Germany slammed for not boycotting Durban II; Britain recognizes Hizballah as a political party

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

 

It seems that Germany has decided to not follow Obama's lead in boycotting Durban II, despite the fact that not only will the conference be an antisemitic hate fest, it also will seek to criticize criticism of Islam (and thus is anti-free speech).  Not good.  Any legitimacy given to this illegitimate and anti-humanity exercise is a bad thing.

 

http://www.eurojewcong.org/ejc/news.php?id_article=3722

 

And in other news, it appears that Britain is going to recognize Hizballah and 'negotiate' with it.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/05/uk-set-for-hezbollah-talks

 

Please remember that Hizballah is a Final Solution terrorist group, whose leader, Nasrallah, literally said "If all Jews were to gather in Israel, that would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."  Sadly, these are not just words, as Hizballah has attacked Jews as far away as Buenos Aires, Argentina.  Hizballah also bombed US Marines in 1983, killing over 300 of our brave young men and women.  They are actively fighting US and British soldiers in Iraq, and are building up a massive arsenal in the South of Lebanon, in order to continue its war against Israel.  Last year, Hizballah set up a 'tent city' in Beirut, and got a power sharing part of the Lebanese governement via its brute force.  Right now, Lebanon is jointly ruled by the relatively secular Faoud Seniora, and by the Final Solution Hizballah.

 

Essentially, Hizballah is like the modern Nazi party, without having achieved the results yet of the Nazi party, despite their best hopes otherwise.  They have explicitly stated their goal is the worldwide annihilation of every Jew on earth, and they air disgusting propoganda such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and scenes from a Passover "blood libel" (i.e., showcasing Jews eating the blood of Arab babies, mixed with Passover matzos), on Al-Manar TV, in order to brainwash Lebanese citizens into desiring genocide. (this is similar to what was done in Nazi Germany)  I would say Al Manar is easily as bad or worse as anything that has come out of Nazi Germany, based upon the numerous MEMRI clips I have seen over the years. (and I do not exaggerate when I say that)

 

The fact that Britain now is recognizing Hizballah as a legitimate "political party" to be negotiated with is so beyond repugnant, it defies description.

 

I only hope that things will improve in the future.  It is soon to be Shabbat, and I hope you have a good weekend!

The New York Times gives an incomplete picture re: talks with Syria

As Obama endeavors on a 'new' journey of talks with Syria, the New York Times has decided it supports this 'engagement.' This is well evidenced by the way a 'neutral' article was written in the Times about this 'engagement.' This article places the onus upon Israel to 'negotiate' and ignores the ways in which Syria has obfuscated all efforts at 'peace' in the past. Syria's state sponsor of terrorism is barely a blip in this article, and it appears at the very bottom of this article. Instead, the onus is on Israel. Feel free to read for yourself what passes as 'news' in the New York Times. This article was not even one that hit CAMERA's website. Just another day the Times, which has their 'two state solution' ideology, and their 'Israel should concede something for 'peace' ideology, as well as their 'diplomacy is always a good thing' ideology. For more information about the New York Times and the ideology that appears in the news pages (as apart from the OpEds, please go to How Fit to Print, a new blog which examines the ideology of the New York Times.

Please see the article right here.

Below is my Fisking of this article.

JERUSALEM — Signaling a new direction in Middle East diplomacy, the Obama administration will send two senior officials to Syria this weekend to begin discussions with the government, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on a visit to Israel on Tuesday.

The overture suggests how the Obama administration intends to tackle three interlocking challenges in the Middle East: the nuclear threat posed by Iran [Note: this ignores the fact that Syria itself is going nuclear]; long-simmering tensions between Israel and Syria; and the grinding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Syria, regional experts say, could be the key to alleviating all three. [NOTE: the names of these ‘regional experts’ is not given, and there is no reason given as to why Syria could be of help. Moreover, the fact that Syria itself is a major part of the problem, having occupied Lebanon for decades, including to this day, is ignored.]

