The New Racial Mess

America has largely moved beyond race. Tragically, our president has not.

Via-NRO

Victor Davis Hanson

Weren’t we supposed to enter a new age of tolerance with the election of Pres. Barack Obama?

His half-black, half-white ancestry and broad support across racial lines suggested that at last Americans judged each other on the content of our characters — not the color of our skin or our tribal affiliations.

Instead, in just 18 months of the Obama administration, racial discord is growing and relations seem to have been set back a generation.

Black voters are galvanizing behind Obama at a time of rapidly falling support. White independents, in contrast, are leaving Obama in droves.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has claimed that the loosely organized tea parties include “racist elements.” The National Council of La Raza has ripped the state of Arizona for its new anti–illegal alien legislation. Jesse Jackson characterized aspects of the multi-million-dollar bidding war to acquire basketball superstar LeBron James in terms of masters and slaves. Pundits are arguing whether the extremist, racist New Black Panther Party is analogous to the Klan.

In turn, a number of Americans want to know why — nearly a half-century after the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, and Great Society programs — some national lobbying organizations still identify themselves by archaic tribal terms such as “colored people” or “La Raza” (“the race”) when it would be taboo for other groups to adopt such racial nomenclature.

Indeed, race seems to be the subtext of almost every contemporary issue, from the soaring deficit and government spending to recent presidential appointments and the enforcement of existing immigration law. In times of growing deficits, white people are stereotyped as being angry over supposedly paying higher taxes to subsidize minorities, while minorities are stereotyped as being mostly on the receiving end of entitlements.

Why the escalation of racial tension in the supposedly post-racial age of Obama?

First, Obama’s reputation as a racial healer was largely the creation of the media. In fact, the Obama campaign had a number of racially polarizing incidents that probably would have disqualified any other presidential candidate of the past 30 years.

His two-decade apprenticeship at Trinity United Church of Christ under the racist and anti-Semitic Rev. Jeremiah Wright has never been adequately explained. Obama indulged in racial stereotyping himself when he wrote off the white lower-middle class of Pennsylvania as clueless zealots clinging to their guns, religion, and xenophobia.

Obama also characterized his grandmother as a “typical white person” when he implied that her supposed fear of young black males symbolizes the prejudices of the entire white community. Michelle Obama did not help things when, in clumsy fashion, she indicted America as “just downright mean” — a nation she had not been proud of in her adult life until it embraced the hope and change represented by her husband’s candidacy.

Such campaign trash talk did not stop during the first 18 months of the Obama presidency. The race-baiting Van Jones — the short-lived presidential adviser on “green jobs” — should never have been appointed. Then, the president himself criticized Cambridge, Mass., police for acting “stupidly” when they arrested his friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.

Then there was the outburst of Attorney General Eric Holder, who blasted America as “a nation of cowards” for not talking more about race on his terms. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was almost obsessive in referring to herself as a “Latina.” She also suggested that her racial background and experiences made her “wise” in a way white male colleagues could never be.

Recently, Obama appealed to voters along exclusionary race and gender lines — not traditional political allegiances — when he called upon “the young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women, who powered our victory in 2008.”

Yet the country passed the old white/black divide years ago. We are a racially diverse society of Asians, blacks, Hispanics, whites, and mixtures of all that and more. In a world of conservative Cubans and liberal whites, race is no longer necessarily a guide to politics.

Who now, exactly, is the racial “Other” deserving of special consideration in hiring and education? A half-Punjabi immigrant whose father owns 500 acres? A three-quarters Puerto Rican who just arrived in New York? A Korean-American son of an orthodontist? The African-American children of a Cabinet official?

The more the president appeals to his base in racial terms, the more his appointees identify themselves as members of a particular tribe, and the more political issues are framed by racial divisions, so all the more such racial obsession creates a backlash among the racially diverse American people.

America has largely moved beyond race. Tragically, our president and a host of his supportive special interests have not.

The Hamas 'Peace' Gambit

Via-RCP
"Apart from the time restriction (a truce that lapses after 10 years) and the refusal to accept Israel's existence, Mr. Meshal's terms approximate the Arab League peace plan ... "-- Hamas peace plan, as explained by The New York Times

"Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"-- Tom Lehrer, satirist

WASHINGTON -- The Times conducted a five-hour interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal at his Damascus headquarters. Mirabile dictu, they're offering a peace plan with a two-state solution. Except. The offer is not a peace but a truce that expires after 10 years. Meaning that after Israel has fatally weakened itself by settling millions of hostile Arab refugees in its midst, and after a decade of Hamas arming itself within a Palestinian state that narrows Israel to eight miles wide -- Hamas restarts the war against a country it remains pledged to eradicate.

