Hostages

Some background info:

International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages
ARTICLE 1

1. Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the "hostage") in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages ("hostage-taking") within the meaning of this Convention.
2. Any person who:
1. attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking, or
2. participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking likewise commits an offence for the purposes of this Convention.

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977.Protocol I, Art. 75

2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular: (i) murder; (ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental; (iii) corporal punishment; and (iv) mutilation;

(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form or indecent assault; (c) the taking of hostages; (d) collective punishments; and (e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

Convention IV, Art. 147
Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Read More

Hamas: We have nothing against Jews. We just hate them.

H/T Oceanguy

One of the Hamas cabinet members, Sheikh Nayef Rajoub, said something interesting in March to The New Yorker. He was describing why Israel must be destroyed, and the reason given was that "Freud, a Jew, was the one who destroyed morals."

Got that? Good! Because today he showed a remarkable consistency. When asked whether Jews would be allowed to live in a Palestinian Arab state:

And under no condition would they would be accepted in Palestinian country, if one should be establish[ed]?
"I do not think such a possibility exists. The only solution is for them to be evacuated and removed from our land. These people cannot stay here."

But not all the settlers are the same. Not all are violent and not all of them live in the West Bank because of ideological reasons. And besides, if a foreigner wants to live here you wouldn’t let him?
"A non-Jewish foreigner is a different question. We aren’t against the Jews as Jews, as a religion. We are against those settlers because of their behavior and the immense suffering they have caused us, and the large number of victims their conduct has cost. Settlers’ behavior did not leave us with the option to classify who among them is extremist and who is moderate."

This was in response to Olmert's preposterous assertion that Jews would have the option to live under an Arab West Bank state. Apparently, his grand plan is to just wish away Arab bigotry.

So the next time someone tells you that the Palestinian Arab leadership has nothing against Jews, just remember Rajoub.

Read More

Guardian: Hamas accepts Israel! Hamas: No, we don't!

Yesterday, in another example of astonishingly clueless reporting, Chris McGreal of The Guardian breathlessly reported a scoop:

Climbdown as Hamas agrees to Israeli state
Hamas has made a major political climbdown by agreeing to sections of a document that recognise Israel's right to exist and a negotiated two-state solution, according to Palestinian leaders.

Wonderful! Now we can go back to giving billions of Euros to terrorists, the way life was meant to be! After all - it isn't their fault:

Israel has dismissed the prisoners' document as changing little because, among other things, it advocates continued resistance. But a complete renunciation of violence is unlikely to come while Israeli attacks continue to claim the lives of innocent Palestinians.

It is Israel's fault that Hamas likes to kill Jews! So it is unrealistic to expect the government of a statelet to stop killing the children and grandparents in the neighboring state. That's just crazy talk!

Alas, facts seem to have gotten in the way of this reporter's fantasies:

Hamas has blasted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for suggesting that the Islamic militant group may accept a two-state solution and recognize Israel.

A Hamas statement faxed to United Press International's Beirut office Thursday said Abbas' declaration "only reflects his views, not those of Hamas, which is perfectly capable of expressing its stance and does not need a spokesman."

Hamas strongly criticized Abbas for meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during their participation in the conference, in Petra, south Jordan, as guests of honor.

The statement described Abbas' remarks on Hamas' possible acceptance of a two-state solution as "strange and unaccepted," and accuses him of "provocation against Hamas and exaggeration in holding it responsible for the present situation."

Does anyone think for even a moment that the editors at the Guardian will hold a reporter responsible for such a wrong piece? No, McGreal will continue his biased analyses disguised as reporting facts for as long as he wants.
(H/T: Backspin for the Guardian article.)

Read More

Utter insanity from Egypt

Others have pointed out the ridiculous, over the top hysteria from the Arab world that accompanied John Pantsil's goal last Saturday when he celebrated by waving an Israeli flag.

One would think that thinking Arabs would sober up after a few days and be able to see the incident in context. Well, one would think that if they knew nothing about Arabs, anyway.

Here is an absurd article in Al-Ahram, dripping with hate for a country that Egypt has a "peace treaty" with, by a presumably educated person. This is not the rantings of a few Muslim bigots in message boards - this is mainstream opinion in Egypt.

