Did you know that a rocket could break a truce? I didn’t. Being neither a scientist nor a weapons expert, nor a member of the MSM, I kind of thought that, absent human intervention, rockets would just lie around inert. It’s just always seemed to me that, for a rocket to fly through the air and strike something far away, there has to be a human who placed it in a launcher and pressed the button.

Thanks to the AP, which I dare not quote since it will bankrupt me if I do, I’ve now learned how wrong I am. You see, when I went to Drudge at 11:14 P.S.T. today, I saw a headline that said “Rockets break truce.” While Drudge may not be an . . . ahem . . . rocket scientist, even he must know that rockets probably don’t have the intelligence to do any truce breaking. Curious about this peculiar headline formation, I clicked on his link and discovered that AP story from which I dare not quote. I can tell you however, that the AP was the one who misled poor Matt Drudge by telling him, with an even more mangled headline than Drudge’s.

Ah, heck! I’m going to live dangerously here and actually quote that headline, since it defeats paraphrasing:

Rockets hit Israel, which says truce broken

So, the rockets acted without human intervention but Israel, that spoilsport, is once again backing out of its sacred obligations to Hamas.

It’s only when you read the story that you discover that it was those darned “Palestinian militants” (is that a copyrighted phrase?) that actually launched the rockets that hit Israel. What’s really funny is that the AP, after explaining that it was humans, who were parties to a truce that launched the rockets, injuring civilians, goes on to add that this behavior presents that same truce with “a serious test.” (Please tell me that’s not a copyrighted phrase either.)

Again, in the “silly me” category, I actually thought truces were binary. Both sides promise not to fight. If one side breaks that promise, the truce is gone. It’s vanished as if it never existed. It’s dead. It’s not a truce any more if only one side sticks with it. In AP-land, however, it appears that a truce continues to exist as to the Israelis, but that the Palestinians may violate it with impunity.

Indeed, in that same faraway AP-land, Palestinian truce violations are probably a good thing, since we here in America like “testing.” We see tests as a way of proving how well things are doing. If that truce can survive the Palestinian test of unfettered rocket launches against Israeli civilians, it must be a very strong truce. It gets the AP seal of approval, that’s for sure.

I’m sick of this whole thing. Can the reading audience really be as stupid and biased as the AP writers? Sadly, I’m going to bet that Israel can be even more stupid, since I think it’s going to let the Palestinians pass this test and, in the face of a blatant truce vioation, do either nothing or so little in response that it’s tantamount to nothing.

[Discuss this topic with Bookworm...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Richard Baehr initially supported Ariel Sharon’s decision to withdraw Israel from the Gaza Strip.  He now believes that the withdrawal was a terrible mistake, and carefully explains why.  As for me, I don’t think it was a mistake then.  I think it collapsed for a reason that could not be foreseen.  Let me explain.

What I said at the time was that, as long as the territories were under Israel’s aegis, Israel could not wage war against them.  If they were a separate hostile nation, however, she could treat them as one would any other hostile nation on one’s own border — with full-scale warfare.  I believe that Ariel Sharon would have done that.  However, Ariel Sharon was struck down, and in his place is Olmert, whose only significant skill seems to be to retain office with a zero approval rating.  Sharon would not have allowed 3,000 rockets to rain down on Israel from an enemy nation.  Olmert has.

Olmert is terrified of looking bad in the eyes of the world.  Mr. Olmert, a hint:  The world already hates Israel.  Short of voluntarily turning the country over to the Arabs and then having all Jewish residents take a farewell march into the Meditteranean, the world will always hate you.  You are the unpopular kid in school, and nothing will change that.  Stop trying to get in with the in-crowd and take care of yourself.

[Continue this discussion with Bookworm...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The New York Times periodically pops up with articles in which its perplexed employees report that the incarceration rate in the US is up but, for reasons they cannot fathom, crime is down. Life is so difficult if you’re absolutely certain that “A” and “B” can’t possibly be related or, even worse, that “A” can’t possibly have a causal relationship to “B.” Incomprehensible causality is again on display at the NYT, this time with regard to Israel:

Suicide bombings in Israel have dropped off so significantly that the nation’s security officials now dare to speak openly of success. But the very steps they are taking to thwart bombers appear to collide head-on with the government’s agenda of achieving peace with the Palestinians.