There is a phrase for such a peace: the peace of the grave.

Westerners may be stupid, but Hamas is not. It sees the new American administration making overtures to Iran and Syria. It sees Europe, led by Britain, beginning to accept Hezbollah. It sees itself as next in line. And it knows what to do. Yasser Arafat wrote the playbook.

With the 1993 Oslo accords, he showed what can be achieved with a fake peace treaty with Israel -- universal diplomatic recognition, billions of dollars of aid, and control of Gaza and the West Bank, which Arafat turned into an armed camp. In return for a signature, he created in the Palestinian territories the capacity to carry on the war against Israel that the Arab states had begun in 1948 but had given up after the bloody hell of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Meshal sees the opportunity. Not only is the Obama administration reaching out to its erstwhile enemies in the region, but it begins its term by wagging an angry finger at Israel over the Netanyahu government's ostensible refusal to accept a two-state solution.

Of all the phony fights to pick with Israel. No Israeli government would turn down a two-state solution in which the Palestinians accepted territorial compromise and genuine peace with a Jewish state. (And any government that did would be voted out in a day.) Netanyahu's own defense minister, Ehud Barak, offered precisely such a deal in 2000. He even offered to divide Jerusalem and expel every Jew from every settlement remaining in the new Palestine.

The Palestinian response (for those who have forgotten) was: No. And no counteroffer. Instead, nine weeks later, Arafat unleashed a savage terror war that killed 1,000 Israelis.

Netanyahu is reluctant to agree to a Palestinian state before he knows what kind of state it will be. That elementary prudence should be shared by anyone who's been sentient the last three years. The Palestinians already have a state, an independent territory with not an Israeli settler or soldier living on it. It's called Gaza. And what is it? A terror base, Islamist in nature, Iranian-allied, militant and aggressive, that has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians.

If this is what a West Bank state is going to be, it would be madness for Israel or America or Jordan or Egypt or any other moderate Arab country to accept such a two-state solution. Which is why Netanyahu insists that the Palestinian Authority first build institutions -- social, economic and military -- to anchor a state that could actually carry out its responsibilities to keep the peace.

Apart from being reasonable, Netanyahu's two-state skepticism is beside the point. His predecessor, Ehud Olmert, worshiped at the shrine of a two-state solution. He made endless offers of a two-state peace to the Palestinian Authority -- and got nowhere.

Why? Because the Palestinians -- going back to the U.N. partition resolution of 1947 -- have never accepted the idea of living side by side with a Jewish state. Those like Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who might want to entertain such a solution, have no authority to do it. And those like Hamas' Meshal, who have authority, have no intention of ever doing it.

Meshal's gambit to dress up perpetual war as a two-state peace is yet another iteration of the Palestinian rejectionist tragedy. In its previous incarnation, Arafat lulled Israel and the Clinton administration with talk of peace while he methodically prepared his people for war.

Arafat waited seven years to tear up his phony peace. Meshal's innovation? Ten -- then blood.



More...

More...

Complete Original Article

Why doesn't anybody dare say it? Israel Didn't Leave, It Lost

The first rule of pride is this: When they run you out of town, walk like you're leading the parade.

I'll give Israel this: When international pressure got to be too much, Israel left Gaza as if it was Israel's bright idea, "a unilateral ceasefire."

In truth, Israel surrendered. It is "surrender" if you leave with Hamas rockets still flying into Israel, and with Gilad Shalit remaining in his private Auschwitz. Imagine how Shalit was tortured these past three weeks. Imagine being his parents. If this Gaza operation even resembled a success, Israel could have said, OK Hamas, we'll stop devastating your neighborhoods and killing your so-called civilians in exchange for two things: The rockets have to stop, and Shalit comes home.

What we see is that Hamas wasn't all that devastated; if they were, they'd have taken the deal.

Instead, Israel quit, like Roberto Duran not coming out for the next round, "no mas," throwing in the towel.

We know that Israel lost because Hamas set the terms: The rockets do not stop; Shalit stays where he is.