Ya gotta laugh:

Was Pantsil that apolitical or was he playing a dangerous and star-crossed game? Gamal Nkrumah searches for clues

---

Last Saturday, in a packed 45,000-seat Cologne Stadium, the Black Stars' striker Sulley Muntari scored off a penetrating pass from Stephen Appiah, the Ghanaian national team's captain, much to the chagrin of Petr Cech, the brave and gifted Czech goalkeeper who failed to draw another good save.

It was a rocket of a shot that wowed World Cup viewers in Egypt and other Arab countries.

Then came Ghanaian defender John Pantsil's moment.

Egyptian and Arab World Cup viewers were shocked to see Pantsil pull out the Israeli flag from his socks, dampening the enthusiasm of the Egyptian and Arab admirers of the Black Stars.

The next day, columnist Hassan El-Mistikawi, writing in Al-Ahram, explained that Israeli businessmen train poor African children in camps across central and western Africa in a variety of sports. "These children, when they grow up and become professional sportsmen, remain loyal to Israel," he wrote.

Ghana was among the most popular African teams until the 82nd minute into the match when Pantsil let the white and blue Star of David fly loose. The unfortunate incident outraged Arab World Cup viewers. Conspiracy theories abounded. There was much speculation in the Egyptian and Arab media as to whether Pantsil worked for Israeli intelligence, was paid handsomely for his "shameful deed" or was simply a Zionist sympathiser. One Egyptian commentator even referred to Pantsil as an "Israeghanaian" player.

To add insult to injury, the Ghanaian player openly declared his love for Israel to the Israeli media which, of course, ranted and raved about the supposed merit of Pantsil's inexplicable blunder.

"I love your country," John Pantsil enthusiastically disclosed to a group of Israeli journalists after the match in Cologne in which Ghana thrashed the Czech Republic 2-0. "You [Israelis] have done everything for me, and thanks to you I made it to the World Cup. So I wanted to bring you some happiness in return," said the Ghanaian defender who plays for Hapoel Tel Aviv.

The Israeli media had a field day with Pantsil's suspicious slip. He certainly gave the Israelis what they wanted and the Israeli media was on hand to bundle in.

Ghanaian defender Emmanuel Pappoe also plays for Israel's Hapoel Kfar Saba. The Ghanaian national team's goalkeeper Richard Kingston plays for Israel's Ashdod. Ironically, Israel which failed to qualify for the World Cup, has made its mark thanks to Pantsil. Still, we must not forget that at least two Black Stars -- Habib Mohamed and Issa Ahmed -- are Muslim. Ghana is a multi-cultural country, and this is its first World Cup.

The Ghanaian team's credentials are superb; indeed Africa's hope at the World Cup are pinned on their success. They certainly know how to put on a show. The tragedy, however, is that the show was sullied by Pantsil's faux pas.

Another incident which drew the attention of Arab and Muslim Cup viewers was the manner in which another Ghanaian player, John Mensah, brandished a T-shirt with an image of Jesus Christ holding a lamb. For devout Christians, it is a perfectly understandable gesture. But, for those who hail from predominantly Muslim or non-Christian cultures it seemed as a rather odd gesture.

Today, when Ghana faces the United States, there would certainly be no repeat of Pantsil's controversial antics -- not after the GFA pledge that there would be no repeat of Saturday's star- crossed episode. And, we hope that the Black Stars will not let down their Arab fans -- either by being beaten by the US or by flaunting the Israeli flag in their fans faces.

Africa yearns for a much needed fillip, and Ghana is the continent's only genuine hope in Germany. Perhaps with a Ghanaian triumph today Arab Cup viewers would be prepared to

Yes, the article ends in mid-sentence. Perhaps the foam escaping from the author's mouth short-circuited his keyboard.

I also like how Al-Ahram managed to find a picture of the terribly offensive act without having the Star of David visible, presumably so as not to incite riots from its loyal readership.

Read More

Wishful lies better than brutal truths

al-Reuters reports:

Israel has asked the European Union to make Palestinians sign a document renouncing terrorism before they can receive EU help under a new aid program, Western officials said on Tuesday.

What an excellent suggestion! Make them sign a document - and all our problems will be solved!

Just like when Arafat said in 1993:

the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

And when the Palestinian Arabs accepted Oslo:

The Government of the State of Israel and the P.L.O. team (in the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Conference) (the "Palestinian Delegation"), representing the Palestinian people, agree that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict, recognize their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process.

