today, it is clear for everyone that the aggression against Lebanon was a premeditated U.S.-Zionist action as a key step in the path of dominating the Middle East and the Islamic world”, Khamenei said. His comments were reported in the official news agency IRNA and aired in part on state television on Wednesday.

“Today, Muslim nations more than ever despise the U.S.”, he said.

“With its support of the Zionists crimes and criminals and its blatant aggression against the rights of Muslim nations, the U.S. regime must be prepared for a hard slap and a destructive punch by Muslims”, Khamenei said.

The mainstream media reports these things occasionally, but always in a sort of secondary, backhanded way, in one of the bottom paragraphs and glossed over as if it is not really news when the "supreme leader" of a nation threatens the entire Western world.

The liberals read things like this and think, "well, it is just rhetoric, just Arab bluster, it is not serious." No matter how many terror attacks occur against the West, no matter how many 9/11s and Balis and Madrids and Londons and Bombays, no matter how clear the Islamists make their position that they are not distinguishing between Western liberals and Western conservatives, and that we are all targets for death - the left remains in utter denial. If they are forced to confront real terror, they are unable to see that the jihadists are to blame for their actions.

Because the truth is hard to take. It is easier to belittle those who see evil for what it is, those who see that Lebanon is not a regional spat over land but a spark of a global conflagration between Islamists and the Western world. It is hard to accept that hundreds of millions of people want to see you dead or subjugated - even if you accept that fewer than half of worldwide Islam subscribes to these views.

It is an understandable psychological defense mechanism, to try to take the easy way out. If only Israel would agree to all Arab demands then the Arabs won't bother us, they say. If only we do what they say, it won't affect my life right now today. The direct jihadist threats are not to be taken seriously.

Because to believe the threats means that something must be done about it, and all the other justifications for appeasement and blaming of Israel and US policy is an intellectual equivalent of hiding one's head in the sand.

If there is one thing that Jews have learned through history, it is that if someone says they want to kill you, take them seriously. It is a lesson that the "enlightened" West needs to learn very badly.