What would we be saying about Roosevelt and Churchill if they settled for a cease fire on Jan. 18, 1945, with the excuse that, hey, Hitler's supply lines have been damaged, but yes, he can still bomb London, and yes, the Jews are still in the camps. Even if it's only one Jew. More...

This war was supposed to re-establish Israel's deterrence. That was supposed to be the lesson. Instead, the lesson is that Israel quits before the rockets do.

Israel has established in Gaza exactly what it established in the Hezbollah war: That Israel can go three weeks and only three weeks, and then Israel looks at its watch (or at the European Union's watch) and goes home, job incomplete.

Hamas, like Hezbollah, is an Iranian satellite, a stand-in. This, like the 2006 war, is a harbinger of a worse war to come.

What if Iran is prepared to fight for four weeks? Is Israel prepared to go four? If Israel is so flustered by charges that it killed a stray civilian, be prepared that when Israel fights Iran we'll be told that every Israeli bomb falling on Iran is landing on nothing and no one but women and children, innocent babies and maternity wards. If Israel attacks Iran, you can bet that Iran's nuclear operation will suddenly be declared "peaceful," generating only nuclear energy to help Iranian orphans and United Nations relief facilities. The so-called "international community" will then help rebuild Iran's peaceful nuclear facility and they'll call it humanitarian aid. Israel will then send Iran medical supplies and halvah. With that scenario, already played out by Israel with Hamas, I don't see how Iran is deterred at all.

Israel should not be answering those who accuse Israel of war crimes by begging the cynics to believe that "we love life." That's embarrassing. It sounds like Mister Rogers.

If cynics accuse Jews of deliberately targeting civilians, don't answer like that doomed drama queen in "A Streetcar Named Desire," Blanche DuBoise: "Deliberate cruelty is unforgivable, and the one thing of which I have never, ever been guilty of."

Jews should be very, very worried when their leaders sound exactly like Blanche DuBoise.

Instead, Jews should answer that the premise of war is that cruelty is indeed forgivable, some things are worth dying for; better yet, some things are worth YOU dying for — you, Hamas. Disproportionate? As Gen. Patton said, the purpose of war is not to die for your country, it's to make the other son of a bitch die for his country. And that's what Israel did, making Hamas killers and their civilian supporters die in a war that Hamas started and Israel should have finished.

"A Streetcar Named Desire"? Better another Brando movie, "The Godfather." When charged with war crimes, Jews should answer unemotionally, but with total confidence, like Don Corleone: "I don't apologize for taking care of my family."

Israel had no business fighting this war in the first place, and risking the lives of Jewish soldiers, if Israel had no intention of going the distance. Why did any Israeli soldier have to die, leaving family, friends and lovers to mourn for the next 60 years? To set Hamas back six weeks? Israel didn't set Hamas back six hours. Rockets were flying the day that Israel left Gaza.

And Israel continues to send "humanitarian aid" into Gaza, aid that Israel admits is being hijacked by Hamas. What parent would give their child's kidnappers "humanitarian aid" without even demanding a phone call, a chance to hear their son's voice, even a Red Cross visit to the kidnapped child? No, Israel is facilitating the flow of food, cash and supplies to Shalit's kidnappers in exchange for nothing.

And if, G-d forbid, Shalit is already dead, then Israel ought to withhold aid to Hamas at least until Shalit gets a decent burial, if not long after, if Israel has any dignity left. There have been over two dozen instances in recent years in which the Palestinian Authority has suspended talks with Israel to protest one Israeli policy or another but Israel won't suspend the sending of tons of supplies to Hamas to protest the torture and imprisonment of Shalit that is in total violation of the supposedly sacred Geneva guidelines for a prisoner of war.

That's right, the very same Geneva guidelines for p.o.w.'s that so inflamed politicians, academics, clergy, editors and, ethicists from around the world to demand that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo be closed, and that its Al Qeda prisoners not be "tortured," have never sparked a similar international campaign to close the Hamas dungeon where Shalit is tortured, a dungeon where war crimes are never tabulated. Odd, how concern for Shalit eludes the humanitarians. Pity him in his lonely war, the last Jewish soldier in Gaza.

