Friday, February 27, 2009

  • Friday, February 27, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Jameel at the Muqata, who was one of the two major "warbloggers" from Israel during the Gaza operation (Aussie Dave at Israellycool was the other), gets interviewed.

Well, OK, the Yeshiva University newspaper is not the Times of London, but it still testifies that blogging is becoming more mainstream when a blogger merits an interview.
  • Friday, February 27, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
A great analysis by an IDF soldier to expose a simple truth:
What major news outlets have completely missed is not the fact that Israel invaded. The story they have missed is that Hamas knowingly provoked Israel's incursion because this was to be their offensive. It had been planned and prepared for months. It was their strategy, their tactics, their battlefield, prepared according to their doctrine, to be fought at the time of their choosing.

I first put on the uniform of the Israel Defense Forces over 35 years ago. I have been involved in four wars and countless training exercises preparing for war. I have watched Israel's doctrine change and adapt to almost every new eventuality and the one thing I can say with absolute clarity and certainty is that Israel never goes to war in the winter time of its own accord. Never. When Israel can choose, its offensives take place in the spring and summer. It is as if there is a line drawn across the calendar that says from mid autumn and until well into the spring Israeli doctrine precludes offensive action.

The reason is quite simple, the cloud cover and rain of winter time can neutralize Israel's advantage in air and armor. Even with the most advanced avionics, aircraft have a tough time taking out targets which they cannot see because of cloud cover. Rain can turn the terrain of southern Israel into a soupy mud that can bog down Israel's tanks and armored personnel carriers making them sitting ducks for anti tank rockets and missiles. Israel has never gone to war in the winter of its own choosing, which is precisely why Hamas chose the dead of winter for its offensive.

The villages of the Gaza strip were criss crossed with tunnels dug underneath the houses. Not weapons smuggling tunnels, mind you, these were kidnapping tunnels. They were communication tunnels through which Hamas militants could go unseen from house to house and carry out combat in a civilian environment disappearing from one house, as it came under fire, to pop up in another. Those tunnels were not dug after Israel invaded as a response to that invasion. No one in Hamas said "Quick let's dig these tunnels because the Israelis are coming!"

This was their battlefield and they prepared it according to a doctrine that said they would launch rockets from civilian areas in order to draw Israeli troops into those areas. They would turn whole villages into booby trapped battlefields while the villagers were still in them. Their hope was to kill two to three hundred Israeli soldiers and kidnap and take prisoner as many as fifty.

At the same time, because they were fighting in civilian areas, their plan was to maximize civilian casualties amongst their own people. In this way, any action Israel took against Hamas fighters would become a war crime. Photos of innocent Palestinians killed in an Israeli onslaught would arouse public sympathy and that sympathy in turn could be translated into political pressure to effectuate a cease fire advantageous to Hamas. In that way, they could at one and the same time, wear the mantle of victimhood and victor. ...

Hamas' plan was to fire from civilian houses, draw infantry into those houses which were booby trapped, and then kill and wound soldiers inside. There were kidnapping teams standing by in the tunnels to pop up from under a false floor and drag the wounded soldiers or the bodies of the dead into those tunnels which criss crossed the whole village. Once inside the tunnels, the dead and wounded Israeli soldiers could be whisked off and taken prisoner. I held the map the reporter referred to of the village and studied it with an intelligence officer. The entire village is laid out as a battlefield... with the villagers still in it, sometimes unaware that their own houses or the houses of neighbors have been rigged. This plan was duplicated throughout Gaza.
Read the whole thing.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

  • Thursday, February 26, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Thanks for the jokes, all. Since I have many new readers, here are the jokes I posted last year, after scouring the Internet (and links to the originals):

A rabbi and a priest are driving one day and, by a freak accident, have a head-on collision. Both cars are totally demolished, but amazingly, neither of the clerics has a scratch on him.

After they crawl out of their cars, the rabbi sees the priest's collar and says, "So you're a priest. I'm a rabbi. Just look at our cars. There is nothing left, yet we are here, unhurt. This must be a sign from God!"