Or when they signed the Oslo Interim Agreements in 1995:

Both sides shall take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities directed against each other, against individuals falling under the other's authority and against their property, and shall take legal measures against offenders.

Or when the Palestinian Arabs accepted the Wye River Memorandum:

A. Security Actions

1. Outlawing and Combating Terrorist Organizations

a. The Palestinian side will make known its policy of zero tolerance for terror and violence against both sides. b. A work plan developed by the Palestinian side will be shared with the U.S. and thereafter implementation will begin immediately to ensure the systematic and effective combat of terrorist organizations and their infrastructure.

See how much terror was reduced by making terrorists sign agreements pledging peace?

As a bonus, check out this paragraph from a letter from the US to Israel:

U.S. State Department
Washington, D.C.
October 30, 1998

Mr. Dani Naveh
Cabinet Secretary
Government of Israel

Dear Mr. Naveh:

I wanted to provide further clarification of the understanding of the United States regarding one of the issues addressed in the "Wye River Memorandum."

With respect to the Palestinian side's provision of its list of policemen to Israel (II(C)(1)(a)), the U.S. has been assured that it will receive all appropriate information concerning current and former policemen as part of our assistance program. It is also our understanding that it was agreed by the two sides that the total number of Palestinian policemen would not exceed
30,000.

Sincerely,

Dennis B. Ross
Special Middle East Coordinator

Some people seem to mix up "peace" with "pieces of paper."

Read More

One cheer for the ICRC - AP shows bias again

It appears that the ICRC has finally approved Israel becoming a member (along with the Palestinian Red Crescent society, that famous humanitarian organization that lends ambulances to terrorists to kill Jews.)

Of course, Israel cannot use its "offensive" Star of David symbol, but has to place it in the new "red crystal."

What is unclear to me is whether Israel has the right to show the Star of David at all if they are working in another country, or if the other country can demand Israel only use the blank Red Crystal, or even if Israel is allowed to display the star outside of Israel. The AP report includes this paragraph that may not be accurate but implies that Israel cannot use the star under certain circumstances:

Israel's military will be able to use the crystal by itself on a white flag to protect medics and other humanitarian workers helping war casualties. But any society could combine the emblem with the cross or crescent - or both - for temporary use.

More explicitly, the Red Cross says:

The Protocol enables the Israeli Society to continue to use its red shield of David as its sole emblem inside Israel. When working outside Israel the Society would need to work according to the requirements of the host country. Normally this would mean that it could display the red shield of David incorporated within the red crystal, or use the red crystal alone.

The AP, as usual, spins this decades-old bias against the Jewish state as being Israel's fault. In the very first paragraph of their story:

The Red Cross admitted Israel to the worldwide humanitarian organization early Thursday, ending decades of exclusion linked to the Jewish state's refusal to accept the traditional cross symbol.

Ah, those intransigent Jews again.

Wouldn't it have been more accurate to say "linked to the organization's refusal to accept the Star of David as a humanitarian symbol"? Or "linked to the organization's refusal to accept Israel"? Notice how the author ignores in this paragraph any mention of Muslim countries' refusal to allow the Red Cross symbol as well.

Beyond that, the argument against the Star of David has always hinged on the idea that the Red Cross/Red Crescent only had two symbols and adding an additional symbol could confuse the matter. Well, guess what? It's not true!

At the Red Cross site we see that the first Geneva convention accepted not two, but three symbols for use by the organization - the Red Cross, Red Crescent and the Persian Red Lion and Sun:

Somehow, three symbols were not too many in 1949. Somehow, a symbol associated with only one country was fine in 1949 (Iran scrapped the symbol after the 1980 revolution, but otherwise it would stil be a valid symbol.) Israel, of course, has tried to get the MDA accepted by the ICRC since the 1930's, when the committee did allow three symbols (although they did put in a rule disallowing any additional symbols after 1929.)

In other words, it may be nice that Israel finally is allowed to join this organization, but the bias against Israel is still clear.

Read More

Post of the morning

Dave Bender brilliantly shoots down a clueless rich rock star.

Read More

Another moronic professor

Being a professor in a California university is no longer a prestigious position - in fact, it appears to be about as related to truth and objectivity as being a propagandist in the Soviet Union.