In the end, like all Israeli wars, these past weeks were somehow inspirational if only for the courage and holiness of the soldiers. They are the best of us, and "us" is the key word. The goodness and passion of young Israelis — who were winning this war but who will suffer its consequences — may not deter Iran but it's a reason to believe, and to fall in love with the Jewish people, all over again.
Complete Original Article

The only thing Hamas likes better than dead Israelis is dead Palestinians

Reaffirming the Right of Israel to Exist

A detailed reminder to the next leader of the free world

What the world cannot remember the Israelis cannot forget. The Israelis know the Jewish nation has been one defeat away from extinction for 70 years. They know that every partition plan in the region, from the dawn of Zionism to the present day, has failed because of the Arab failure to accept the State of Israel. They know that the Palestinian leadership is virtually hopeless, wherein the people who are moderate are not effective and the people who are effective are not moderate.More...

Today the impossible Yasser Arafat has been replaced by the impotent Mahmoud Abbas. It was Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, who presided over the division of the Palestinians into Fatah and Hamas. Hamas doesn't want peace, and Fatah can't deliver it. Fatah is so weak that it cannot enforce the rule of law against terrorism or make compromises for fear of the radical Islamists. Indeed, without the support of the Israeli Defense Forces, even now it is under threat of being displaced by Hamas. Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a major Hamas leader, underlined Fatah's weakness when he said, "Fatah can't stop us from seizing control of those [West Bank] territories. It is only a matter of time."

Israel is so small it has no margin for error. A Hamas takeover of the West Bank would put Ben-Gurion Airport and major cities like Tel Aviv in the firing line, which would render Israel virtually uninhabitable. This is not guesswork. When Israel left the West Bank, it became a base for suicide bombers, ultimately forcing the Israelis to go back at great cost. They've since built a security fence, but a fence will not protect people from rockets. The rockets and mortars launched against Israel from Gaza have gained greater lethality, accuracy, and range, going from 20 kilometers before the truce to 40 after. And without the current operation, it is estimated that within two to three months new rockets supplied to Hamas by Iran and assembled in Gaza would have been able to hit Tel Aviv. One of them just reached the outskirts.

Acceptable response. Over 20 percent of the Israelis were vulnerable even before Tel Aviv came within range. No government could ignore these threats to its people. Yet Israel's belated response has been challenged as "disproportionate". This is ridiculous. In the first place, it was Hamas's intention that at least thousands of Israelis would die from its 7,000 rockets. Would it fit the doctrine of proportionality if Israel were to respond with 7,000 missiles against Gaza civilians? Or must it wait until the number of dead is piled high enough to justify a "proportioned" response. And what of the emotional trauma inflicted on the living? Men, women, and children have 15 seconds to reach a bunker, which they must do several times a day. They must live with the constant fear of death and maiming.

Would America sit back if, over three years, 7,000 rockets and missiles were launched at our citizens from Mexico or Canada? We would attack these missile sites and wipe them out. End of story. The "disproportionate" criticism is a cop-out. Hamas sought this battle. It was Hamas that broke the six-month truce organized by Egypt. Both Fatah and Egypt urged its continuance; the current violence would have been avoided, as Abbas stated, had Hamas not fired its missiles.

Tony Blair, now the special envoy of the Mideast quartet, concedes he understands the consequences now more than when he was prime minister of Britain: "I would hesitate to cede the West Bank to the Palestinians after the nightmare Israel has faced since the Gaza withdrawal." He recognizes that Hamas has sabotaged years of negotiation. "Land for peace," he warns, "is in itself not sufficient. Not less important is the character of the Palestinian state."

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya has made it clear what kind of state his Palestine would be. Hamas seeks nothing less than an Islamic state as its covenant describes: "To raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." To that end, Hamas has turned Gaza into a home for every brand of radical Islamist engaged in a holy war that sanctifies bloodshed, glorifies murder, and educates children to die as shahids —martyrs. There was to be no Israel alongside a Palestinian state. Over and over again Haniya has said that Hamas will never recognize Israel nor honor any of the existing agreements with the infidels. Its founder, Abdul Aziz Rantizi, is explicit: "We will not leave one Jew in Palestine."

To achieve the extermination of Israel, Hamas is ready to sacrifice its followers: "We are not," says Haniya, "seekers of office but seekers of martyrdom." The Palestinian people are like the prisoners in a hijacked plane: hostage to the death cult of radical Islamists. Hamas calculates that no state can tolerate its citizens being vulnerable day after day to the russian roulette of rocket fire that hits children, kindergartens, playgrounds, and hospitals. The attacks are designed to provoke Israel while its perpetrators hide behind their own civilians and keep women and children in their forces. They keep TV cameras at the ready to transmit every image of dead Palestinians, especially children. Except for dead Israelis, there is nothing Hamas leaders like better than dead Palestinians, given the global media's appetite for pictures—all to damage the image of Israel. Who else but Hamas leaders would put their headquarters in a hospital or move about in the street only when they are surrounded by children or carry them in their arms because they reckon this will protect them from the more scrupulous Israelis?