Pointing to the sky, the rabbi continues, "God must have meant that we should meet and share our lives in peace and friendship for the rest of our days on earth."

The priest replies, "I agree with you completely. This must surely be a sign from God!"

The rabbi is looking at his car and exclaims, "And look at this! Here's another miracle! My car is completely demolished, but this bottle of Mogen David wine did not break. Surely, God wants us to drink this wine and to celebrate our good fortune."

The priest nods in agreement.

The rabbi hands the bottle to the priest, who drinks half the bottle and hands the bottle back to the rabbi.

The rabbi takes the bottle and immediately puts the cap on, then hands it back to the priest. The priest, baffled, asks, "Aren't you having any, Rabbi?"

The rabbi replies, "Nah... I think I'll wait for the police."
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls President Bush and tells him, "George, I had a wonderful dream last night. I could see America, the whole beautiful country, and on each house I saw a banner."

"What did it say on the banners?" Bush asks. Ahmadinejad replies, "UNITED STATES OF IRAN."

Bush says, "You know, Mahmoud, I am really happy you called, because believe it or not, last night I had a similar dream. I could see all of Tehran, and it was more beautiful than ever, and on each house flew an enormous banner."

"What did it say on the banners?" Ahmadinejad asks.

Bush replies, "I don't know. I can't read Hebrew."
A man arrives at Ben-Gurion Airport with two large bags.

The customs agent opens the first bag and finds it full with money so he asks the passenger, "How did you get this money?"

The man says, "You will not believe it, but I traveled all over Europe, went into public restrooms, each time I saw a man pee, I grabbed his organ and said, "donate money to Israel or I will cut off your testicles."

The customs agent is stunned and mumbles: "well...it's a very interesting story... what do you have in the other bag?"

The man says, "You would not believe how many people in Europe hate Israel..."
A rabbi, a priest, and a minister were talking one day. The priest told of an occasion when he was caught in a snowstorm so terrible that he couldn't see a foot in front of him. He was completely confused, unsure even of which direction he needed to walk. He prayed to God, and miraculously, while the storm continued for miles in every direction, he could clearly see his home 20 feet away.

The minister told a similar story. He had been out on a small boat when a hurricane struck. There were 40-foot high waves, and the boat was sure to capsize. He prayed to God, and, while the storm continued all around, for several feet in each direction, the sea calmed, and the minister was able to return safely to port.

The rabbi, too, had such a story. One Saturday morning, on the way home from the synagogue, he saw a very thick wad of $100 bills on the sidewalk.

Of course, since it was Shabbat, the rabbi wasn't able to touch the money.

So he prayed to God, and everywhere, for miles in every direction, it was still Shabbat, but for 10 feet around him, it was Thursday.
On the sixth day, G-d turned to the angel Gabriel....

"On this day, I shall create a magic land. It shall be called "Israel". It will stand as holy. Its magnificence will be known the world over. I will choose to send to this land special people of goodness, intelligence and conviction, so the land shall prosper. I shall call these inhabitants Jews."

"Pardon me, Lord", asked Gabriel, "but aren't you being too generous to these Jews?"

"Not really. Wait and see the neighbors I'm giving them."

A Texan, a Frenchman and an Israeli are on a plane flying over the Pacific Ocean when the engines stop functioning. The plane crash lands on a Pacific Island and the 3 are immediately captured by a tribe of cannibals and taken to their village. The Chief tells the 3 captives that these cannibals are civilized and they have a custom on their island that before they eat anyone, they grant that person his or her last wishes?no matter what they are.

He asks the Texan, "What is your last wish?"
The Texan replies: "I want a 2 inch thick steak with all the trimmings, Cajun fries and a case of Bud." The Chief motions to some of his tribesmen who immediately run into the jungle and come back with the steak, the fries and the beer. The Texan eats his meal and he is thrown in the pot.