By seeking an understanding with Syria, which has cultivated close ties to Iran, the United States could increase the pressure on Iran to respond to its offer of direct talks. Such an understanding would also give Arab states and moderate Palestinians the political cover to negotiate with Israel. [NOTE: The definition of what a ‘moderate’ is is left out. This is a crucial term and yet the reader is left to guess as to the meaning.] That, in turn, could increase the burden on Hamas, the Islamic militant [NOTE: the term ‘militant’ and not ‘terrorist’ is used; this is an editorial decision by the Times.] group that controls Gaza, to relax its hostile stance toward Israel. [NOTE: It is not suggested how this could be reconciled with Syria’s decision to allow Hamas terrorists sanctuary on their soil.]

But in a region where even small steps take years to negotiate, officials sought to tamp down expectations of rapid progress. “It is a worthwhile effort to go and begin preliminary conversations,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting Syria’s wide influence in the region, as well as its troubled history with the United States. Yet, she cautioned, “we have no way to predict what the future of our relations with Syria might be.”

The State Department declined to elaborate on the issues the emissaries would broach in Syria or why negotiators were going now.

The two emissaries are Daniel B. Shapiro, a senior director at the National Security Council, and Jeffrey D. Feltman, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. Mr. Feltman, a former ambassador to Lebanon, has extensive experience with Syria; Mr. Shapiro advised the Obama campaign on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Middle East experts say they believe that conditions for an opening to Syria are ripe on both sides. [NOTE: Who are these experts?] “We’ve got a Syrian government that wants to engage,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel and a peace negotiator in the Clinton administration. [NOTE: Was Mr. Indyk the ‘expert’ the whole time? And why does he want to believe that? How does this wash with Syria’s statements that they will never give up on the Golan? Where is that proof of ‘engagement’? Moreover, how does this wash with his earlier statements of Syria's involvement in terrorizing Lebanon, and its close ties to Iran?] “We’re likely to get an Israeli government that will find it easier to engage with Syria than with the Palestinians.”

There are clear benefits to Israel from better relations with Syria [NOTE: What about the benefits to Syria? Why is it framed as if Israel and not Syria has everything to gain?]: the government of President Bashar al-Assad is a sponsor of Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon, and provides a sanctuary for Hamas’s leaders in Damascus, Syria’s capital. [NOTE: Aren’t these also reasons to NOTE ‘engage’ with Syria?]

In May, Israel and Syria announced that they were in negotiations for a comprehensive peace treaty through Turkish mediators. [NOTE: The Turkish Prime Minister’s recent statements against Israel are omitted here, and the reader is left without the knowledge of how that would/could affect negotiations.] Israel’s departing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said he planned to brief Mrs. Clinton on those talks on Tuesday.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who is likely to become Israel’s next prime minister, will face pressure from the United States to move forward with the peace process. [NOTE: The Times outright says it will be Israel which is pressured and not Syria. Furthermore, stating that ‘negotiating’ is part of the ‘peace process’ is an editorial which is presented as news.] Mr. Indyk said that Mr. Netanyahu would find it more politically palatable to engage Syria than to alienate the settler movement by slowing or halting settlements as a concession to the Palestinians. [NOTE: The notion of a powerful ‘settler movement’ is introduced as an obstacle to ‘peace.’ Of course, the fact that this did not stop the Gush Katif evacuation is not worthy of mention to the Times.]

Nonetheless, Israeli public opinion polls show wide opposition to giving up the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war. [NOTE: The Syrian public opinion is seen as irrelevant. Only the Israeli public opinion is an ‘obstacle’ to ‘peace.’ Also note that the Times omits the fact that the Golan Heights was annexed by Israel and that fact affects its legal status.] In his previous stint as prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu initiated peace talks with Syria, but they came to nothing.

The Obama administration has carefully laid the groundwork for the envoys’ visit. Members of Congress, including Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, have recently traveled to the region. [NOTE: Depending on when the trip was scheduled (i.e., if it was during when Bush was in office, it could be a violation of the Logan Act. This is deemed irrelevant to the Times.] Last Thursday, Mr. Feltman met with Syria’s ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha.