They are abetted in this cynical game by the United Nations World Relief Association headquartered in Gaza, headed by and staffed by Palestinians. U.N. schools in Gaza have long ago stopped being just schools where children are taught. They are places of refuge for Hamas terrorists—and points of provocation. There is video footage of terrorists firing mortar rounds from the U.N. school and then running so that others might pay the price for their deadly work. Haniya and other Hamas leaders openly boast about the effectiveness of their human shield tactics, yet it is Israel that gets blamed when some of them die.

Israeli aid. The hypocrisy of it all is manifest on the issue of humanitarian aid. Who else but Israel would suspend the war effort for three hours every couple of days to aid in the provision of humanitarian assistance? Could you imagine England doing something like that when it was being bombarded by Hitler's V-2 rockets during WWII? Israel delivers to Gaza about 2,500 tons a day of food and fuel and other vital supplies. Hamas repeatedly attacks this mercy operation. Last May I visited the border and saw firsthand the result of these attacks on Israelis whose sole purpose for being there was to place bales of humanitarian aid on big flat-bed trucks, drive them through the crossings, deposit them 150 yards on the other side, and return. A week earlier, suicide terrorists exploded bomb-laden cars adjacent to one of the crossings.

The unthinking street crowds in European capitals with their Hamas flags don't give Israel credit for these humanitarian efforts nor its strenuous efforts to avoid civilian casualties: Leaflets are dropped and warnings phoned, even though this will alert the terrorists to escape. The protesters give Hamas a free pass for murder.

How rare it is for the truth to penetrate the moral fog! The Czech foreign minister, Karel-Schwarzenberg, now the president of the European Union, asks a good question. Given that Hamas "deliberately puts its military targets in civilian centers," he asks, "why am I one of the few that have expressed understanding for Israel? I enjoy the luxury of being able to tell the truth."

President Bush has the clearest perception of what is at stake. At Israel's 60th anniversary he said: "Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong because the United States of America stands with you." Alas, this pledge was shamefully compromised by one member of that audience, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. When it came to a vote at the U.N., the United States abstained. But for some reason best known to her, she drafted and urged the U.N. into supporting a resolution that called for a cease-fire without the protections of prior agreements, or the cessation of rocket attacks, or the prevention of Hamas rearming itself. In short, she was behind a resolution guaranteeing a continuance of the terrorism.

Any cease-fire must include cast-iron guarantees. They must decisively end the smuggling of arms, largely through the tunnels from Egypt. They must ensure that the firing of rockets will stop—not just for now but for good. That means the guarantees must leave open not the remotest chance that Hamas can be rearmed. Otherwise, as the National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley put it, the cease-fire would be "a prescription for the resumption of hostilities at some point in the future."

Hamas, in short, must be made to fail and be seen to fail. Israel is not trying to take over Gaza; it is trying to protect itself from Gaza. It is trying to preserve the possibility of a Mideast peace process. If the international community will not permit Israel to respond to ceaseless terrorism launched from land from which Israel has withdrawn, it ends any hopes for a two-state solution. What incentive would Israel have to withdraw from the West Bank were it to become a launching pad for terrorism? Hamas will fight tooth and nail to retain this terrorist option. That is why it must be defanged.

The Middle East conflict must also be framed on a bigger canvas. It is not just about creating a Palestinian state. It is also about preventing the region's takeover by radical Islam, especially Iran, which has co-opted Hamas and Hezbollah. If Hamas is successful in manipulating world opinion to impose a premature cease-fire, it will proclaim victory and continue its murderous ways. Iran and the radical Islamists are out to destroy Western interests in the Middle East—and to replace Arab regimes with radical Islamic states, Iranian-style.

On a visit to Sderot, President-elect Barack Obama said, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I am going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same." As president, he should continue speaking truth to terror.

Complete Original Article

Gaza Children Sacrificed to a Malevolent God

Hamas manipulated the deaths of their own offspring to appease the ravenous media.