The Frenchman is asked: "What is your last wish?"
He replies: "I'd like a case of Dom Perignon and I'd also like a big plate of escargots cooked in the French manner." The Chief motions to his tribesmen who immediately rush off into the jungle and bring back everything the Frenchman asked for. He eats and drinks his fill, and he is then thrown in the pot.

The Chief turns to the Israeli and asks, "And what is your wish?"
The Israeli looks the Chief squarely in the eyes and replies: "I want you to kick me in the behind as hard as you can." The Chief is bewildered and asks the Israeli again, only to receive the same reply. "I want you to kick me in the behind as hard as you can." The Chief shrugs his shoulders, asks the Israeli to turn around, and kicks him as hard as he can. With that the Israeli pulls out a gun and kills the Chief and all of the other cannibals.

The Texan and the Frenchman get out of the pot, look at the Israeli and say: "If you had that gun why didn't you do anything sooner?"

The Israeli replies: "What? And risk being condemned by the UN, EU and the State Department for 'overreacting' to insufficient provocation?"


Two Jews, one old and one young, travel in a train in old Europe.

The young Jew asks the old Jew: -What time is it?

The old Jew does not answer.

After asking him 25 times, the young Jew seem to give up and asks the old Jew: - Tell me, why don't you want to tell me what time it is?

The old Jew answers: - Because then you are going to ask me where I am going to and I will have to answer that I am going to Zlabodka to visit my beautiful daughter Lea and you will certainly ask if she is single and I will have to say that she is single and you will certainly ask to meet her for a Shiduch and the last thing I want in my life is my beautiful Lea to marry someone who does not have money even to buy himself a watch!
Not specifically a Jewish joke, but at least I hadn't heard it before...

Bill Gates came up to heaven and God wasn't sure what to do with him. On one hand, he gave a lot of charity, but on the other hand, he created Microsoft Windows which is a terrible operating system.

So God decided to give Bill a choice, let him decide whether he wanted to go to heaven or hell.

"Well, what are heaven and hell like?" asks Gates.

God takes Bill Gates to heaven where he sees a bunch of rabbis pouring over Talmudic texts. Then, he takes him to hell where he sees a beautiful beach with palm trees.

Without giving it much thought, Gates concludes, "I'll take hell."

A couple days later, God goes down to see how Gates is doing, and he's furious.

"I'm burning to a crisp down here! This isn't what I saw before!"

To which God replies, "I'm sorry, you must have seen a screen saver!"
The only cow in a small town in Poland stopped giving milk. The people did some research and found that they could buy a cow from Moscow for 2,000 rubles, or one from Minsk for 1,000 rubles. Being frugal, they bought the cow from Minsk.

The cow was wonderful. It produced lots of milk all the time, and the people were amazed and very happy. They decided to acquire a bull to mate with the cow and produce more cows like it. Then they would never have to worry about the milk supply again.

They bought a bull and put it in the pasture with their beloved cow. However, whenever the bull came close to the cow, the cow would move away. No matter what approach the bull tried, the cow would move away from the bull and he could not succeed in his quest.

The people were very upset and decided to ask their wise rabbi, what to do. They told the rabbi what was happening. "Whenever the bull approaches our cow, she moves away. If he approaches from the back, she moves forward.

When he approaches her from the front, she backs off. An approach from the side and she just walks away to the other side."

The rabbi thought about this for a minute and asked, "Did you buy this cow from Minsk?"

The people were dumbfounded, since they had never mentioned where they had gotten the cow. "You are truly a wise rabbi," they said.

"How did you know we got the cow from Minsk?"

The rabbi answered sadly, "My wife is from Minsk."
Ethel, a little old lady with a lovely smile, makes a living selling roses on the corner of Middlesex Street for £1 a rose. Maurice, on the other hand, works for a bank in Middlesex Street and is doing very well for himself.

Maurice has always felt sorry for Ethel and whenever he leaves his office for lunch and passes Ethel, he always gives her £1. But Maurice never takes a rose from her and although this has been going on for 2 years, the two of them have never spoken to each other.

