The slight epiphany of an Israeli leftist

Every once in a while, Ha'aretz' Bradley Burston wakes up from his leftist slumber and starts to comprehend the real problem. This is the part after he quotes exactly how the Mumbai murderers tortured their Jewish victims, a quote I cannot bring myself to post on this blog:

For the whole of my adult life, it irked me when my fellow Jews would routinely and without compunction, accuse anti-Zionists of being anti-Semitic, and conflate anti-Israeli sentiment with the Nazis.

I felt that the latter eroded the memory and the magnitude of the Holocaust, and that the former was a slightly more elegant way of telling people with whom one took issue, to shut the hell up.

Only this week did I realize my error.

It turns out, that when Jews suspected that the Jihadi hated the Jew the way the Nazi hated the Jew, they were right.

After all this time, I am embarrassed to admit that only when the monsters entered Chabad House in Mumbai, did I understand.

Monsters, not solely for what they did there, but, if the reports are to be believed, for the fact that they were able to do what they did after having actually gotten to know the young couple who founded the center, after asking them for shelter in Chabad House, after telling them that they were Malaysian students eager to learn about Judaism.

Monsters, for having befriended these sweet people in order to better learn how to execute them. Monsters, for having targeted a young couple who had devoted their lives to helping others better live theirs, despite having had a baby who died of a genetic disease and a second child ill and under treatment far away in Israel.

The monsters in Chabad House were not Nazis because they were Muslims. It was specifically because they so faithfully emulated the Nazis, that they, in fact, betrayed Islam.

The hatred of the Jihadi for the Jew is such that - as in the case of the Nazis - the killing of Jews - anywhere they may be found - is an obligation on par with whatever other enemy, target, cause, mission, goal or creed they may be pursuing at the moment.

Their hatred of the Jew is such that - as in the case of the Nazis - all tragedy that befalls the Jews was brought on by the Jews themselves.

Their hatred of the Jew is such that even if a Jew rejects the concept of a state of Israel and is wholeheartedly opposed to Zionism, if he wears the clothing of a believing Jew - as in the case of victim Aryeh Leibish Teitelboim - he will be bound and tortured and put to death.

Burston goes on to quote a rabidly anti-semitic sermon from PA TV from 2005. Why he only wakes up to the obvious after Mumbai and he ignored the evidence out there for years is a question only he can answer.

And, of course, he then goes on to distinguish between the bad Jihadis and the good Muslims (who also want to see the Jewish State utterly destroyed and who also reject the concept of Jewish self-determination, but whom Burston still feels an affinity to:)

Muslims the world over have recognized that the jihadi is a terrible threat to Islam. The world has seen that the jihadi, in hating the Jew, the Christian, the Hindu, the Muslim of another denomination, has become - like the Nazi - the enemy of all peoples everywhere.

The jihadi shows his love of death in brutality, sadistic executions, the self-righteous calm of the premeditated mass murderer, the blaming of the victim for the crime.

One lesson of the Holocaust is that one can't afford to miss the signs and the intentions.

I'm only seeing it now.

He clearly isn't, because he still ignores the celebrations from his moderate Muslim friends every time Jews are butchered in Israel.

And, judging from his track record, this realization will fade again as he gets caught up in his next column bashing right-wing Zionists and ignoring the links - some explicit and mostly symbiotic - between the jihadis and Israel's "peace partners."

But at least he noticed it for long enough to write it down.

Read More

BBC anti-Zionism on display

From the BBC website, by their diplomatic and defense editor, Mark Urban:

The global honeymoon that accompanied Barack Obama's election was never going to last forever, but there are some people for whom it already appears to be over - even though the president elect will not take power until 21st January. The Illinois senator's desire to name his administration, in order to 'hit the ground running' has already been the cause of some political sniping, and so have his meagre foreign policy pronouncements to date.

The appointment of Rahm Emanuel in October as White House Chief of Staff nettled many. There were his former Republican opponents in the House of Representatives, who consider him abrasively partisan, but I am not talking about them. Put his name and 'Zionist' into Google and you will see what I mean. The brickbats are already flying on certain Islamic, 'progressive', and far right websites.

With the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, the plot thickens for those who wish to imply that a good man - President-elect Obama - is surrounding himself with 'zionists' who will prevent any fresh thinking about Middle East peace. Ms Clinton is not of course Jewish, unlike Mr Emanuel, but she has been a two-term senator for New York state.