Thousands of years ago, in the Middle East, cradle not just of civilization but of many gods, was a deity named Moloch. Today, he would be considered a pagan god by those of the one God of Abraham, with whom he long coexisted. But in that time, he prevailed for centuries. Like the God of Abraham, he was an angry god (though not clearly a jealous one). But the God of Abraham was more complex, and — at least later — merciful, and also loving.*

Moloch was a lot simpler. He was purely malevolent, and basically an extortionist — one that any modern gangster would recognize and admire.

More...

His deal was basically this: “I am the bringer of the sun. Nice little city you have here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it, like the crops dying because the sun didn’t show up. I can make sure that doesn’t happen. I don’t ask much — a temple with priests and ritual prostitutes, and an occasional sacrifice.”

His representative in the temple was an upright bull with horns and crown, gaping mouth, and outstretched arms. On sacrifice days, within him raged a fire.

The crowds would gather around and chant, and the drums would beat, and the ungodly din would drown out the screams of unknowing infant terror and keening mothers. Babies were brought up to the arms of Moloch, and through an ancient ingenious mechanism, raised up to his mouth to cruelly plummet them to the inferno below.

And to reinforce the tradition, the sun continued to shine.

But eventually, the God of Abraham became dominant in the Middle East, with three major religions worshiping him. Moloch was abandoned.

Fast forward to the early twenty-first century in the Middle East. There is a new child-sacrifice cult in the ancient land, albeit one that claims to be of the God of Abraham.

This time, the purpose of the sacrifice is not to keep the sun shining and the crops growing. This sacrifice is to placate the gods, or devils, in the news media and to help the people achieve a much different and less laudable goal — the extinction of another people.

In 2009, in the “Gaza strip,” one of the ancient Philistine cities, an Islamic group called Hamas has the goal to, as part of its charter, destroy all Jews in creation.

It lacks the military resources or competence to do so for now, but it satisfies itself with merely attempting, however ineffectually, to kill whatever Jews lie within the range of its unguided rockets. While few of them hit their marks (which, were they to satisfy their wont, would apparently be kindergartens and ice-cream parlors, or wherever young Jews would most likely be present in the highest density), they are of sufficient danger to continually disrupt the lives of those at whom they are aimed, if such a word can be applied to so crude a weapon.

But the crudity of the munitions is beside the point, isn’t it? What is important is the intent.

Hamas wants Jewish children to die. The Jews want their children to live. Beyond that, the Jews even want the children of Hamas to live. This is evidenced not just by the pains and risk to their own troops they take to carefully target those trying to kill them, and to minimize (though they cannot be eliminated, for reasons explained shortly) the number of Hamas children hurt, to the point of issuing warnings when they will be attacking their parents thus decreasing the probability of killing the actual enemy. It is also demonstrated by their willingness to take the wounded into their own hospitals for treatment when permissible.

But herein lies the real asymmetry between the two sides. Hamas doesn’t merely want to kill the Jewish children (though of course they do want to kill them, for no other reason than that they are Jews, in accordance with their diabolical charter). They are also willing and eager to sacrifice their own.

How?

In any way imaginable. They set up rocket-launching bases in schools, which will become targets for retaliation. They establish military quarters in family homes, where children can be counted on to be present. They even go so far as to establish military headquarters in the basement of Gaza’s largest hospital, which will ensure that if they are attacked, not just children, but sick and injured children, as well as sick and injured adults and their caregivers, will be maimed or killed.

And they do not do this simply to protect themselves by using the young, sick, and otherwise helpless as human shields, though that would be bad enough and is a major war crime in and of itself. But apparently, it is a war crime that the media dare not say its name.

No, they do it in the hope that those young — down to the babies, sick and, helpless — will in fact be killed so that they can be paraded before their allies, witting or otherwise, in the western media, to aid them in their goal of at least temporarily ending the Jewish defensive onslaught upon them. This is all done in the hope that that their enemy will, once again, be politically defanged, and that once again, it will buy them time to rearm, with better weaponry, and take up again their ultimate genocidal cause.

That they are not merely cowards, hiding behind infants’ diapers, but rather actually desirous of the death of their own offspring is revealed by their own words of indoctrination, in which they encourage their own children to become martyrs to their evil cause. As further evidence that death is the intent, news stories are offered by them to show the deaths, even when they didn’t necessarily happen.

Moloch has returned to the Mideast, after millennia. Except this time, the maw of the bull is the eye of the camera lens, into which the slaughter of the innocents is fed to a complicit press to be passed on to a gullible world.