One day, as Maurice passes Ethel and leaves his usual £1, Ethel speaks to him for the first time. "I appreciate your business, sir. You really are my best customer, but I must point out to you that the price of a rose has now gone up to £1.50."
A minister, a priest and a rabbi go into a bar. After a couple of drinks they get somewhat philosophical. The bartender asks them, "What would you want people to say at your funeral?"

The minister says, "I would hope that they would say that I was a good family man and that I always found the time for my congregants."

The priest says, "I would hope that they would say that I was kind, charitable and always thoughtful."

The rabbi says, "I would want them to say, 'Look! He's moving!'"

(Told by a rabbi on The Tonight Show, as Jay Leno asked a priest, a minister and a rabbi to tel priest/minister/rabbi jokes.)

During his school holidays, 17 year-old Avrohom decides to take a temporary job as a delivery boy for Minky’s Restaurant. One evening he delivers a meal to Bernie’s house. He hands over the meal and Bernie pays the bill. Then Bernie looks at Avrohom for a few seconds and somewhat begrudgingly says, "I suppose you also want me to give you a tip?"

Avrohom doesn’t answer immediately, but looks at Bernie for a few seconds before replying. "Yes, sir, that would be most appreciated, especially as the guy who normally delivers to this area told me that I shouldn’t expect much from you. He said I should be thankful if I got 10p."

"Well," says Bernie, "just to prove your friend wrong, here’s £2 for your efforts."

"Thank you very much," says Avrohom. "This will go into the fund I’m building up to pay for my future education."

"Really?" says Bernie. "So what are you going to study?"

"Applied Psychology," replies Avrohom.
Feel free to add more to the comment thread!

Happy Adar!

  • Thursday, February 26, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Joem in the comments pointed me (via Yaakov Lozowick's blog) pointed me to this lengthy interview with Paul Berman, a liberal who gets it. Here is a small sample:
People ought to have noticed by now that any number of humanitarian catastrophes lie just over the horizon and are perfectly predictable - the catastrophes that will follow ineluctably from any future wars in Gaza or Lebanon, or from an attack that Israel, out of fear of the Iranian nuclear program, could conceivably launch on Iran.

Now, if the rest of the world really wants to worry and be upset over humanitarian disasters, there would be every reason to start worrying right now over the prospect of those future wars. A humanitarian logic ought to lead us to ask, how can those wars be stopped, pre-emptively, so to speak - instead of merely deploring them, after the fact. I know that a lot of people would say that, well, Israel ought to dismantle its West Bank settlements and do a thousand other things to allow their enemies to calm down. Me, I've never had any patience for West Bank settlements, and I can picture a lot of ways that Israel could improve.

Still, it would be disingenuous not to notice another obvious reality. An Iran without a nuclear program would be in no danger of Israeli attack. Here is an impending war that rests on a single variable. Why not alter the variable? Equally obvious: Israel is not going to launch a war against any of the groups on its own borders that remain at peace. Why not do everything possible to disarm those groups? Protests, moral pressures, diplomatic pressures, not to mention grand international alliances, not to mention human rights reports! There are a lot of things that could be done. But it may be that, around the world, some of the people who weep over the sufferings caused by war would rather see still further wars than undertake even the simplest and most obvious steps to avoid the wars.

There is more wisdom in this one interview than in a thousand NYT op-eds.

Read the whole thing.

  • Thursday, February 26, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
I was going to comment on this insipid piece by Michael Slackman, but others have done it better than I would have.

On the plus side, I got to use the word "insipid."

UPDATE: One more take (h/t joem)
  • Thursday, February 26, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Palestine Today quotes Yediot Aharonot as saying that Hamas established its new headquarters in a psychiatric hospital in Gaza, secure in the knowledge that it wouldn't be attacked.

PalToday also reports that there was a clash between Arabs and Jews on the Temple Mount, as the Jews tried to pray. I'm sure that the prayers were very violent, though, justifying the scuffle. Of course, PalToday says that the "extremist Jewish settlers" "stormed" the mosque. They were apparently arrested by Israeli police for this heinous crime.