The separation barrier along the West Bank has drawn international criticism. Israeli security officials say it has proved helpful.

It is a classic military-political dilemma. The progress in stopping suicide bombers, the vast majority of whom cross into Israel from the West Bank, has brought enough quiet for Israel to resume peace talks with the Palestinian leadership there.

But the current calm is fragile, and to maintain it Israeli security officials say they must continue their nightly arrests and sometimes deadly raids in the heart of the West Bank — tactics at odds with a peace effort that envisions a separate Palestinian state, an eventual Israeli withdrawal from much of the West Bank and, in the meantime, a gradual transfer of authority to the Palestinian police.

“The price of staying out” of the West Bank, said one senior Israeli military official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of military restrictions, “might be one that we don’t want to pay.”

The military’s faith in its efforts comes across in its charts showing a steep decline in suicide bombings — from a high of 59 in 2002 to only one in 2007, and one so far this year.

The poor reporter seems so bewildered. Why is it that Israel, having finally stemmed the horrible attacks on her children, is loath to enter into negotiations with Palestinians, negotiations that invariably followed a set pattern: (1) Palestinians killed Israelis; (2) Israelis gave lots of money and/or land and/or freed dozens or hundreds of suicide bombers, while getting nothing in return; and (3) Palestinians, flush with the success of their tactics, killed more Israelis.

I get the feeling that the Times‘ reporter saw nothing wrong with that decades old status quo and thinks it unconscionable that Israeli is changing the terms, so that the Palestinians’ sole negotiating tactic isn’t simply ever more dead Israelis.

[Discuss This Topic with Bookworm]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The New York Times again gave a forum to Jimmy Carter. This time Carter defends his immoral, illegal decision to consort with terrorists, something that would be objectionable if the ordinary private citizen were to do it, but that rises to outrageous levels of indecency when a former President does the same thing.

Carter’s most recent column is worth fisking because it either shows the thought process of a senile immoral old man or, more scarily, the thought processes of a liberal immoral old man:

A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE Washington policy in recent years has been to boycott and punish political factions or governments that refuse to accept United States mandates. [That's cute. Hamas, which (a) took over Gaza by war, (b) announced its intention to destroy Israel, (c) terrorizes its own citizens, and (d) routinely and purposely attacks civilian targets, especially children, is just a "political faction[] or government[] that refuse[s] to accept United States mandates.” This is truly an Orwellian perversion of language.] This policy makes difficult the possibility that such leaders might moderate their policies.

Two notable examples are in Nepal and the Middle East. About 12 years ago, Maoist guerrillas took up arms in an effort to overthrow the monarchy and change the nation’s political and social life. Although the United States declared the revolutionaries to be terrorists, the Carter Center agreed to help mediate among the three major factions: the royal family, the old-line political parties and the Maoists.

In 2006, six months after the oppressive monarch was stripped of his powers, a cease-fire was signed. Maoist combatants laid down their arms and Nepalese troops agreed to remain in their barracks. Our center continued its involvement and nations — though not the United States — and international organizations began working with all parties to reconcile the dispute and organize elections. [I can't comment about this, knowing nothing about it. Any information from others who do would be helpful.]

The Maoists are succeeding in achieving their major goals: abolishing the monarchy, establishing a democratic republic and ending discrimination against untouchables and others whose citizenship rights were historically abridged. After a surprising victory in the April 10 election, Maoists will play a major role in writing a constitution and governing for about two years. To the United States, they are still terrorists. [Considering that Maoists are arch communists, and considering that arch communists have invariably enacted arch repression, I rather wonder about Carter's sanguine view of these guys as just good old liberal style Democrats. After all, the original Maoist -- that would be Mao himself -- was a psychopath who oversaw the death of 70,000,000 of his people. Again, information on this subject would be appreciated.]