"She's had a certain position which has not been very friendly toward the Palestinians", said Karen AbuZayd, Commissioner General of the United Nations Works and Relief Agency on the Today programme this morning, adding, "we hope that there'll be a broader view once she comes into office". Ms AbuZayd's job involves daily dealing with the dismal humanitarian consequences of Israel's blockade of Gaza, so I'm not surprised she longs for a different US foreign policy in the region. But the implication from an international civil servant - who must get on with all the relevant players - that an incoming US Secretary of State is bringing too much political baggage to the job is unusual, to put it mildly.

Up until this point, Urban appears to dissociate himself from those "progressive" websites he mentions. But from here on in, he makes it clear that he agrees with their anti-Zionist philosophy:

Is it not obvious that Secretary Clinton, representing the US national interest, will serve quite different political imperatives to Senator Clinton, representing one of the largest Jewish democratic constituencies in the world?

In other words, "chill out, progressives, Obama and his team may very well still turn out to be as anti-Israel as you and I want him to be."

The response to the appointment of the new foreign policy team shows something else. In the first place, the president-elect's campaign promise of change was always going to look less exciting once he put in place the people with the necessary political experience to run their departments. If you think Ms Clinton comes with political baggage - what about Robert Gates, who will switch from being President Bush's defence secretary for the past to [sic] years to the new president's administration?

Secondly, there are certain laws of political gravity that cannot be defied, whatever the brand of a new administration. The anti-American imperative is so central to certain ideologies - in this case militant Islam - that any Jewish appointees or appeals to Jewish voters will be used to argue the administration is pro-Zionist. It might turn out to be, but shouldn't everyone wait until the new president has been sworn in and set out some Middle East policies before jumping to that conclusion?

Urban pointedly does not say that the anti-Zionism of the "certain Islamic, 'progressive', and far right websites" is wrong. No, their crime is not being against the existence of the state of Israel - that is a valid and laudatory goal. Their only mistake is that they are jumping to conclusions that Obama is not sufficiently anti-Israel enough.

Just wait, our BBC editor is saying: All of us anti-Zionists may still be pleasantly surprised by Obama's "fresh thinking" on how to dismantle Israel.

Read More

Chaim Weizmann on Jerusalem, December 1, 1948

Here is part of a speech given by Israel's first president, Chaim Weizmann, in Jerusalem on December 1, 1948:

It is with a sense of humility and sorrow that I rise to speak here among you who have suffered so much and wrought so much during this great and tragic year. Jerusalem holds a unique place in the heart of every Jew. Jerusalem is to us the quintessence of the Palestine idea. Its restoration symbolises the redemption of Israel. Rome was to the Italians the emblem of their military conquests and political organisation. Athens embodies for the Greeks the noblest their genius had wrought in art and thought. To us Jerusalem has both a spiritual and a temporal significance. It is the City of God, the seat of our ancient sanctuary. But it is also the capital of David and Solomon, the City of the Great King, the metropolis of our ancient commonwealth.

To the followers of the two other great monotheistic religions, Jerusalem is a site of sacred associations and holy memories. To us it is that and more than that. It is the centre of our ancient national glory. It was our lodestar in all our wanderings. It embodies all that is noblest in our hopes for the future. Jerusalem is the eternal mother of the Jewish people, precious and beloved even in its desolation. When David made Jerusalem the capital of Judea, on that day there began the Jewish Commonwealth. When Titus destroyed it on the 9th of Ab, on that day there ended the Jewish Commonwealth. But even though our Commonwealth was destroyed, we never gave up Jerusalem.

An almost unbroken chain of Jewish settlement connects the Jerusalem of our day with the Holy City of antiquity. To countless generations of Jews in every land of their dispersion the ascent to Jerusalem was the highest that life could offer. In every generation new groups of Jews from one part or another of our far-flung Diaspora came to settle here. For over a hundred years we have formed the majority of its population. And now that, by the will of God, a Jewish Commonwealth has been re-established, is it to be conceived that Jerusalem - Jerusalem of all places - should be out of it?

Ten years ago the question first came up in connection with the Report of the Royal Commission. And in the great debate which took place on that subject in the British House of Lords the then Archbishop of Canterbury said these memorable words:

It seems to me extremely difficult to justify fulfilling the ideals of Zionism by excluding them from any place in Zion. How is it possible for us not to sympathise in this matter with the Jews? We all remember their age long resolve, lament and longing.