(By the way, Arutz-7 reports that Jews managed to pray at an ancient Jericho synagogue, now under PA control, for the first time in nearly nine years.)

Palestine Press Agency quotes Israel's Channel Two that hamas is again managing to smuggle Grad rockets and other weapons into Gaza.
  • Thursday, February 26, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Reuters:
The United States and Israel must change policy toward Hamas and engage the Palestinian militant group if progress is to be made on peace in the Middle East, a group of former peace negotiators said on Thursday.

Writing in Britain's Times newspaper, 14 former foreign ministers and peace negotiators said the three-year policy under which Hamas has been ostracized by the international community had backfired and needed to be changed.

"There can be no meaningful peace process that involves negotiating with the representatives of one part of the Palestinians while simultaneously trying to destroy the other," wrote the signatories, who include Britain's Paddy Ashdown, a former negotiator in Bosnia, and Michael Ancram, who helped broker peace with the IRA in Northern Ireland.

Hamas, a militant group whose founding charter calls for Israel's destruction, won a Palestinian parliamentary election in January 2006, defeating long-time rival Fatah.

But the group was immediately cut off by Israel, the United States and the European Union, which regard it as a terrorist organization. Peace negotiations have, however, continued with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who heads Fatah.

The letter's signatories said Israel's recent war against Hamas in Gaza had "demonstrated that the policy of isolating Hamas cannot bring about stability."

"Bringing Hamas into the process does not amount to condoning terrorism or attacks on civilians," the letter will say, according to excerpts provided in advance.

"It can strengthen pragmatic elements and their ability to strike the hard compromises needed for peace."

To put it bluntly, these people are idiots.

The desperate desire to see progress towards peace, combined with a penchant to naively believe that every conflict can be solved through negotiations, plus years of obfuscation of the nature of Hamas by "even-handed" journalists and diplomats, cause otherwise smart people to lose their minds.

Here is what they have chosen to ignore:

Hamas is not a movement to create an independent Palestinian Arab state. It is a radical Islamic movement to destroy an independent Jewish state, and then join with other Islamic movements to destroy neighboring Arab states to create a single Islamic 'ummah.

Hamas' goals and means have been stated explicitly for decades, and they have not changed one iota. There are no "pragmatic" Hamas leaders, unless your definition of pragmatic means that they are willing to wait an additional decade or so before their goals are met.

Hamas' and its sister terror groups are exactly the same as Al Qaeda, with the exception that Hamas is concentrating on exclusively killing Israeli Jews in their attacks. Hamas, Al Qaeda and all of the other groups that originally came from the Muslim Brotherhood agree on their goals, their strategy and their tactics. Therefore, to advocate bringing Hamas in for negotiations is the same as asking to negotiate with Bin Laden's more "pragmatic" deputies.

Israel is negotiating with Hamas, through Egypt, to make an accommodation with the de facto rulers of Gaza. This is the way it should be for specific issues that can be solved. But to engage Hamas without the Quartet's preconditions means that these morons are demanding that Israel negotiate its own destruction.

Q=Qassam (may include Katyusha-style rockets)
QS=Qassam landing short in Gaza
M=Mortar
F=Fatality (F=Gazan, F=Israeli)
(G)=Grad (included in Qassam count, not consistent yet)

M*- Apparently upgraded 120mm mortars
MS=Mortar landing short
P - unnamed "projectiles"
(Paren) indicates unconfirmed Palestinian claims

* - Fatal non-rocket attack

K=Katyushas from Lebanon

Mortars are severely undercounted since they simply don't make the news any more.

Yellow=day Israel sent aid to Gaza

February 2009
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4Q
8M

3M
1Q
1Q(1G)
1M

2Q

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2Q

(crossings closed
election day)

1Q
3M

3Q
2M
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1Q
2Q

1Q
4Q
1M
1QS
1Q
10M

1Q
2M

1K
1KS

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1Q
2Q

2Q
3Q
1Q
10Q (2G)





























A day without yellow doesn't necessarily mean the crossings were closed; I just may not have seen the reports of them being specifically open.