“We don’t engage in discussions for the sake of having conversations,” Mrs. Clinton said, after a meeting with the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni. “There has to be a purpose to them; there has to be some benefit accruing to the United States and our allies.” [NOTE: What is the purpose, if Assad has stated on numerous times his demand for the Golan Heights?]

The Bush administration largely shunned Syria, recalling its ambassador in February 2005, after the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. [NOTE: Syria’s role in the Hariri assassination is buried at the bottom of the article, despite the fact that this could be a major impediment towards any fruitful ‘negotiations.’] Many Lebanese accuse Syria of involvement in the assassination, a charge it denies. A United Nations tribunal has begun proceedings in the case.

While Mr. Feltman was the ambassador in Lebanon, three people were killed when a car bomb exploded next to an American Embassy vehicle in Beirut in January 2008. Suspicions again fell on Syria. [NOTE: The fact that Hizballah leader Nasrallah called Lebanon’s Seniora-led government “Feltman’s government” is omitted. Surely this would affect 'negotiations'!]

Mr. Feltman and Mr. Shapiro are accompanying Mrs. Clinton on her first tour of the Middle East as secretary of state, which began Monday in Egypt, where she said the United States would pursue peace “on many fronts.”

Meeting on Tuesday with Israel’s leaders during a time of political transition, Mrs. Clinton reaffirmed the desire of the United States for an agreement that would create a separate Palestinian state side by side with Israel. [NOTE: Why is this American desire relevant? What about the desire of Israel? Lest we forget, it is none of America’s business whether there is a ‘Palestine.’ This frames the issue of forcing Israel to concede territory that lawfully belongs to it.]

But she was plainly reluctant to step into a domestic political tussle. [NOTE: The Times is right to call this a domestic issue.] Mr. Netanyahu, who is likely to form a right-wing government in the coming days, has emphasized economic development in the West Bank over negotiations to create a Palestinian state.

“We happen to believe that moving toward the two-state solution, step by step, is in Israel’s best interests,” Mrs. Clinton said. “But obviously, it is up to the people and the government of Israel to decide.” [NOTE: Good acknowledgement that it is up to Israel to decide a domestic issue, BUT, Clinton is editorializing that “two states” is indeed a solution. The Times does not call her on that.]

Ms. Livni said she embraced a two-state solution [NOTE: Again, an editorial presented as fact that “two states” is a “solution.], a crucial difference between her Kadima Party and Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party, and one that has impeded Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to form a coalition with Kadima. Mrs. Clinton met with Mr. Netanyahu on Tuesday.

She promised to consult Israel and other Middle Eastern countries as the United States develops its policy toward Iran. At a Gaza donors’ conference in Egypt on Monday, Mrs. Clinton told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates that she did not believe that Iran would respond positively to the Obama administration’s offer of direct talks.

Ms. Livni said she had no qualms about the American offer, but she maintained that Israel’s Muslim neighbors were as worried as Israel by Iran. “They feel that Iran tries to undermine their regimes,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton also declined to publicly press Israel to open border crossings into Gaza; critics say that closing the crossings has impeded the flow of humanitarian relief. [NOTE: This is untrue and Israel does allow aid to flow into Gaza.] Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza after Hamas took control of the territory in June 2007. [NOTE: the fact that this blockade was a defensive response to terror attacks is not mentioned.] It has allowed in aid since the end of the recent three-week assault on Hamas, but has not opened the crossings for many other goods.

On Monday, European officials said they expected Mrs. Clinton to raise the issue with the Israelis.But she said: “It’s very difficult to solve this dilemma when Israel is under physical attack. We have a humanitarian challenge in Gaza, with a lot of innocent Palestinians who need the help [NOTE: What about innocent Israelis in Sderot? Why is it framed as a ‘humanitarian crisis’ only for Gazans?], and Hamas decides to continue to rain rockets down on Israel.”