On the way home from monitoring the Nepalese election, I, my wife and my son went to Israel. My goal was to learn as much as possible to assist in the faltering peace initiative endorsed by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Although I knew that official United States policy was to boycott the government of Syria and leaders of Hamas, I did not receive any negative or cautionary messages about the trip, except that it might be dangerous to visit Gaza. [Who are you going to believe -- Rice or Carter? Given that Carter has been caught in lie after lie over the years, while Rice has not been shown up as a liar even once (one may disagree with her, but she doesn't lie), I have absolutely no doubt but that this is a blatant lie.]

The Carter Center had monitored three Palestinian elections, including one for parliamentary seats in January 2006. Hamas had prevailed in several municipal contests, gained a reputation for effective and honest administration and did surprisingly well in the legislative race, displacing the ruling party, Fatah. [Except for that little fact that it eventually took over leadership from Fatah by a small civil war, complete with atrocities. Apparently things like that just don't bother Carter, the cheerleader for leftist oppressors. Bad as Fatah is, Hamas is worse.] As victors, Hamas proposed a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah as president and offered to give key ministries to Fatah, including that of foreign affairs and finance.

Hamas had been declared a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel, and the elected Palestinian government was forced to dissolve. [Aside from the fact that it took over and rules Gaza by terror, there is that little problem of Hamas' stated policy of destroying Israel, one dead child at a time. Frankly, if Carter doesn't consider that a terrorist, what is a terrorist? George Bush? Cheney? That lying skank Condi Rice (Carter's theory, not mine, of course)? I'd really like him to set down his definitions so we can get an insight into his Orwellian use of language.] Eventually, Hamas gained control of Gaza [care to explain how, Mr. Carter, or would that raise too many twisted linguistic difficulties?], and Fatah is “governing” the Israeli-dominated West Bank. [You ,appreciate, I'm sure, all the deep meaning behind those quotation marks. Gaza is "real" government, Fatah is a puppet government. We know which Carter prefers.] Opinion polls show Hamas steadily gaining popularity. [Because a terrorist organization is liked by a population raised to hate and kill, does that mean it's no longer a terrorist organization? Apparently in Carter-world it does.] Since there can be no peace with Palestinians divided, we at the Carter Center believed it important to explore conditions allowing Hamas to be brought peacefully back into the discussions. (A recent poll of Israelis, who are familiar with this history, showed 64 percent favored direct talks between Israel and Hamas.)

Similarly, Israel cannot gain peace with Syria unless the Golan Heights dispute is resolved. [There's not much of a dispute. When Syria held the Golan Heights, it used that advantage to kill Jews. It will do the same again. Of course, since Carter has no problem with the Jews -- he did want to "f**k them" in 1980, blaming them for his defeat -- I can see where he thinks there might be a dispute: dead Jews versus not dead Jews. Hmmm.] Here again, United States policy is to ostracize the Syrian government and prevent bilateral peace talks, contrary to the desire of high Israeli officials. [The US might be ostracizing the Syrian government for a few other little problems, such as the fact that it's a shill of Iran and Hezbollah, that it sponsors world-wide terrorism, and that it's planning to go nuclear. Silly stuff like that, you know. Even in Carter-land, is it really possible for everything to be caused only by Jewish conspiracies?]

We met with Hamas leaders from Gaza, the West Bank and Syria, and after two days of intense discussions with one another they gave these official responses to our suggestions, intended to enhance prospects for peace [Please keep in mind as you read this that Hamas had the last laugh by denying all the agreements Carter purported to make on its behalf]:

• Hamas will accept any agreement negotiated by Mr. Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel provided it is approved either in a Palestinian referendum or by an elected government. Hamas’s leader, Khaled Meshal, has reconfirmed this, although some subordinates have denied it to the press. [I notice that Meshal hasn't gone out of his way to repudiate those denials. In any event, given that Palestinians by a vast majority have announced their intense desire to murder all Israelis, I don't see many of them passing this referendum. Same for the "elected" Hamas government.]
• When the time comes, Hamas will accept the possibility of forming a nonpartisan professional government of technocrats to govern until the next elections can be held. [Pardon me while I laugh myself sick. These are the people whose only skill is sucking up world dollars and turning them into bombs.]
• Hamas will also disband its militia in Gaza if a nonpartisan professional security force can be formed. [Only someone truly naive or deeply evil would believe this given Hamas' history. It's like speaking with Hitler in 1942, and then writing an op-ed saying he'll be pleased to disband the Gestapo, or at least to rename it to something with fewer negative connotations, such as the "Friends of the Jews" organization.]
• Hamas will permit an Israeli soldier captured by Palestinian militants in 2006, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, to send a letter to his parents. If Israel agrees to a list of prisoners to be exchanged, and the first group is released, Corporal Shalit will be sent to Egypt, pending the final releases. [This is truly obscene. Hamas has held in captivity for two years a young man who was merely standing guard duty. In exchange for his freedom, they except the release of hundreds of convicted killers. Not guards, killers. Aside from how disgusting this is, I'd like to remind all of you that Israel has frequently released killers in return for promises from the Palestinians. None of the promises have been kept, but the killers have done what killers will do: killed again.]
• Hamas will accept a mutual cease-fire in Gaza, with the expectation (not requirement) that this would later include the West Bank. [I believe this promise. The cease fires usually last one or two days while Hamas/the Palestinians regroup, and then, having enjoyed a breather, the cease fire magically terminates. I believe the technical term for this strategic little breather is hudna.]
• Hamas will accept international control of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, provided the Egyptians and not the Israelis control closing the gates. [Hamas apparently hopes that it will have the fox guarding the hen house. Or at least Carter hopes that's the case. More cynically than the American fool, Hamas probably hopes that Egypt, which is less then thrilled by having radical Islamic guerrillas stream into the country, will be less adept than Israel at preventing incursions.]

In addition, Syria’s president, Bashir al-Assad, has expressed eagerness to begin negotiations with Israel to end the impasse on the Golan Heights. He asks only that the United States be involved and that the peace talks be made public. [1938, 1938, 1938, 1938, 1938, 1938....]

Through more official consultations with these outlawed leaders, it may yet be possible to revive and expedite the stalemated peace talks between Israel and its neighbors. In the Middle East, as in Nepal, the path to peace lies in negotiation, not in isolation.

Now that I’ve fisked what Carter has to say, I feel confident concluding that he manages to be both a fool and entirely evil. This is a very, very bad man, and the US should muzzle him with every weapon in its arsenal of laws against treason and consorting with enemies.

[Discuss this topic with Bookworm...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

For a year, Gaza has rained over 2,000 rockets onto Israeli soil, aiming specifically for civilian communities. There was, of course, nary a peep from the UN. Now that Israel has struck back, targeting specifically militants who happen to hide amongst civilian populations, the UN Rights Council springs into action:

The U.N. Human Rights Council has condemned Israel’s offensive in Gaza and called on Palestinians to stop rocket fire into Israel. The resolution passed Thursday said Israeli incursions into the Palestinian territory inflicted collective punishment on the civilian population.

Israel launched the offensive last week in response to Palestinian militants barraging southern Israel with rockets. More than 120 Palestinians have been killed, Gaza officials say. Four Israeli have also been killed.

The 47-member rights body approved the resolution 33-1 after a debate on the situation in Gaza. Thirteen countries abstained. The resolution was sponsored by Pakistan and Muslim countries. Russia, China and India support it, European countries abstained, and Canada voted against it. (Emphasis mine.)

It would be a recurring joke if it weren’t for the real world ramifications. My feeling, every time this joke repeats itself, is that Israel should just give the UN a middle fingered salute and get on with things in the real world.

Incidentally, my only disappointment was to see India’s name on that list. Given India’s struggles with its own Muslim extremists, both inside and outside of its borders, one would think it would be a bit more sympathetic to Israel’s plight.

[Discuss this article with Bookworm...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

While fanatics fight, ordinary people try to live. In Hebron, a City with a sadly bloody history, a few good men have had the courage to try to achieve stability and some measure of harmony:

Heads of local Palestinian clans in Hebron met on Sunday with representatives from Israeli settlements in the area and discussed the easing of tensions between the two sides.

The settlers reported that sheikhs Abu Khader Jabri and Haj Abu Ahram Abu Sneina representing the city’s Arab Muslim population in the West Bank city met in Jabri’s home with the Kiryat Arba Regional Council head Tzvi Katzover, former Knesset Member Elyakim Haetzni and other settler leaders.