All previous calendars here.
  • Thursday, February 26, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
One of the "news" sites that Google News indexes is Pakistan Daily. Here is the first paragraph of an article written there on Wednesday, that argues that Barack Obama is a puppet of the Jews:
Zionist Max Nordau wrote of the psychopathic nature of the ideal Jewish puppet. He stated that the leaders will be psychopaths [M. Nordau, Entartung, C. Duncker, Berlin, (1892-1893); English translation: Degeneration, D. Appleton, New York, (1895); and Der Sinn der Geschichte, C. Duncker, Berlin, (1909); English translation: The Interpretation of History, Willey Book Co., New York, (1910); and The Drones Must Die, G.W. Dillingham Co., New York, (1897); and with M. A. Lewenz, Morals and the Evolution of Man, Lewenz, Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York, (1922). Similar prescriptions appear in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.]
Now, most of the world knows that anyone quoting the Protocols is a crackpot to begin with, but what about his other quotes from Max Nordau, who was a prominent early Zionist?

When a person quotes a source, it adds an aura of respectability and believability to what he is saying. After all, how many people would lie about something so specific, when it could be so easily proven that they are liars? So even when one reads an article by someone whose views are reprehensible, the idea that he is a baldfaced liar is hard to grasp.

Luckily, each of the four books this anonymous writer lists is available, in full text, from Google Books.

The Interpretation of History does not contain either the word "Zionist" nor "Psychopath." Neither does The Drones Must Die nor Morals and the Evolution of Man.

The word "psychopath" does appear, twice, in Degeneration, which partially deals with psychology. The word "Zionist" does not appear at all.

Our Jew-hating author thus proves himself to be not only despicable but also a liar who intentionally misleads his audience with made-up "facts."

Yet this site is considered a "news" source for Google.
  • Thursday, February 26, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Tonight, I heard a radio commercial asking listeners to buy tickets to see Mötley Crüe at the Bellagio.

That is just so wrong, on so many levels.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

  • Wednesday, February 25, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Where you are invited to tell your favorite jokes.

Keep them (relatively) clean.
  • Wednesday, February 25, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
I remain busy, and won't be able to blog much for the rest of the day, but these should keep you occupied (not in the legal sense:)

Sultan Knish goes much deeper on Chas Freeman, and familiarity certainly breeds contempt in this case. Soccer Dad fills out the sordid picture.

Ami Isseroff on how Israel is losing the battle for hearts and minds. I'm looking forward to his followups.

Lisa Goldman writes a provocative piece on The Danger From Dubai (h/t Daled Amos).
  • Wednesday, February 25, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Richard Cohen's wrote another of his signature op-eds yesterday, where he castigates a minority of Israelis for daring to vote for Avigdor Lieberman. As usual, is it quite dishonest:
The day after the United Nations created the state of Israel, the country's first president, Chaim Weizmann, found time to work on his memoir, "Trial and Error." In it, he issued a warning to the Israeli leaders of today: "I am certain that the world will judge the Jewish state by what it will do with the Arabs." It was Nov. 30, 1947.

Weizmann was an astonishingly accomplished man -- chemist, diplomat, statesman -- but maybe his most uncanny talent was that of seer. Peering into the future, he glimpsed the ugly turn Israeli politics has recently taken and how it is now acceptable to talk in repulsive ways about the country's 1.3 million Arabs. "There must not be one law for the Jew and another for the Arabs," he wrote.

Weizmann's admonition may not be known to Avigdor Lieberman, an immigrant from the former Soviet republic of Moldova and now one of Israel's most important political leaders. Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu party placed third in the recent election, meaning he will almost certainly be part of the next government. Lieberman is often called a "nationalist." Maybe so, but he is also an anti-Arab demagogue.