Zions Fire

The Middle East: A History of Searching for Peace

1. From the Depths of Despair to the Heights of Exaltation
2. How Dark the Night
3. Can These Bones Live?
4. A Nation Reborn Through the Faithful Hand of G-d
5. The Peace Before the Storm

Part 4: A Nation Reborn Through the Faithful Hand of G-d

Written by: Marvin J. Rosenthal
Published in Zion’s Fire Magazine in September/October, 1993

With the United Nations’ resolution of November, 1947, Israel became a “paper” nation. Legally, Palestine was partitioned. The nations of the world had given Israel back a piece of the land that G-d had promised to Abraham and his posterity when He said, “Walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee” (Gen. 13:17). To be sure, what the United Nations gave was small – less than a fourth of the size which the British proposed in the mandate of 1917 – smaller than the state of New Jersey. But it was something – a land, a home, a place – to which the wandering Jew could return, be welcomed, and lay his head. But, could what was given in theory be sustained in practice? In 1948, there were only 640,000 Jews in all of Israel. The surrounding Arab nations had a combined population of over 80 million, and they threatened to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea. There were only six months to prepare for the inevitable attack. The nearly 100,000 British troops, who had kept a shaky, uneven, largely pro-Arab peace, would then leave.

Many world leaders were agreed. If Israel declared herself a nation, the numerically superior and far-better-equipped Arabs would attack, and Israel would be stillborn. General George Marshall, America’s Secretary of State, counseled his friend, David Ben-Gurion, to bide his time until a more favorable political climate could develop for declaring Israel’s nationhood. Ben-Gurion, later reflecting on the general’s advice, said:

...Marshall could not know what we knew – what we felt in our very bones: that this was our historic hour; if we did not live up to it, through fear or weakness of spirit, it might be generations or even centuries before our people were given another historic opportunity – if indeed we would be alive as a national group.

On the 14th of May, 1948, Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first Prime Minister, stood up in a hastily prepared movie theatre in Tel Aviv (because they did not possess Jerusalem), and declared Israel a nation among the nations of the world. On the 15th of May, the last of the British forces withdrew. The same day, six Arab nations – Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq – invaded Israel. They approached like a fistful of fingers that would close together and squeeze the life out of the infant state.

The invading armies had a carefully devised plan and a precise timetable. The Egyptians were to sweep up the coast from the south and then fork out. One force would take Jaffa-Tel Aviv along the Mediterranean Sea. The second force would join the Jordanian Arab legion and converge on Jerusalem. From the east, Iraqi troops would race westward across Palestine toward the Mediterranean to slice Israel in half. In the north, the Syrians and Lebanese would join forces to secure the Galilee and Haifa.

For the first month, battles raged up and down the land. The Jewish forces – initially without a tank, a fighter plane, or a field gun – suffered heavy casualties. The situation looked very grim. Through the efforts of the United Nations, a truce went into effect on June 11. It would only last until July 9. But, it gave Israel a month’s reprieve. It would prove to be all she needed.

[ Full Article ]

[ Video Source ]

The 2008 US Election

I know this blog has really not discussed the US presidential election, so here goes nothing...

I predict that Hillary will win the election, which is something I predicted in the year 2000. (that she would win in 2008)

This means 24 years straight (at minimum) of presidents related to each other.

Ultimately, I think it will be Hillary v. either Romney or McCain. Anyway, I think Hillary will win, and then the country will be having that morning after hangover, wondering "what did we do??"

As far as the nominees go...there are many bad choices, but there are "bad" and "worse" choices.

The three worst choices - by far - are Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel.

Kucinich might literally be a traitor to the American nation, and under different times would be charged for treason under the Logan Act. He went to Syria and met with Assad privately, then went onto Syrian state TV, called Assad, a murderous tyrant who presides over a regime that tortured and killed a friend of mine's cousin - a 'man of peace,' and then proceeded to denounce Bush to America's (not just Bush's) enemies. On Syrian state TV. Disgusting. (see the video evidence of this here, if you have the stomach for it) The only saving grace of this man is he has a hot wife.