"If I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.

They cannot forget Jerusalem ...

The Archbishop spoke the truth. We cannot forget Jerusalem. And if that was true then, it is all the more true today, for in this last year we have sealed afresh our covenant with our ancient mother-city with the blood of our sons and daughters. In addition to our historical unbroken chain of Jewish settlement in this city, the fact of our numerical preponderance among its inhabitants, a new link has been forged - your heroic defence of Jerusalem in this past year. It gives us the right to claim that Jerusalem is and should remain ours.

Where were all those who indulged in such fine phrases about the spiritual associations of Jerusalem for the whole civilised world? Did they lift a finger to protect Jerusalem, its men and women and children, its homes and houses of prayer, against the Arab shrapnel which rained death day and night on your homes for months on end? Did they make the slightest move when the Jewish Quarters of the Old City with their ancient synagogues were reduced to rubble by Arab gunfire, and were desecrated and defiled after the surrender? Did they utter one word of protest against the Jews being denied, for now over a year, access to the Wailing Wall, which is our holiest shrine? Do not worry, my friends. The ancient synagogues will be rebuilt, the road to the Wailing Wall will be opened.

You have renewed the ancient covenant with your blood and your sacrifices. Jerusalem is ours by virtue of the blood that was shed by your sons in its defence. You suffered hunger and thirst in the broiling heat of the summer and defended Jerusalem against surrender and destruction. Not only the soldiers. The ordinary men and women, yea, and the little children, who went about your work while the bullets flew around you and many of you fell victims to the deadly missiles. All of you have had a share in this defence.

When I say that Jerusalem is ours, I am fully conscious of the sacred associations which Jerusalem has for others than ourselves. We respect these associations. When you defended Jerusalem against havoc and destruction, you fought not only for your own people but for civilisation.

...
Men and women of Jerusalem, fear not for the future of your city - of our city! The words of our national hymn Hatikvah will yet come true:

To be a free people in our own land -
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

They don't make Israeli leaders like they used to.

(The Palestine Post report of this speech can be found here.)

Read More

The most bizarre writer for Indymedia?

Usually, raving paranoid anti-semitic losers at least pretend to make a modicum of sense when they write their thoughts down.

Not so Bobby Meade.

Bobby is a blogger who writes bizarre, essentially unreadable fantasies that betray serious mental illness. Which is fine, really.

What is more bizarre is that his retarded ramblings are also published by various far-left Indymedia sites, which then get indexed by Google News.

Here is the last paragraph of his latest lunatic screed:

Update 12/2: Bush Nazi report (blog addition): After kicking about 250 miles since September, I confirmed what the benefit was of trying to heal the scorpion sting sores that way. I learned that the lymph fluid in the lymph vessels is moved by muscle contractions; thus such exercise promotes the elimination of the toxic material from the body. A few weeks ago they filled my bedroom with bedbugs as they did in Ithaca eight years ago. I discovered that all prior bites become inflamed when you get new bites, producing a condition that Nazi doctors would probably call a rash. I bet all instances of bedbug infestations are promoted by Bush Nazis; i.e. sh*theads, queer boys, Jews, or someone of that ilk. It is extremely difficult to get rid of them. If you call an exterminator, they will probably spray then dust the places with eggs so they have to return every 30 days. Standard business procedure? They have also been making it so there is only one available computer at the library where I am surrounded by riff-raff throwing such insects. I have even witnessed fleas that were dumped from an upstairs window being blown in my open window. To top things off there is a WARNING sign on the front door, informing people that my building is under the protection of the Sheriff. That's odd because I was certain that the jurisdiction of the Sheriff was restricted to the town, the county, and the state roads within the city. Then again, if Broome County is anything like Tompkins County, every single police officer would be at the beck and call of the sh*t-eating Bush Nazi that rule the Sheriff Association. Ask Emery Guest, former Chief of Zion's Secret Police in Tompkins County. Do you wonder why the Star of David is on Sheriff vehicles? As for the massacre in India, that looked like Special Forces. You know the group that was apparently involved in the murders of @ 700 soldiers in the bogus portion of the 21 Day Persian Gulf War 2/6/91-2/24/91. Nevertheless Dumb Boy could play cowboy and go start a war in India, couldn't he? I bet that they picked India because so few people have guns over there. Can you imagine the number of murders if they didn't have such strict gun control?