And this time, those sacrificing the children don’t want to drown out the noise of the terrified screams of those tossed to the fire. The screams, and (as always) the terror, are the whole point.

But at the rate things are going, perhaps the media’s sun, unlike Moloch’s, may start to dim. If so, and if this behavior continues, those of us less morally challenged will not fear the eclipse, but rather, will welcome it.

* Yes, no need to comment. I know about the sacrifice of Abraham. Please…

Complete Original Article

Middle East Delusions Part One

or why Tel Aviv is like Las Angeles

I was reading a couple of article recently and it suddenly occurred to me how out of touch we American's are from reality in some respects. All the articles were about various Mid East situations and two of the articles were from Mid East media outlets. Before I comment on the stories, I think it might be wise to very briefly review what, if anything, America stands for at its core. Don't worry this will only take a second.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

At least I hope those words are still the core of what America is or strives to be, lately I have my concerns.

Of the articles I read the first group are really just a propaganda pieces which is instructive only to the degree that it illustrates the popular view or at least the one portrayed in the Mid East of the ongoing Palestinian-Israel issue. But first let me quote from the same outlet Middle East On Line on something that was in the news regularly until the recent conflict erupted, the headline reads:

Piracy in the Red Sea: Saudi points towards Israel

Just the headline tells the story now don't it? I have long felt that Israel surely must be behind the Somalia pirates, how about you? They after all have the capability, everyone remembers the Rescue at Entebe don't they? The IDF forces sweeping into Uganda to save their citizens from what we used to call terrorist, back when Israel was the victim instead of the terrorist themselves. The question of course is why would Israel get into international piracy with Muslim bandits? Well you can read the article but here is the highlight.

“These acts triggered statements on the internationalization of the Red Sea, in which the enemy state of Israel would be a crucial element,” he adds.

“Who has got an interest in such an internationalization?” Asks the analyst, echoing “another disturbing development represented by the decision of a shipping company (AP Moller-Maersk, the world’s largest container ship operator and supply vessel operator) to divert its huge merchant fleet from Suez Canal and take the route via the Cape of Good Hope.”

“Who has got an interest in putting pressure on Egypt, by diverting cargo ships of Suez Canal and by making Egypt lose daily income of over $15 million?” the analysts asks again.

Just so we know who has such interest, they tell us later on

“The aims of the Zionist enemy in the Red Sea have never ceased,” wrote the Islamist cleric on his website, illustrating his long article with a quote by a former commander of the Israeli navy regarding “a diabolical plan” which aims to “transform the Red Sea into a Jewish lake.”

Of course this is all coached in the context of quoting various scholars and clerics but the point is made that it is probably Israel behind the pirates.

Now to more recent events of course staring with images such as this



and headlines like this Gaza babies at risk of hypothermia


and commentary like this

But Hamas - before the Israeli ground offensive - had already accepted more than once EU proposals for ceasefire. It was always Israel who refused a truce.

The Israeli offensive has sparked spiralling anger in the world and protests across the globe.

or this

and this

"The Israeli army will use stronger force against Hamas," said one Israeli propaganda message received early on Monday.

Another Israeli propaganda message sent was "Hamas's leadership is bringing you destruction."

For most of the population, it was another night of looking for any place that might be able to resist an Israeli shell.

"Our life is filled with fear," said Abdelrahim Malaka, a resident of the surrounded city. "We call on the world to have mercy on us and save us from the Israeli war. What did the children do wrong to have their houses bombed?"

Obviously the children in Gaza did nothing to deserve their houses being bombed, anymore than Israel children deserve the constant fear of Hamas rockets fired at them from Gaza, which is the catalyst for the entire Israeli response.

All of this is very sad to be sure, but ask yourself a very simple question, why would Israel just invade the Gaza strip which they unilaterally turned over to the Palestinians just 4 years ago? They obviously don't want it, otherwise they would not have given it up in the false hope that it would achieve peace.

The truth is that Israel is attempting to protect itself against an organization, Hamas, who does not recognize Israel's right to exist and has sworn to wipe it from the face of the earth. Now the people in Gaza, not all but a majority, voted that Hamas represent them. So Israel lives side by side with an enemy that does not recognize its right to exist and has vowed to wipe it from the face of the earth, great neighborhood.