The Arabs of Lieberman's antipathy are not Israel's traditional enemies -- either in Gaza, the West Bank or elsewhere in the Middle East. He focuses instead on the Arabs of Israel proper, about 20 percent of the population. They are his fellow citizens, some of them of dubious loyalty, it is true, and most of them with genuine grievances, it is also true. In essence, Lieberman wants to swap them for Jewish settlers now living provocatively in the occupied West Bank. It's half a good idea.
Guess which half? Arabs, according to Cohen, obviously have the right to live anywhere they want in the world. Jews, not so much.
The issue of Israel's Arabs is complicated. They are not Jews, yet they are expected to be loyal to a Jewish state. They are Arabs, yet they are expected to stand by while their fellow Arabs are pounded -- as in Gaza -- by Israeli guns.
Some of whom are fired by - Israeli Arabs.

Cohen purposefully muddies the concept of "loyalty." One can protest against a nation's actions and still be loyal. One can criticize their government and still be loyal. One can even try to change the government legally and remain loyal to the state. But in Cohen's universe, Israeli Arabs have the unique right to demand that their own nation be destroyed, to support Israel's enemies in any way they see fit. Asking all citizens to be loyal - the problematic and mostly symbolic part of Lieberman's platform - is not discriminatory, and it fits in exactly with that Weizmann wrote, despite Cohen's rhetorical gymnastics to indicate otherwise.
Pakistan and India were created in a similar manner -- a population swap of many millions of people. This was the way things were once done.
Who can imagine the untold thousands of people who would have been butchered in Pakistan/India had there not been that population swap? It is never an ideal solution, but it is conceivable that it is better than the alternative - conceivable to anyone who is honest with themselves, and not grandiose moralizers.
Israel, too, engaged some in ethnic cleansing -- or why else all those Palestinian refugees? But the attempt was both chaotic and, as we can see, not wholly successful.
How's that for proof? Take competing claims by both sides about what happened in 1948, disregard the analyses of many distinguished historians, embrace the ones of people like Ilan Pappe, and throw in the existence of refugees as proof of ethnic cleansing! And then say that the existence of one million Arabs in israel today is not a counterproof of the slanderous assertion of ethnic cleansing - rather, it is proof that the genocidal Zionists were not competent to finish the job! Brilliant!
More important, the concept was anathema to important members of the Zionist establishment such as Weizmann.
And does he have a Weizmann quote to back this up? Did Weizmann advocate the return of all the refugees? Of course he didn't - but Cohen pretends otherwise.
It is clear that the world has grown weary of Israel.
Note that the world is not weary of the Arab Israel conflict, it is not tired about the self-defeating decisions made by Arab leaders to keep Palestinian Arabs stateless - in Cohen's world, everyone is only tired of Jews wanting to live in their own state in peace. Is this observation or projection?

Is it any wonder that Al Quds in Arabic trumpets a headline: American Jewish Writer Warns of Ethnic Cleansing Against Palestinians.

Cohen is the Palestinian Arabs' best friend, because he swallows their propaganda whole, with nary a burp.
  • Wednesday, February 25, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Distinguished Indian novelist Shashi Tharoor has a weekly column on various Indian issues. At the outset of the Gaza operation, he wrote:
AS Israeli planes and tanks exact a heavy toll on Gaza, India's leaders and strategic thinkers have been watching with an unusual degree of interest, and some empathy.

Unsurprisingly, India's Government has joined the rest of the world in calling for an end to the military action, but its criticism of Israel has been muted. As Israel demonstrates anew its determination to end attacks on its civilians by militants based in Hamas-controlled territory, many in India, still smarting from the horrors of the Mumbai attacks in November, have been asking: Why can't we do the same?

For many Indians, the temptation to identify with Israel was strengthened by the terrorists' seizure of Mumbai's Chabad House Jewish centre and the painful awareness that India and Israel share many of the same enemies. India, with its 150-million strong Muslim population, has long been a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause and remains staunchly committed to an independent Palestinian state. But the Mumbai attacks confirmed what has become apparent in recent years: the forces of global Islamist terror have added Indians to their target list of reviled "Jews and crusaders".