Mike Gravel worked with an ex-friend of mine (qrswave) who literally supports terrorism. She was a contributor to his campaign, until the fact that she was made him look bad. (see evidence here) Pathetic.

Ron Paul's solutions to the world's problems is to dig America's head in the sand and act as an isolationist. Oh yeah, and he is linked with Neonazis and 9/11 "Troothers." (LGF catalogues that all quite well)

So that's what I think. I predict Hillary will win, and while I do not support her, I guess she is not as bad as those three nutcases.

Regardless, this election is like a side show. I was just recently in Europe, and tried to explain the electoral college to PM and Steven, and they were shocked and flabbergasted.

Peace, Debate, and Dialogue

I was thinking about this the other day...

I am offended by the word "peace." Why should the VICTIM have to worry about 'peace'? Groups such as "Peace Now", and "Jewish Voice for Peace" claim to be even handed and claim to want peace... but by their very focus on ISRAEL as the source of problems guarantees there will NOT be peace. If you look at the history of the Mideast conflict, almost every time, Israel acted either defensively or in retaliation for slaughter of its citizens. Whether it acted in the right way is debateable, what is not debateable from a historical REALITY perspective is WHY Israel has acted. Many people do not actually live in reality and prefer to deny history; we both know that historical reality is not a friend to Arabs as well as Arab apologists. But still, the facts are the facts.

Those who advocate for 'peace' would really ONLY be advocating it from the perspective of putting the onus on Palestinians to stop their low-grade constant conflict and stop teaching hate to their children. The checkpoints did not exist until the Intifada; people forget that. The 'wall' did not exist until the Intifada; again, people forget that. The entire 'occupation' (what a loaded word!) exists solely due to Israel's defensive Six Day War.

'Peaceniks' who really are peaceful would realize Israel has a right to defend itself and stop pretending that settlers are per se evil and the reason for the problems. They would see the root of the problem and demand an end to it. The 'peace' groups I cited, in their failure to do this, necessarily promote war. They make 'peace' an offensive word. Don't sell that 'peace' to ME or to Israel - sell it to those who are preventing peace.

This brings me to a question of dialogue and debate. I believe that dialogue and debate will be counterproductive. I thought about it, as a result of dialogue and debate over the course of a year and a half online, I have become actually more set in my political opinions, and more convinced than ever that the other side are either brainwashed or antisemites, and basically not reachable. Let me put it this way; the other side is not merely claiming "Israel, you overreacted in this situation/that situation." They say "Israel, you are rotten to the core and have no right to exist!" So what "dialogue" is there with them? What "debate" is there with them? How do you "debate" your own existence?

And so I believe that the topic of Israel should simply not even be debated with these cretins, thugs, and brainwashed masses. We will NOT change them, and if anything, make them worse. Instead, I believe the best AND ONLY topic to discuss with Arabs is Lebanon. A secondary topic is possibly Iran. Lebanon is a country on the brink; anyone who actually believes in a future for the Lebanese is against a common (and existential) enemy of Israel's: Hezbollah and Syria. There are banners all over Lebanon that say "I love life." So, promote THAT. Promote an anti-Hezbollah culture of Lebanon, promote love of life and anti-hate; do not even discuss Israel as it will simply enflame passions and lead to nothing. Then maybe have a debate about the way to bring about peace in Lebanon. Bring together a broad spectrum of Lebanese and Arab society that is devoted against the hate. Then, maybe once they are anti-Hezbollah hate, they will start to be pro-Israel. But it has to be side-strike. The same goes with Iran; the Iranian mullahs are anti-Israel, but more than that, they are anti-Iranian. So bring together a broad spectrum of people who again love life and are devoted against the mullahs.

If you do a survey of the Mideast, other than Israelis, the only other countries filled with sophisticated people who love life are Lebanon (at least Sunni/Druze/Maronites, and a minority of Shia) and Iran. They can be reached, and should be reached. And the debate should not be Israel's existence or whether Israel leads a vast cabal controlling world foreign policy, as that debate will lead to nowhere. It should be over the future of a free, just, and pluralistic Lebanon and Iran.

Thoughts?