What most people do not know, because most people base their opinions on feelings rather than knowledge, is that when Israel was formed by the United Nations, ironic isn't it?. The plan was for there to be two nations, one for Palestinians and one for Jews. The Palestinians at the insistence of their Arab brethren rejected this with the understanding that the Arab nations would wipe out Israel and give all the land to the Palestinians. Of course we know that they have tried several times but failed and Israel is still there.

For there to be a resolution, there are only two possibilities. The first solution is if Palestinians and the Muslim nations which do not recognize Israel came to accept Israel as a sovereign nation and the original two nation concept be implemented. The second solution or more ominously the final solution, would be the destruction of Israel and the formation of a single Palestinian State. Really that is it, there must be an Israel, a Palestine or both and the both is the only one that has a diplomatic solution, the others require an almost total destruction of a peoples.

Some people reading this may think, mistakenly, that there was once a nation called Palestine with a functioning government run by Palestinians which was taken over by the Jews to create Israel. As I said, this is a mistake, no such place ever existed. It can be argued and constantly is who has a better claim to the land which is now the country of Israel. Both sides make very good arguments and depending on your prejudices a person could be persuaded either way.

But the fact is there currently exist a thriving democracy with a vibrant society, well established institutions based on one of the oldest traditions and religions in the world currently established there. And as we all know, possession is nine tenths of the law.

Some may find this unfair, but historically it is not the least bit unfair. As a matter of fact historically speaking Israel is one of the fairest and legally justifiable countries ever created. After all it was created by the United Nations, the world so to speak willed Israel into existence. Now you may argue that the United States excerpted undo influence into this decision, I believe if you study the issue there was a pretty broad consensus but regardless compared to how most countries came to be it was pretty fair.

After all what do you expect, the Israel nation after 60 years of struggle to suddenly turn over their country to Palestinians? If you believe that is fair, then to be even more righteous perhaps the United States should give California back to Mexico, after all nobody voted on that little transaction we took it along with Arizona, Nevada, Utah and parts of Colorado and New Mexico. Perhaps if we dig through history and start evening the scores we could come up with a completely new globe. Actually most of the countries in the Middle East are actually 20Th Century creations, Iraq for example is not 30 years older than Israel.

As I said there really are only two possibilities here, the Palestinians accept Israel and a country of their own, or they continue to try to destroy Israel with ever decreasing support from their Arab brethren who got them into the mess to begin with. As for Israel, they have every right to exist and every right to defend themselves from neighbors who are bent on killing them. Now why can't we all just get along.

(to be continued) Part 2 - How stoning and acid make for good public relations.

More...

*Obama's Opportunity ?

I have no way of knowing of course, but I am reasonably certain that Israel chose this time to take on Hamas because of the soon to be Obama Administration. This would not be too surprising given all the talk about contact between the Obama people and Hamas representatives, which Obama has flatly denied, who knows. Either way it is fairly common knowledge that Israel is concerned about what the Obama Administration's policies will be towards the whole Israel-Palestinian question.

On the other hand Israel may be setting the groundwork for the inevitable Obama-Clinton Mid East Peace initiative. Actually it is very possible that Israel will still be occupying Gaza when Obama takes over. If so then the first concession they (Israel) could make would be to let Secretary of State Clinton negotiate, eventually, their withdrawal.

This would be a win, win for Israel and Obama. Israel decimates Hamas and lets Obama look like the Peace Maker by allowing him to broker the withdrawal. This would start the Obama administration out with a very significant foreign policy success. It would not be surprising if there has not been communications between Obama and the Israel Government and that is why Obama has stayed so quiet about the entire situation. He has nothing to gain by interjecting himself into the conflict, but everything to gain by resolving it.

This actually could be exactly the opening that is needed to truly solve the Palestinian problem. First, the most radical elements of the Palestinian people (Hamas) are severely weakened. Second, the new beloved American President steps in to restore peace. Third, strong pressure is put on the more moderate Palestinian elements (Fatah) which has been negotiating with Israel for awhile now to reach a comprehensive peace plan. Fourth, and perhaps most important, get the Arab heavy hitters, Saudi Arabia etc. to back the process.

All this has a better chance of success if it happens at the very start of his Administration while everyone, especially internationally, have such a strong positive view of Obama. If Obama-Clinton can get this all going quickly, if it is not already, it actually might work and start the Obama Administration out with a giant success. Or, as is more likely, the new President will find himself exactly where all his predecessors have, stuck in the quagmire of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. We can only hope it will be different this time.

More...