The commander of the IDF’s Hebron Brigade, Colonel Yehuda Fuchs, also took part in the meeting.

The Israelis said Sheikh Jabri told them during the meeting that “I do not regard you as settlers but as residents. This city is yours just as much as it is ours.”

The Jewish participants described the meeting as cordial, adding that the sides agreed to strive to live in peace with one another.

You can already anticipate the response that these Sheikhs’ humane, moral efforts received:

According to the Israelis, shortly after the meeting began, the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades issued a proclamation throughout the city that called for dealing with the meeting’s participants “with an iron fist.”

And just to make it more likely that this threat will be put into action, Israel released more than 30 al-Aqsa Murderers back into the pond.

So, back to my original post title: How likely is it, do you think, that these decent men, men who clearly want their children to live a quality life, and to have their souls freed from the burden of religious and racial fanaticism, will still be alive even a week from now? I’ll try to keep an eye on the Israeli newspapers and see what happens.

[Discuss this article with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

You and I never lost track of the fact that, even as Israel was being castigated for building a wall between herself and those who would blow her up, Egypt sat complacently behind a wall separating herself from the same people. It popped into the news a couple of times when smallish breaches occurred, but now it’s really made the headlines:

Tens of thousands of Palestinians poured into Egypt from Gaza Wednesday after masked gunmen used land mines to blast down a seven-mile barrier dividing the border town of Rafah.

Men and women walked unhindered or rode in donkey carts over the toppled corrugated metal along sections of the barrier, carrying goats, chickens and crates of Coca-Cola. Some brought back televisions, car tires and cigarettes and one man even bought a motorcycle. Vendors sold soft drinks and baked goods to the crowds.

They were stocking up on goods made scarce by an Israeli blockade of their impoverished territory since last week and within hours, shops on the Egyptian side of the divided border town of Rafah had run out of stock.

As you can see, most people didn’t go there to blend into the Egyptian population and vanish, they went there to shop: which tells you that the Egyptians, had they wanted to, probably could have made this stuff available to the Gazans all along. They didn’t for the same reason that has seen Arab nations, for 60 years, allow Palestinians to rot in the territories — they don’t give a flying whatsit about the Palestinians well-being; they care only about their being a perpetual festering sore keeping Israel visible as the bad guy to the rest of the world.

[Discuss this article with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Arafat memorial erupts into gunfire in Gaza

I burned myself on the irony.

Gunfire killed at least six people and wounded 80 today at a Fatah memorial rally for Yasser Arafat attended by hundreds of thousands of supporters of the defeated faction in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

Wheee! He won the Peace Prize, ya know!

[Discuss this post with Right Girl...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

I respect Condi Rice for the most part, but have thought her naive for believing (or, at least, appearing to believe) that the Palestinians want peace with Israel, as opposed to Israel in pieces. David Brooks, however, thinks that there is a method to her madness, and that Iran’s follies may result in a back door route to some stability in the Middle East:

It’s not really about Israel and the Palestinians; it’s about Iran. Rice is constructing a coalition of the losing. There is a feeling among Arab and Israeli leaders that an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance is on the march. The nations that resist that alliance are in retreat. The peace process is an occasion to gather the “moderate” states and to construct what Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center calls an anti-Iran counter-alliance.

It’s slightly unfortunate that the peace process itself is hollow. It’s like having a wedding without a couple because you want to get the guests together for some other purpose. But that void can be filled in later. The main point is to organize the anti-Iranians around some vehicle and then reshape the strategic correlation of forces in the region.

Iran has done what decades of peace proposals have not done — brought Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinians and the U.S. together. You can go to Jerusalem or to some Arab capitals and the diagnosis of the situation is the same: Iran is gaining hegemonic strength over the region and is spreading tentacles of instability all around.

Though this article originated in the NY Times, I take its conclusions with a grain of salt, simply because I’ve come to distrust the Times. Nevertheless, this is certainly not a wacky idea, and it does reflect an impulse to bring some central stability to a region that will become entirely unbalanced if the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis does in fact ascend to real power, rather than stopping at the noises of power, along with the violence of terrorism.

[Discuss this article with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)