Yes, this is real.

Read More

Syrian generosity to their PalArab brethren

From the Syrian Arab News Agency:

The 22nd convoy carrying humanitarian aid from Syrian citizens to their brothers in the occupied territories left Damascus on Tuesday. The convoy includes 4 trucks loaded with foodstuff, clothes and medicines. Chairman of the Syrian Popular Committee for Supporting the Intifada and Resisting Zionist Ahmad Abdul-Karim said: " This convoy is a gift from the Syrian people on the advent of the blessed Eid Al-Adha to their brothers in the Gaza Strip who suffer hunger because of the Israeli unjust blockade and depriving them of all means of life. Abdul Karim reiterated Syria's stand by the Palestinian people's struggle to achieve their legitimate goals including the right to return, self-determination and to establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.

It is unclear how often they send this "aid" and how the trucks travel from Damascus to the PA, but it appears to be once or twice a year, if this is the 22nd shipment.

So how effective is four trucks of humanitarian goods?

According to UNRWA, it needs 15 trucks a day to support Gaza only. Which means that four trucks would be enough to support the PalArab population in the West Bank and Gaza for about two hours.

Now, do you think that Syria spends more money on these largely symbolic truckloads of goods to pretend to help Palestinian Arabs - or on arming Hezbollah? A Katyusha rocket costs roughly $1000.

Read More

Was Mumbai from Hindus or Zionists? Pak TV says both!

From the Times of India:

Mumbai's 26/11 was actually a plan hatched by "Hindu Zionists" and "Western Zionists", including the Mossad, said a self-styled Pakistan security expert on a Pakistan news television show, uploaded on www.hotklix.com.

"They look like Hindus. No Pakistani speaks the language they chatted in," said Zaid Hamid while referring to the terrorists on the show Mujhe Ikhtilaf Hai (I differ) on Pakistan's News One channel. The sensationalist channel was launched in November last year.

Hamid said that it was a "badly planned" operation that had gone horribly wrong. "The Americans executed the 9/11 attack perfectly. They managed the media very well. The Indians tried to repeat the formula but goofed up. The idiots made a complete mess of it."

He said that the attackers wore saffron Hindu Zionist bands, which no Muslim would tie. Hamid also said that within the first 5 minutes of the attack, the three ATS policemen investigating the network of terror within India's security agencies and radical right were killed.

The video is available here, but no subtitles.

Read More

Freedom of the press, PA-style

From Ma'an:

Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces disguised as civilians detained two Ma'an journalists in the northern West Bank city of Tulkarem on Tuesday.

Ma'an's Tulkarem correspondent, Sami As-Sa'i, and cameraman, Muayyad Al-Ashqar, were assaulted on Tuesday by PA security forces wearing civilian clothes before they were taken to a police station. Forces confiscated Al-Ashqar's camera, as well.

Reporters Sans Frontieres remains silent.

Read More

Open Thread

Knock yourselves out.

Read More

Must read

Moshe Ya'alon's article in Azure.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German priest executed by the Nazis, once wrote, “If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the opposite direction.” Fifteen years ago, the signing of the Oslo accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) raised hopes that Israel had boarded the “peace train.” Over the years, however, it became clear that the train was not headed for the promised destination. Nevertheless, Israel’s leadership has been pointlessly running along the corridor ever since.

...
If we truly seek to understand why the Oslo peace process failed, we must reevaluate the fundamental principles of the strategy employed by the architects of the agreement, one of which—arguably the most important—was the assumption that bold diplomacy is the driving force behind historical compromise between two nations. Accordingly, the logic that dominated the Oslo process was based on the idea that negotiations and agreements are a necessary prologue to the achievement of tangible change in security, economic, and social conditions. Put simply, Israeli statesmen hoped that diplomatic breakthroughs reached at the negotiating table would pave the way to ending the larger conflict. They believed that treaties, goodwill gestures, and territorial concessions would ease tensions and violence in the region, and, as a result, security and stability would return to Israel’s narrow strip of land.4
This doctrine had already begun to falter before the outbreak of the Palestinian war against Israel in September 2000, but the extent to which it was in truth a monumental mistake has since become abundantly clear. Over the past eight years, the gap between the aspirations of the peace process and the dismal reality on the ground has expanded ad absurdum. Ostentatious international summits and the celebrated declarations they produced—including the pretentious Annapolis summit in November 2007—have yielded nothing but broken promises. In the face of the Palestinian Authority’s descent into corruption and violent chaos, the “peace process” has turned out to be an empty delusion.

In light of this, Israel and the West have no choice but to revise their entire policy toward the Palestinians. This requires not merely cosmetic alterations, or still more intensive efforts to advance the old Oslo process, but an alternative strategy that will redefine our objectives and the means necessary for their realization.

In outlining such a strategy, we must learn from our bitter experience, and realize, once and for all, that even the most impressive treaties carry no weight if one of the signatories is unable—or unwilling—to fulfill its commitments. Therefore, we need to turn the Oslo approach on its head: Instead of trying to achieve historical change “from the top down,” exaggerating the importance of declarations handed down to the masses as if from the peak of a diplomatic Mount Olympus, we should adopt a new, more pragmatic policy that promotes change “from the bottom up.” Such a strategy should seek to establish stability and security first, to be followed only later—and perhaps after a great lapse of time—by peace.

Read the whole thing.

Read More

Mideast tidbits

Some interesting gleanings from the Arab press this morning:

Oil prices fell below $50. Egypt is increasing its own oil output.

An Egyptian writer, columnist for Al-Ahram for 22 years, is quitting over continued government censorship.

In what can only be described as child abuse, a Palestinian Arab baby was forced to wear this keffiyeh showing child-molester Yasir Arafat wearing a keffiyeh, in the Firas Press website.

Another Firas story speaks of a US delegation in Egypt inspecting the Gaza border. In a throwaway line, it says they also looked at areas around Kerem Shalom that Israel "occupied" in 1948, indicating that Egyptian land claims against Israel might have quieted down but never really ended after Camp David.

While Hamas claims to want to keep the "calm" with Israel, the PRC - affiliated with Hamas - shot several mortars to Israel this morning.

An Egyptian official claims that Egypt is not biased towards either Hamas or Fatah. Wonder what the incoming US administration thinks about that?

In another indication of the crippling Israeli occupation, a brand-new and rather large mosque opened in Jenin.

A Saudi woman argues against marriages of children 10 and below. Yet she never quite says that it is socially acceptable child-rape:

Just imagine your 10-year-old daughter marrying a man even if he were somewhere between 20 and 50. How will she behave as a mother who is supposed to bring up children or a woman who is responsible for her husband and his family?

Is that really her primary concern?

Read More

Al-Azhar sheikh gets Jew cooties

From the Middle East Times:

Al-Sharq (QATAR): Azhar Sheikh's Handshake With Peres Sparks Crisis in Egypt Parliament – The Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc in Egypt Thursday denounced the handshake between the top cleric of al-Azhar, Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi, and Israeli President Shimon Peres during a U.N. General Assembly interfaith meeting in New York this month. The Islamist group said the handshake provokes the sentiments of the Egyptian people and harms the image of al-Azhar, the highest Muslim Sunni authority, at a time when Israel is besieging "our people in the Gaza Strip." The lawmakers demanded an apology from Tantawi.

The MEMRI blog follows up:

In response to photos published in the Egyptian and Arab press showing Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi shaking hands with Israeli President Shimon Peres, Tantawi stated that he hadn't known who Peres was and that the handshake was by chance, not intentional.

He added that on this occasion he had shaken the hands of over 20 people all at once, instinctively and with good intentions.

Source: Al-Jarida, Kuwait, December 1, 2008

The shocking photograph is flying through Islamist message boards.

Jew Cooties is of course a horrible disease, and it is communicable, so now Sheikh Tantawi cannot touch anyone else until he goes through a painful decontamination procedure which is a cross between the process used to clean up people exposed to high doses of nuclear radiation, and an exorcism.

Of course, after this scandal, he is now washed up as a leader of Al Azhar. It appears that he might be growing his beard to get a new job as a department store Santa.

Read More

Latest Israeli atrocity!

From the pro-terror "International Middle East Media Center":

Emad Bornat, documentary film maker of Bil'in, Palestine, who toured throughout Puerto Rico and the North East US with Tito Kayak, has been in a coma in Tel Aviv Hospital for about a week now. He sustained critical injuries when the brakes and gears of his tractor failed, and he collided into the barbed wire fence of the Israel's occupation wall that cuts his village land in two.

According to his wife Sorya, he is still in serious condition, but the doctors have hope of his recovery, because he is young and was healthy before this accident. He will need to undergo further surgery, and will be weaned off a respirator in the next few days. Sorya said that he opened his eyes for a few minutes only, yesterday but cannot speak yet.

According to another local organizer from Bil'in, the Israeli officer who made the decision to allow Emad to go to the Tel Aviv hospital did so because the road to Ramallah Hospital would have been too bumpy and he wouldn't have survived the trip, because of loss of blood.

The family has a one month pass to enter Israel to go to Tel Aviv to visit Emad. Before this they had to ask for a pass on a daily basis to travel to see him.

The Popular Committee Against the Wall blames the Israeli construction of the Wall on village land, in violation of international law and of Israeli High Court decisions, for the tractor accident.

Of course it is Israel's fault that his tractor malfunctioned and he happened to run into barbed wire (not even the dreaded wall!)

If he would have run into his own house, it still would have been Israel's fault because they didn't repair his tractor for him.

If he would have gone to a Palestinian Arab hospital and died, it would have been Israel's fault for not allowing him to enter a hated Zionist hospital.

If he dies in Tel Aviv, it will be Israel's fault for not taking care of him properly.

If the tractor was a Caterpillar, it is Israel's fault for propping up that company by buying its tractors to demolish houses.

If there was no fence and the tractor would have run into an Arab village, I'm sure it would be Israel's fault too.

Because Arabs will just blame Israel for everything bad that happens. Even when they are the ones going above and beyond to save the life of a man who travels worldwide to demonize Israel.

Read More

Monday links

Bravery that leaves you breathless by Olehgirl

Shiny Happy Dhimmi #3 by Soccer Dad

Too funny: Hamas kicking out Amira Hass from Media Backspin

Egypt's Jew Haters Deserve Ostracism in the West in the WSJ

"Bush to Olmert: Why are you giving Syria the Golan for nothing?" at Haaretz

Read More

Islamist strategy vs. Western tactics

Across the political spectra of Democrats and Republicans, Likudniks and Kadima and "Peace Now," everyone seems to agree on one thing: that peace can only be achieved by Israel conceding land.

It is an appealing thought. A people who yearn for real peace on one hand, and who grew up on the ideals of social justice on the other, seem to agree that it is untenable to hold on to Eretz Yisrael in the face of unremitting Muslim and Arab terror and international pressure.

They all have various reasons for this idea: the demographic threat, fears of "apartheid," fears of another intifada, idealism, a sense of "fair play," an appeal to "justice" or "international law" and so forth.

Very few of them, however, take a realistic view of how the Arab and Islamic side would react to such an act.

Batya from Shiloh Musings recalls that when Menachem Begin gave up the Sinai to Egypt, he moved the Yamit residents to Gush Katif in Gaza. His intent was that by Israel giving up land, it would strengthen its hold on other territories and that the world would be more willing to let Israel keep them. This of course didn't happen - on the contrary, it emboldened the Arab side and their "peacenik" friends. It solidified the idea that territories are negotiable, and that Israeli moves to accept Jews there were reversible.

Likewise, Ariel Sharon felt that giving up the very Gaza and Menachem Begin thought he was "strengthening" would also strengthen Israeli claims in Judea and Samaria. And likewise, this was a fantasy, as the world witnesses daily Qassam attacks from the very areas that peaceful Jews had built beautiful, thriving communities, ostensibly sympathizing with the residents of Sderot but explicitly calling on Israel to stop defending itself.

To be sure, there are short-term gains in world public opinion for Israeli concessions. Israel did gain economically by abandoning Gaza. But those gains are, by their nature, ephemeral. The collective memory of the world is quite short, and it is only a matter of a few weeks or months between Israeli "goodwill gestures" and unremitting pressure for the next round.

Meanwhile, what Israel loses is permanent.

Part of the reason that the West is so keen on pressuring Israel is the unstated but very relevant viewpoint that, somehow, Israeli concessions will take the wind out of the sails of jihadists, that Israeli sacrifices - or the sacrifice of Israel - will appease the terrorists who will no longer have broad-based support in the Islamic world. There is not a shred of evidence to support this wishful thinking; and there is plenty of evidence that shows it to be false.

The West is attuned to short-term thinking. Perhaps this is because of the need to elect new leaders every few years, but it sacrifices long-term strategy for vaporous short-term gains. It would be laughable to even consider that the West has a plan to defeat the Islamist world that spans more than a decade.

The Arab and Muslim psyche, on the other hand, is very much attuned to long-term trends. A hundred years is but a blip in Islamic history and, from their perspective, Israel has not yet lasted as long as the Crusades. The battle takes decades and centuries; it is not something that has to be mopped up by the next election cycle.

As a result, every Western concession to the Islamic world is tactical from the Western perspective and strategic from the Islamic perspective. Tactics without strategy is a loser's game.

This is what drives Islamist confidence against the West.

(It is also why Islamists fear Judaism and Christianity much more than America and Europe - because religious groups do have a long historical memory, and Islam itself cannot stand the scrutiny of history.)

Islamic extremism does not look at "Palestine" as the be-all and end-all of their expansionist goals. Al Qaeda's founder put it succinctly when he said “jihad will remain an individual obligation until all other lands which formerly were Muslim come back to us and Islam reigns within them once again. Before us lie Palestine, Bukhara, Lebanon, Chad, Eritrea, Somalia, the Philippines, Burma, South Yemen, Tashkent, Andalusia.” And this is hardly an exhaustive list of land that Islamists covet.

Each of these seeming "land disputes" is prosecuted locally, as if they each have individual merit, and the fair-minded West will look at each dispute dispassionately and tactically. Well-meaning Westerners will be "even-handed" (and subconciously pro-Islam) in many of these claims, all the while ignoring the worldwide pattern that they represent of inexorable Islamist encroachment and expansionist thinking.

The Islamists have a strategy, we do not.

In Israel's case, every square centimeter of land handed over by Israel is an irrevocable weapon, quite literally, that will be used to get the next piece. When Israel's government speaks of giving Palestinian Arabs land on the west of the "Green Line" in a "land exchange" it means that even that boundary, which the Arab world never accepted before 1967, is negotiable, and the border disputes would not even end if Israel gave up all of its 1967 gains to what Abba Eban famously - and accurately - called the "Auschwitz borders."

To even entertain the thought that Israeli concessions would have forestalled the Mumbai (or Madrid or London or New York) attacks is to engage in the worst kind of self-delusion.

In the Arab and Islamist world, Palestine is the most high-profile and successful implementation of the Islamist strategy. We have shown countless times that the Arab and Islamic world cares little about Palestinians and very much about Palestine. The long-term, strategic approach is hardwired in the brains of Muslims and Arabs.

Over the weekend, yet another extremist quote from a "moderate" group, affiliated with Fatah, was published and ignored by the West:

"Palestine is our land and it belongs to Palestinians. Israel has no right to our property."

"The resolution to divide Palestine into two parts is totally rejected," the statement added, insisting that "resistance" is the only way to "take back Palestinians' rights."

Just as Israel giving up land will not appease the Palestinian contingent of the Islamic and Arab expansionism movements in the least, neither would the sacrifice of all of Israel appease the worldwide Islamic expansionist movement.

The Westerners who support Arab and Muslim claims against the West would have been butchered in Mumbai along with the Jews. No amount of appealing to the terrorists' sense of fair play or "human rights" or "international law" would have made a difference.

Those terms are used as tactics in the grand Islamist strategy against the dhimmis and kaffirs, and we refuse to see the big picture the way our enemies do.

Read More

November "cease fire" calendar

Q=Qassam (may include Katyusha-style rockets)
QS=Qassam landing short in Gaza
M=Mortar
M*- Apparently upgraded 120mm mortars
MS=Mortar landing short
P - unnamed "projectiles"
(Paren) indicates unconfirmed Palestinian claims
Yellow background=Israel sent aid

November 2008

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
25	26	27	28	29	30	1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
		12M	51M 52Q	7Q	9Q	1Q
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1Q	1QS 1MS 1Q	fuel only	4Q 6M	4Q 5M	15Q	1Q (2Q) 2M
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
3Q (12P)	14Q	3M 3Q	2Q (4Q)	1Q	1Q 2M (3M)	4Q
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
1Q	1Q	(4M) 1Q	1Q	3Q	11M*	3Q 1M
30
4Q 3M

Read More