Here is the latest example. I would say "jaw-dropping"but, alas, it is closer to typical.

On the Beach (Gaza Killing)

By Professor Ronnie D. Lipschutz

Wednesday , 21 June 2006

Bombs, rockets, and artillery shells don’t always go where you aim them or want them to go. Sometimes, however, where they go may serve a political purpose.

This past Friday, some sort of projectile went astray at a beach in Gaza, killing at eight people—six from one family—out to enjoy a day in the sun. We know who killed them; it is less clear what killed them or why. Some thought the wayward shells might have come from an Israeli gunship offshore or from an aircraft. Israeli military officials explained that the deaths were accidental—“collateral damage”— and that the wayward artillery shells were meant to deter the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel. Official sources regretted harm to any Palestinian civilians. But the damage was done. Eight people were dead and Hamas declared it would resume attacks on Israel. Perhaps this was not an accident.

One irony of this episode is that the Qassam rockets fired by Palestinians into Israel are made locally in workshops, notoriously inaccurate, short range and cause few, if any, casualties or damage. Mostly, they have nuisance value. Israel’s reaction, by contrast, is powerful and deadly. It has produced steady stream of Palestinian casualties, both “militants” in cars and houses and civilians who are merely in the way. Predictably, such killings cause resentment, anger and more rockets, all beyond the control of either President Abbas or the Hamas government. Israel can then argue that violence is all the Palestinians know and there is no one among them with whom to negotiate, even as it ensures, with its repeated attacks, that there will be no Palestinians willing to risk negotiations for fear of assassination.

Notice the date on the article - exactly one week after Israel showed voluminous and exhaustive proof that they were not responsible for the deaths, this "professor" willfully ignores that and quotes the earlier, mistaken assumption of responsibility. He adds, smugly: "We know who killed them," asserting a fact that is a lie. Then, predictably, he goes off on a wild and bizarre theory that blames Israel for all and downplays the danger from crude Kassams - merely a nuisance, that only kills a few people a year.

Ronnie D. Lipschutz is Professor of Politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, USA (rlipsch@ucsc.edu)

One of his more interesting articles calls for the "peaceful" overthrow of the US government.

UPDATE: Apparently, he wrote this article on the 14th - still after Israel showed that they were not responsible. He didn't seem to work too hard from it being republished or corrected elsewhere, though.

Read More

Just a thought

I have no evidence whatsoever for the following theory, but it sounds plausible.

Looking at the pictures of Palestinian Arabs getting their $300 from Hamas' fundraising tour:

Now, Zahar filled his suitcase with $20 million from visiting Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, China, Pakistan, Iran and Egypt. Most of these nations are not places one would expect to be flush with US currency, especially what appears to be mint-condition currency.

However, at least China is heavily suspected of being a major counterfeiter of US currency.

What are the chances that the Palestinian Arabs are being paid with bogus banknotes?

Read More

Are pro-Israel blogs effective?

Dave at Israellycool has an interesting poll that I would encourage you to answer. I wonder myself whether I have ever made anyone more pro-Israel as a result of reading this blog.

Even if I am "preaching to the choir," I think that there is at least one side-benefit of maintaining the blog, and that is that some source materials are out there on the Internet for when people are searching. Many of my "hits" are from people doing Google searches and hopefully a few more posts that are pro-Israel can affect opinions, even subliminally.

Read More

Widening the debate

Meryl Yourish points to a Jerusalem Post article about a "panel discussion" in London:

Informed, honest debate on the Middle East has been stifled because of a fear of being accused of anti-Semitism, according to the participants in a discussion hosted by the Islam Channel in central London on Thursday. The broadcaster is the largest Islamic television outlet in Europe.

The discussion, titled: "Why anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism," was filmed against a backdrop reading "Zionism: The cancer at the heart of international affairs."

The discussion was chaired by Alan Hart, a former ITN and BBC correspondent whose latest book, "Zionism: The real enemy of the Jews" was recently published. He said, "The anti-Semitism card is something the Zionists have exploited to suppress debate."

He said the mainstream media had concealed "the truth of history" out of fear of offending Jews and thanked CEO Mohammed Ali of the Islam Channel for "his courage in widening the debate."

I was always amused at the amount of projection that the terror-supporters use when they accuse Jews of doing something. Almost invariably, they are far more guilty of whatever they accuse Israel or Jews of doing than the accusees.

In this case, I would like to "widen the debate" about the Middle East as well. I'd like to see some honest, open discussion in the mainstream media about various topics that are taboo for fear of offending Muslims or Arabs:

• Why is it desirable to have a Palestinian Arab state altogether? How does it increase peace, or democracy, or world security? Answer with facts, not wild assumptions or wishful thinking.
• Why is it acceptable for Mecca and Medina to not allow any non-Muslims within? Isn't that "ethnic cleansing?"
• Can one be a believing Muslim and also not strive for a worldwide 'ummah under Sharia law?
• What percentage of ordinary Palestinian Arabs truly support a permanent, two state solution where Israel stays a Jewish state? What percentage support terror?
• What concessions have the Palestinian Arabs ever done for peace?
• Why, exactly, is it unrealistic to expect Jews to live freely in a Palestinian Arab state in the territories?
  
• Is Islam compatible with freedom and democracy?
• When the word "Jihad" is used, how do most Muslims interpret it?
• What is the real source of terrorism?

Yes, let's widen the debate. Please.

Read More

Workshops, holy rockets and MSM

From AP:

Palestinian firefighters inspect the rubble of a metal workshop after it was hit by Israeli helicopters in Gaza city, early Tuesday, June 20, 2006. Israeli helicopters fired a missile into a metal workshop in downtown Gaza City, but no wounded were reported, Palestinian official said. (AP Photo/Adel Hana)

From Petra (Jordan):

Gaza, June 20 (Petra)--Israeli aircrafts fired missiles on a metal workshop in Al Daraj neighborhood in Gaza, a Palestinian source said.

The source said that the missiles fired by Apache Helicopters destroyed the workshop and caused damage to a number of buildings.
No injuries were reported during the operation.

From the Bahrain News Agency:

Gaza, June. 20, (BNA) Israeli fighter planes conducted today an attack on a metal workshop located at Al Deraj, in Gaza's centre causing injuries to people.
Palestinian sources stated that the Israeli planes targeted the workshop using one missile which caused its destruction and which caught fire due to the attack. Material damages were also caused to neighbouring buildings by shrapnel's.

Just an innocent metal workshop, where presumably Palestinian Arabs are making souvenirs for tourists, or perhaps spare parts for their cars, right? The AP photo caption is the same as the Arab report on the missile strike - no context, just a random act of Israeli violence against some poor Palestinian Arab's livelihood.

At the end of a different AP report, there is a hint as to what could possibly been built at this workshop, but it is only a hint:

In cross-border strife, Israeli aircraft fired missiles at a metal workshop in Gaza City early Tuesday. Residents said nobody was hurt. The military said the workshop was run by Hamas.

Palestinian militants have been pelting Israel with rockets fired from Gaza, and Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz, met with angry residents of a town near Gaza that has been a frequent target, and pledged military action to put an end to the barrages.

It is unclear whether AP means to have any repationship between the two paragraphs.

Xinhua, in China, gives a tiny bit more context:

The Palestinian shelling coincided with an Israeli air raid at a metal workshop in Gaza that Israel said it was used to produce crude rockets. No injuries reported in the after midnight shelling.

Earlier, al-Nasser Saladin Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), said it had launched a holy rocket that landed near the car of Israeli President Moshe Katsav.

The only other news source I saw that actually mention context is, interestingly, credited to AP as well - but I saw it mentioned in no other story:

Israeli aircraft fired missiles at a metal workshop in Gaza City early Tuesday, residents and the Israeli military said.

The military said the workshop was run by Hamas and used to make rockets and other weapons. Residents said no one was hurt.

Maybe the reason that the wire services are so reluctant to mention that these "workshops" are meant to create terror weapons is because they could no longer refer to rockets as being "home-made." (At the moment of this writing, there are over 1300 mentions in Google News of "homemade rockets," and exactly the two mentions above saying the possibility that rockets are made in "metal workshops.")

Read More

A Christian's arguments for a Jewish state, 1946

A fantastic and very long article, from the February 22, 1946 Palestine Post, that could have been written today. It was written by Raimondo de Ovies, "Dean of Cathedral of St. Philip, Atlanta, Georgia" but I have not found out anything else about him. It is well worth reading in its entirety.

The author lays out the moral, logical, legal and historic reasons why a Jewish state should be established in Palestine, including how such a state helps the Arabs themselves. It shows how even in 1946, some of the most clearheaded and passionate Zionists were Christians.

Read More

Demographobia (Yoram Ettinger)

From YNet:

Faulty population stats are driving Ehud Olmert to give up vital assets

Prime Minister Olmert's recent state visits once again brought to the fore demographobia– the illogical fear of Palestinian demographics – as the central claim for Israel to set final borders. But this fear is fundamentally flawed.

Again and again Olmert says that giving up geography is the only way to safeguard Jewish demography. Olmert's determination to pull out of Jewish land in Judea and Samaria – he, too, says these areas have historical and security significance – does not mean he has caved in to Palestinian terror or American pressure. He proved his willingness to bow to terrorism and pressure by supporting Netanyahu in 1996 and Sharon in 2001, as well as during election campaigns for the mayoralty of Jerusalem.

No, now he's inspired to pullout because of demographics. But he's using greatly exaggerated numbers provided by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics back in 1998. Israel accepted these numbers without benefit of any demographic, media or diplomatic research into their veracity, and they have since become the cornerstone of an intense campaign that has penetrated deep in to the consciousness of Israel's policy makers and public.

The reality, of course, is a bit different that Palestinian predictions of almost a decade ago: The Central Bureau of Statistics says there has been a rise in the number of Jewish births inside the green line, from 80,400 in 1995 to 105,181 in 2005. At the same time, Palestinian births have remained relatively constant at about 40,000 over the same period, and have dropped (particularly in the Muslim community) to around 36,000 since the start of 2006.

According to research conducted by the Gallup (USA) organization in March, 2006, the gap between Jewish and Arab fertility rates has dropped quickly because young Arabs are aspiring to fewer children, and young Jews are aspiring to more. Furthermore, research shows that fertility rates in practice are beginning to reflect this trend.

There is, however, a demographic threat, but the demographic sword is not hanging over the head over a long-term Jewish majority. For example, the annual percentage of Jewish population growth is greater than Arab growth in Judea and Samaria (2.1 percent to 1.8 percent from 1997 to 2004).

Of course, Muslim fertility inside the green line has dropped from 9.23 children per woman between 1960-64 to 4.36 children per woman in 2004. In the overall Arab community there are less than four children per woman.

The momentum of Jewish fertility grows when we weigh in immigration factors (a rise in immigrants, minus for émigrés), or some 20,000 people since 2001. But the prophets of demographic doom ignore this phenomenon, choosing to base their predictions on outdated fertility statistics.

Prime Minister Olmert is convinced that time is working against us, and that Jews will soon become a minority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, he says demographic considerations take on greater significance than geographic or topographical concerns with regard to Israel's national security.

Paradoxically, Zionism pushed off demographobia when Jews were a minority of just eight percent (Theodor Herzl -1900), 33 percent (Ben-Gurion – 1947). Now that Jews have a 60 percent majority in the Land of Israel (67 percent not counting Gaza), we are caving in.

The demographic reality rebuts this demographic fatalism. It is testimony that the Zionist leaders were right in pushing to create a country despite the massive security, economic and demographic difficulties they faced at first.

Now, when the Jewish majority has reached a critical mass, and is backed up by unprecedented military, economic and technological strength, demographobia simply has no place. We certainly must not sacrifice valuable territories on a demographic altar that is flawed at the most basic level.

It is noteworthy that Muslims have vastly exaggerated their population claims consistently when it is in their interest to do so: They've claimed over 5 million Muslims in the US when in fact there are less than 2 million; they've claimed that they are the fastest growing religion in the world when in fact it appears they are losing ground to Christianity; and they routinely exaggerate the number of Palestinian Arabs worldwide as some 9.3 million, an absurd jump from the 1.35 million Palestinian Arabs in 1948 (or perhaps less than a million.) Very few people question the sources of these figures, and the Western mind tends to believe authoritative-sounding statistics.

It is in our interests to verify everything that is said and every number that is reported, because, frankly, the track record of truth is pretty poor.

Read More

Update on Gaza beach blast

A brief update:

Three (anti-Israel) British newspapers claim that the explosion happened while Israel was shelling, not after.

A German newspaper claims it has proof that the shelling was staged. It raises good questions but proving a conspiracy would need much more than questions. At the very least, the cameraman at the scene "first" has no credibility whatsoever.

History News Network has a scoop of an email from the surgeon that removed the shell fragments who positively identifies them as being from Hamas bombs.

Great blog entries from Israel Matzav and Daled Amos.

Read More

Another JBlog aggregator

Newest on the scene is JBlog Central, a promising JBlog aggregator with ratings. (As if we JBloggers weren't under enough pressure already!)

It allows readers to rate postings on a scale of 1-5. For some reason, it adds together all of those scores as well as averaging them. Averaging I understand, but the summation score just ensures that popular blogs get higher ratings. And they rank based on total score, not average.

It would be nice if they showed how many people voted for any particular article so viewers can get a level of confidence in the ratings they are seeing.

It also rewards blogs who syndicate their entire content and not just the beginning of the articles, because the page where you can rate blogs shows all the content that is syndicated. It is less likely that people will click to read the entire entry, go back to JBlog Central and then rate the article.

A corollary is that people can read the blog entries on JBlog Central and never click on the actual blog, skewing readership statistics.

And not to be nit-picky, but they need their own domain name.

The idea is very good; it is nice to surf through the JBlogosphere with a guide to quality, however flawed it might be. This is definitely worth watching, although I am frankly worried that it will affect my postings to be more oriented towards what's "popular" rather than what's on my mind.

Anyway, it is well worth checking out.
Hat tip Chaim

Read More

A note about Palestinian Arab polls

I saw once again today that Westerners are saying that Palestinian Arabs consistently show a preference for a two-state solution in their polls - one a quote from a Georgia congressman, and one from an editorial in the Hartford Courant. Since I researched a recent poll from Bir Zeit University that showed the opposite:

19. As to funding the Palestinian National Authority, which one of these two directions do you support?
1) Hamas continues to reject recognizing Israel, while reaching out to countries like Iran and the Arab world to get funding	60.8%
2) Hamas recognizes Israel and continue to receive funding from the international community	31.0%

I decided to look at other polls and see what they said.

Besides Bir Zeit, the major pollster in the territories is JMCC. Their most recent poll from February 2006 had an interesting, relevant item:

Q17. Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine cannot be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli and a Palestinian 57.9
Bi-national state on all of historic Palestine 22.3
One Palestinian state * 10.5
Islamic state * 2.7
No solution 3.9
Don't know 1.6
No answer 1.1
*These answers were not included as part of the options read to the interviewee

So while the Western media will jump on the "fact" that most Palestinian Arabs appear to support a two-state solution, the poll didn't even ask about whether they would prefer a single Arab or Islamic-only state! And 13% of those polled felt strongly enough about that being the solution that they expressed their opinion without it being one of the choices!

In other words - Palestinian Arab opinion polls don't even ask the right question. Given a choice of an Arab-only state side-by-side with Israel or a state where they have to live with Jews as equals, they would rather be separated from the Jews. But how many would choose that option rather than having a single Palestinian Arab state that replaces Israel?

Given the indoctrination that Palestinian Arabs have received since birth, of a map of "Palestine" that stretches from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, it seems that the polls that Westerners like to quote are seriously flawed at best.

The other relevant question is - why didin't the JMCC include these other options in their polls? This is not the first time that they asked that question. Their May, 2005 poll also showed that some 11% of Palestinian Arabs answered that identical question saying that they preferred an Arab or Islamic-only state without it being one of the choices given. It could be that they want to keep the poll questions consistent so they could do accurate trending, or it could be that they don't want the world to know the real answer.

Also relevant is how the Palestinian Arab public looks at negotiation with Israel. Consistently they will say that they favor negotiations. This appears superficially to be a good thing. But look again at how questions can be phrased:

Q15. Some believe that the negotiations are the best path to achieve our national goals, whereas others believe that the armed struggle is the best way to do so. Which option is the closest to your opinion?
Through Negotiations 38.8
Through armed struggle 17.9
Through negotiations and armed struggle 40.3

So how do Palestinian Arabs view negotiations? Not surprisingly, they regard negotiations as a tactic to get their state, not as a means to give any concessions. A plurality view negotiations as a parallel track to terror, not a replacement for it. And why not? Historically, negotiations have netted them much from Israel without them having to give up anything concrete.

But you will be hard pressed to find a Western commenter look at these numbers and conclude that a majority of Palestinian Arabs want to continue terror to acheive their "national goals" (a number that, when the question was stated a different way, showed 96% want to continue terror attacks.)

Either way, to say that Palestinian Arabs consistently want a peaceful solution to their conflict with Israel and a two-state solution living in peace is not at all borne out by any poll I have yet seen, when one actually looks at the real numbers and not at the press release that accompanies the poll results.

Read More

Abbas and Peres in dreamland

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas vowed to continue a 16-month-old cease-fire with Israel - denying Hamas ever broke it, after meeting Saturday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Abbas said the militant group Hamas, which holds a majority in the Palestinian parliament, had not discarded the truce in the past week.

“Hamas did not break the truce, although some violations have happened, due to the killing of the family (on a Gaza beach on June 9),” he told reporters.

The Palestinian leader vowed to uphold the cease-fire “in order to have people living in peace”.

Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Saturday that Israel and the Palestinians were closer to peace than they’ve been in past 50 years.

“The distance between us is the shortest it’s been for the last 50 years,” Peres said at one-day security summit in the Central Asian nation of Kazakhstan. “The distance is very short, but the speed is very slow.”

Two men whose careers are heavily invested in the illusion that they have actually made a difference towards peace during their tenures, steadfastly holding on to their fantasies. Hamas of course made it clear that they are not interested in a cease fire.

Meanwhile, Peres' fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate was proven to have ordered the kidnap and assassination of American diplomats in 1973 in newly released State Department documents. The power of wishful thinking is amazing indeed, and the ability of otherwise intelligent people to overlook the obvious in order to advance their agendas based on that same wishful thinking is even more amazing.

Read More

How enlightened Iranians treat women's rights protesters

Activists and police at the June 12 protest

(kosoof.com)

PRAGUE, June 13, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- Iranian police violently dispersed a women's rights gathering in one of Tehran's main squares on June 12.

Activists said afterward that police forces detained more than 50 people shortly after the gathering started. One former reformist legislator, several students, and women's rights activists are reportedly among the detainees. Several activists were arrested and summoned to court ahead of the announced gathering.

Activists say several hundred demonstrators of both genders attended the peaceful gathering, which was held to protest legal obstacles for women.

They were planning to remain in front of a nearby park for one hour and voice their objections to discriminatory laws.

According to the interpretation of Islamic laws applied in Iran, a woman's testimony in court is worth half of a man's. Women's divorce rights are negligible compared with those for men. And women need the permission of their father or husband to travel.

Activists planned to call for equal legal rights in marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, and other areas.

They also said that they would read aloud a statement claiming that despite efforts to achieve equal status, women's most basic rights "have been ignored in the Iranian civil and penal codes.”

Authorities Were Prepared

But shortly after the gathering started, participants faced tough action by police forces, who dispersed the gathering within about an hour.

Keyvan Rafi, the spokesman of a newly founded group that calls itself Human Rights Activists In Iran, told RFE/RL that police and security forces outnumbered protesters.

He said they resorted to force to crush the protest.

"[Police] forces -- especially armed female officers with batons -- suppressed the protest," Rafi said. "Between 70 and 80 people were arrested -- former MP Mussavi Khoinia, women's rights activist from Amir Kabir University Leila Mohseninejad, and also members of Daftare Tahkim Vahdat [major reformist student organizations] are among those arrested -- in addition to many women whose name we have not been able to obtain yet."

Despite the clashes, some protesters managed to chant slogans urging that laws against women be abolished.

Some bloggers claiming to have witnessed the scene accused authorities of dragging women on the ground by their hair and savagely beating others. They say pepper gas was used against the activists.

Read More

Why the long face?

I've been noticing a large number of pictures in the newswires of mourning Palestinian Arab women, such as these:



I was wondering - how come we'd seen so many relatives of past martyrs happy and handing out sweets, celebrating the entry to paradise of their terrorist kin, and now they are so sad? After all - they are certainly martyrs, they were trying to kill their enemies when they died, and they are certainly screwing lots of virgins right around now. What is different?

Then it hit me...

The suicide bombers that were celebrated in the past managed to kill some Jews while dying. The celebrations aren't for dying - they are for successful murder!

Read More