...When Indians watch Israel take the fight to the enemy, killing those who launched rockets against it and dismantling many of the sites from which the rockets flew, some cannot resist wishing that they could do something similar in Pakistan. India understands, though, that the collateral damage would be too high, the price in civilian lives unacceptable, and the risks of the conflict spiralling out of control too acute to contemplate such an option. So Indians place their trust in international diplomacy and watch with ill-disguised wistfulness as Israel does what they could never permit themselves to do.

The article is clearly about that wistfulness, and while it showed both comparisons and contrasts between India's situation and Israel's, the main point was how ordinary Indians viscerally feel about striking back directly at terror.

But his point was lost on a vocal portion of his audience, who immediately castigated him for even considering that Israel had a reason to react to years of suffering under thousands of rockets aimed at her citizens. So Tharoor was forced to replace a later column with an abject apology:

Many of you have read my article as endorsing Israel's military campaign in Gaza and deplored the article's apparent indifference to the humanitarian tragedy that followed.

I regret the misunderstanding of the intent and thrust of the piece, which was not written as a commentary on the conflict in Gaza. When I wrote the article I was thinking only about india/pakistan - the assault on Gaza had just begun when I put my fingers to the keyboard. (Though the Australian carried it on the 19th, and that was the link forwarded to you, the first paper to use the syndicated column was Beirut's Daily Star on the 8th). Obviously I had no sense at the time of writing of the scale of the israeli action that was to follow and the toll that would be taken in civilian lives. But in any case the article says India cannot, should not and would not do what Israel has done.

It should be noted that by January 8th, the three-week war was well over the halfway mark, as were the number of casualties.
Using the Israel parallel - at a time when my email inbox was brimming with messages of the "why can't we do the same as Israel?" variety - was just a way of bringing greater attention onto India's dilemma and its anguish, while arguing that there is no "Gaza option" for India.

Of course I should have realized that using an unfolding event as a peg would make my argument hostage to the way that situation evolved. Inevitably, some readers would judge the article in the light of what has happened in the two weeks after I wrote it. Had Israel taken out a few rocket sites and withdrawn in 3 or 4 days, as I had expected, perhaps the analogy would have seemed less offensive. But the article was always meant to be more about India's options than about Israel's actions.

Anyway, I am chagrined and chastened...
Even as he admits that his article was accurate - he was getting emails from the wistful Indians he was writing about - the criticisms were clearly so strident that he was forced to apologize for doing nothing wrong.

His crime was that he didn't immediately condemn Israel as a Nazi/fascist/terrorist state, which is apparently de rigueur any time Israel is mentioned in any context.

(h/t Mashi via email)
  • Wednesday, February 25, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
For the past few, um, decades I haven't been watching too much network TV. But since I realized that I can watch TV shows on my PDA I have been going through seasons of various interesting-looking TV shows that I missed the first time around.

One of them is My Name is Earl (NBC, Thursday nights.)

The plot of the show is that a petty criminal named Earl Hickey, through an improbable series of events, discovers a simple version of karma that works for him: when he does good things, good things happen to him. So he made a list of everything bad he ever did to anyone else and he tries to make it up to them.

He is surrounded by an interesting array of characters, including his white-trash ex-wife, his improbably brilliant and talented best friend who is now married to his ex, and his dim brother.

The first two seasons of the show concentrated on Earl crossing off list items. With an effective use of flashbacks, some nice plot twists, a wicked sense of humor and some great classic rock, the show maintained its consistency to this formula.

What made it fascinating, though, went much deeper than normal mindless TV fare. Each episode included a real moral dilemma, and Earl had to try to choose to do the right thing with a very unconventional set of tools and constraints. These ethical conundrums kept the show interesting.

The show creators have gone away from that formula in the past two seasons, concentrating more on longer story arcs and less on the moral component of the show. It remains very funny, but it is no longer groundbreaking, relying more on character quirks.

Alas, I have caught up on all the episodes, so now I need to find other interesting TV fare to watch while commuting...

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive