There's been a lot of buzz about a cartoon that depicts the true nature of the combatants in the Arab-Israeli wars. So after doing a little research, I found the cartoon and am posting a link here for those who haven't seen it.

I'd just post the cartoon itself, but for some reason, blogger.com is not accepting it. They must have heard from Mel Gibson's people.

Also...

From lauraingraham.com...

WE SHOULD NEVER FORGET--WATCH THIS VIDEO:

As the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, all Americans should remember the horror of that day. Please be patient while this loads and watch.

Why has there even been any doubt?

Photos that damn Hezbollah

I'm still confused as to why the Bush administration is not pushing along the fact that the Israel-Lebanon war is the exact same war that the U.S. is involved in Iraq. In fact, I believe that this lack of clarity has been the main reason Bush has seen his popularity sink to such a low level. On one hand, the President has called Iran, Syria and North Korea the Axis of Evil. With those words, he sent a message to terrorists and the regimes that harbor them that they are being targeted in the war against terror.

On the other hand, while not forcing Israel to stop their attack in Lebanon, they haven't really haven't shown the world that there are consequences for Iran and Syria's action. Just more words.

As the truth of the atrocities committed by Hezbollah is coming out, it appears that the administration is distancing itself from the conflict. While Condi Rice shuffles between Washington and Jerusalem, instead of keeping a united front against terror, she talks of taking Israel to task.

Consider the words of Benyamin Netanyahu, speaking of the Islamofacists:

"Israel, to be sure, will be their #1 target but we're only their first target, and they say so. They want eventually to get you (America), and they have no problem and no inhibition firing upon civilians, hiding among civilians."

The only way for any cessation of fire is if we take this threat seriously. I shudder to think that we aren't for the sake of "world opinion". After all, since when has the world ever been right?

As the Israel-Lebanon war rages on, I find that the more I talk about the unfairness of it all just makes me sick. In general, I’m not an angry or violent person. I have faith that in the end, everything will work out the way it’s supposed to. However, I can not help but be utterly frustrated with the way things are now. One of my favorite writers/talk-show hosts is Dennis Prager. Like Prager, I seek and crave clarity in life. As religious as I may be, I have often questioned faith-based absolutes until my queries were satisfied.

But, as Mr. Prager says, it’s often painful to have clarity. It is far easier to be unaware, uneducated, uninvolved and uncommitted. While I wish everyone could appreciate and educate themselves about the world we live in, the reality is that it’s just not going to happen. Americans have grown weary of politics, news and wars. In the American society, we have insulated ourselves with “Must-See TV”, iPods and what new video Paris Hilton was seen in. We have grown lazy and apathetic because we no longer feel the need to do anything else. In our quest for the future, we have forgotten our past.

The generation of the Second World War was considered the “Greatest Generation.” Instead of improving on this greatness, we’ve rested on laurels of our parents and grandparents. The Greatest Generation‘s goal was to make life better for their children, that they should never again feel the pain and anguish of poverty and war. But instead of teaching them how to solve the problems they were to face in the future, they instead taught their children to “just say no.”

Sometimes, just saying no is not enough. As most parents will tell you, those words to a child are tantamount to an invitation to just say yes.

This “just say yes” attitude reached it’s zenith in the late-1960’s with the counter-revolution, anti-war crowd. The “Tune-out, turn-on” mantra for young Americans poisoned the minds of a whole generation. As these “flower-children” began to age, they began to understand the power and influence they held on American marketing and media. That influence manifested itself in public education, politics and society in general. In 1976, it sent a peanut farmer to the White House to do a job that he wasn’t remotely qualified to do. One of the most common cries of this generation is that we shouldn’t leave our debts to our children. Yet that’s exactly what this generation has done. Maybe not our financial debts, but an even more important one. Our children now have to clean up the mess left behind by all of the failed policies and idiotic ideas of the “just say yes” crowd.

Just say yes to drugs, just say yes to appeasement, just say yes to whatever the hell you want. Our parents never showed us how they made their generation the greatest. In their quest to make a better life for us, they just told us no. We now are forced to pay the bill for their, and our, mistakes.

Unfortunately, our generation and our children’s generation do not feel any sense of shame or guilt. We have been programmed with the Sheryl Crow written rule “if it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad”. We have forgotten, or simply ignored, or just never learned the lessons of our parents. We have fooled ourselves into believing that we are the reason we have it so good, when in truth, we only have it good because of the sacrifices of the ones before us.

This just in...

Several people shot at Jewish Federation in Seattle

A Democrat has awoken! Peter Beinart, liberal writer for the New Republic and author of the book, "The Good Fight: Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again," has, at least temporarily joined the Dark Side and has written a scathing article about how the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot politically.

Now, I'm not the first one to have said this and certainly not the only one. All day on the talk-radio circuit and the blogosphere, Beinarts' article is making huge waves. Of course, you won't hear a word about it from the Daily Kos, or any other left-headed place. But for those who haven't seen it yet, you can read it here.

**************

Congratulations to the Chicago City Council for showing the most short-sightedness in business. The council, against even the wishes of fellow Democratic-Mayor Richard Daley, passed what is called the "Big-Box" Minimum Wage. This bill specifically targets stores like Wal-Mart and forces them to pay a higher minimum wage than smaller stores.

In other words, it will keep Wal-Mart from competing equally in an open-market economy.

The reason the council wanted this law in the name of the "little guy". However, in city after city, results have shown that "big-box" retailers have enabled the local economies to grow by not only supplying much-needed jobs, but by attracting people from nearby towns to come and shop there.

What upsets me is that small-business owners should not have the right to kill off competition. In most places, it has actually caused retailers to adapt and thrive.

What I don't understand about the Chicago City Council is why they feel it's Wal-Mart's duty to foot the bill. If the city wants to really help the little guy, why don't they abolish any tax liability for minimum wage workers? Why should Wal-Mart, or even local businesses, force businesses to pay more to their employees? If the federal, state or local governments want to help the poor minimum wage worker, don't put the burden on Wal-Mart, or even on Mom and Pop.

Chicago is losing big time for this bill. It will not force Wal-Mart, or Target, or any other "big-box" employer to pay their employees more. It will make them move their businesses elsewhere. And that is definitely not good for their economy.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Or something to that effect.

How about, those who don't learn their lesson are doomed to be retaught? Or better - those who ignore the warnings are doomed to be made to look like idiots.

I like that one.

Here's a great example that ALLAHPUNDIT posted, through LGF.

1/25/2004: Nasrallah Gloats Over Prisoner Swap

Over two years ago, Nazi-rallah couldn't contain his glee over the incredibly one-sided swap between Israel and Hezbollah. Here's the kicker:

"In the future we will achieve even greater results than today," Nasrallah said. Asked if Hezbollah would carry out further kidnappings, Nasrallah smiled and said, "yes".

That's right, boys and girls. He said yes.

I realize that Ariel Sharon is in a coma, but don't you think that someone else in the Israeli government would have been aware of this? I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I do not believe Israel planned on attacking Hezbollah before this outbreak began. But it gives me pause to wonder what Israel was thinking about when they agreed to this swap. Had the Yossi Beilin influenced-Israeli left taken too much toll of the government? In his role as charchitecttect of the suicidal Oslo accords, Beilin and his buddy Shimon Peres often turned a blind eye to what Israel's enemies.

I suppose there wasn't too much Israel could do once it made the swap. But it's like a bully who threatens to steal your lunch if you don't pay him, and once you do, he takes your lunch anyway. Either way, you lose your lunch, but at least you keep your dignity.

I accept the fact that the UN is impotent to do anything even remotely in Israel's interest, and I understand that no one else in the region would help. But that's something that Israel has been unable to fix. The propaganda that emanate from the Arab lands are so superior to anything Israel can attain that it makes the fight almost impossible.

Hezbollah, like Hamas and others, know that they have three outstanding allies in the war against Israel (and America). Liberals, the media and the dis-United Nations.

Against these enemies of Israel, victory is indeed hard to achieve. But one thing that Israel does have, that her enemies don't - they have their survival at stake. For the Arabs, even losing can work to their advantage. Even if Israel completely destroys Hezbollah, there are millions more Islamofacists just waiting to take it's place. But should Israel, G-d forbid, lose here, who will left to care? Who will be left to stop them?

If the American Left, and the mainstream media don't stop there sabotage of the American and Israeli war machines, no one will be left to fight for the freedom we take for granted.

Newt Gingrich is right. This is World War III. We just haven't really started fighting it yet. It took us over two years to enter WWII, and then only after being attacked by Japan. Although we did strike back at Afghanistan and are taking it to the enemy in Iraq, the American public is still asleep. Just like they were on December 6th, 1941 and just like they were on September 10th, 2001.

When will we wake up?

Here's a wonderful article by James Lileks in the JWR:

America's peaceniks rally for the wrong side

As invasions go, it lacked punch: 200 troops and five pickup trucks with machine guns. You can find 10 times the firepower in a NASCAR parking lot. Still, it was an invasion, and as the Ethiopia-Somalia war threatened to enter its second week ...

Oh, who cares. Even though Somalia is run by Islamists so extreme they make the Taliban look like lapsed Unitarians, the progressive peace movement would take notice of the region only if Uncle Satan intervened to help Ethiopia support the U.N.-recognized government. And then the progressives would rally to the Islamist cause. Recent anti-Israel protests remind us again of our era's peculiar alliance: The most violent, intolerant, militantly religious movement in modern times has the peace movement on its side.

The usual delusions are abundant. The progressives imagine they're the vanguard shielding the last jot of human rights from the ever-gathering fascist storm. (Forget the executions in Somalia for the crime of watching the World Cup; there's a rumor Wal-Mart won't offer the usual new-release discount for DVDs of Al Gore's eco-doc.) They imagine that conservatives support Israel because they want to convert Jews and usher in the last book in the "Left Behind" series. They have internalized the Palestinian narrative so deeply they blame the "occupation" for rocket attacks coming out of territory no longer occupied. They're so convinced of their rectitude that the obscenity of an Israeli flag spattered with swastikas makes perfect sense: Why, if the Israelis weren't actually Nazis, the progressives wouldn't oppose them. They marched with communists for Worker's Rights, regardless of whether anyone in communist countries had a job or any rights. And now they march with Hezbollah supporters for Peace and Justice.

And so you have George Galloway, the British politician who was the progressives' darling when he sparred with Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., in some Senate hearings about Oil for Food corruption, proclaiming his love and support for Hezbollah's leader. You have the Dutch Socialist Party leader equating Islamic terrorism to the resistance of the Dutch against the Nazis. In London, the woolly-minded pawns marched beneath banners that said "We are all Hizbullah." Really? Is that why there's a rocket launcher at my kid's day care? Makes sense now. In Sydney, the progressives dutifully trotted alongside the city's Islamic "spiritual leader" under a sign that called Gaza a "holocaust" — a word no doubt chosen at random without knowledge of its historical antecedents.

In Montreal, in Los Angeles, in Boston: City after city hosts merry rallies where Hezbollah sympathizers join earnest Greens and "peace" activists to howl out support for an Iranian-funded army that has taken Lebanon away from its people and strangled its revolution. You'd think they would root for the people who rose up against the Syrian occupation, no? Wouldn't that be, well, progressive?

Not if the U.S. is shipping guided munitions to help Israel blow up bad guy hidey-holes. That trumps all. Given the left's romance with revolution and guerrillas, it'll be only a matter of time before Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah appears on T-shirts like Che, and his merry band are lionized as the new Viet Cong. Hezbollah builds schools, you know. Granted, they're schools where the biology lesson consists of sawing off the heads of infidel frogs. But they build schools!

Imagine rallies in 1939 in which brownshirts taunted Jews, screamed NO BLOOD FOR BEER, blamed Pearl Harbor on FDR, and called for the destruction of the French Entity while peace activists applauded. That's what we have today. It's like watching Nazis and Quakers as ballroom dance partners.

This hasn't infected the mainstream left, but the Democrats have a nasty chancre on their periphery. There has been a fascinating debate over a Daily Kos blog about whether Israel has a right to exist, and whether the U.S. should be attacked for supporting the Zionist Thingamabob. (To quote Rev. Lovejoy of "The Simpsons": Short answer, no with a but; long answer, yes with a maybe.) It's a site many high-profile Democrats have courted. Jimmy Carter posted there, as did John Kerry.

There'll be a Sister Souljah moment when the Democrats have to disavow the progressive base, and the sooner the better. If only Halliburton had built Hezbollah's underground bunkers. That would change a few minds. Ah — the real enemy shows its face again.

Very well said, indeed!

Uh-oh, looks like Kofi had a brain-freeze (for lack of a more suitable term). So now we know the real reason:

Annan's Claims On Casualties May Unravel

Was there really any doubt?

Random Musings

As far fetched as it seems to hear it from me, I can honestly say I hope Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination for Senator. I realize her opponent is a long, long shot. But let's just nip this in the bud. Jonathan Tasini should stay far away from any political post, especially in New York. When asked if Israel is a terrorist state, Tortellini, or whatever his name is, stated, "It has certainly committed many acts of brutality, and violations of human rights and torture."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not the least bit fooled by Hillary's sudden love for the Jewish state. However, at least she's saying the right things.

****************

I support the Bush Doctrine. I don't believe we can allow ourselves to be taken hostage by the Islamofacists who wish nothing more that to see me (and you) dead. With that in mind, I have been hesitant to condemn Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who addressed a joint-session of Congress today. A number of Democratic leaders threatened to boycott the speech after Al-Maliki called Israel's "hostile acts" in Lebanon and said the international community has not done enough to stop it and side-stepped a question as to he considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

I was quite angry at the PM for his comments. I realize that as the head of a liberal-democracy (although fledgling), but he must stand up against all forms of terrorism and must side with the United States in our views regarding the Middle East. I realize that if he pushed his country to accept the concept of Israel he may lose some support, and of course that would be bad. But if al-Maliki wants to be considered Iraq's "George Washington", he must embrace the truth and not the propaganda of the Arab world.

Of course, I'm also not fooled by the Democrats sudden act of righteous indignation. After all, all the votes against proclaimation supporting Israel came from the Democratic side. It was also the Democrats who staged a mock trial against President Bush, that featured anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, and where during the event anti-Semitic literature was handed out at by the DNC.

****************

I'm a little surprised that Andrea Yates has been found not guilty by reason of insanity. I wholeheartedly agree she is insane, but I also believe that her insanity is not something that can be cured through therapy. While she would have gotten life in prison, she's now in a position to possibly be freed one day. A crime that heinous should cost someone more than that. I can't believe anyone that ill should ever be free.

****************

Why are liberals so dead-set against the killing of mass-murderers, and yet as well dead-set for the killing of human embryos? A life is a life, isn't it? I don't understand how someone could be aghast at the killing of an animal for food and still support embryonic stem-cell research. The media tries to lighten the topic by calling it "using" embryonic stem-cells, but that's just a lie. In fact, what scientists do is destroy the cells (otherwise known as killing). Regardless of how little developed the cells are, they are still alive.

****************

Is it so hard to understand that the reason why many people are against illegal immigration is because it's illegal? When my grandfather came to America, he passed through Ellis Island, was processed and told "good luck". No one gave him a hand out. No one made it easy for him. He understood that if you want to live in the United States, if you want to live the "American Dream", as he called it, he would have to learn the language and work hard. He taught that ethic to all of his 11 children, who then passed it on to their children and grandchildren.

When I see the marches in Phoenix, or Los Angeles, or wherever else they're held, and I see politicians prostituting for the Hispanic vote by giving in to the illegal's demands, I can't help but feel sad for all of those people who came here before. The rights of illegal immigrants has begun trumping the rights of those who live here legally. Schools are overcrowded, hospitals are either way too busy or are going broke and crime is way up.

Nowadays, multi-culturalism has become the clarion call over assimilation. We are no longer a melting pot, but a burning fuse, about to explode. When you look at the other parts of the world where cultures clashed (as opposed to assimilated), the grand idea of multi-culturalism seems to be an abject failure.

****************

I need to address a topic already touched upon. What is the purpose of UNIFIL? The name is an acronym for United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. According to it's web site, it was created in 1978 to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, restore the international peace and security, and help the Lebanese Government restore its effective authority in the area.

So, in the 28 years that UNIFIL has been there, we have witnessed two wars with Israel, one civil war within Lebanon and a 20+ year occupation by Syria. So, let me ask again, what's the purpose? It seems clear to me that the world (at least the part I live in) is really starting to wake up and see the uselessness of the United Nations. Kofi Annan really did give himself away with his condemnation of Israel last night. Now, there is even talk that it may not even have been an Israeli missile that struck the UN post.

Keep in mind that this isn't the first time Annan was quick to blame Israel for something that wasn't there fault. The UN was first to complain about the so-called Jenin "massacre" that wasn't and the staged death of the Palestinian family who were supposedly killed by a misfired Israeli rocket that landed on a beach. It would have worked too, had one of the "victims" not have stood up before the director yelled, "cut!"

Unfortunately, the Israeli Prime Minister can stop himself from apologizing for things Israel didn't do. Maybe he's just trying to get a head start on any conversation he has with Kofi.

Kofi Annan is saying Israel deliberately targeted a UNIFIL observer post tonight.

I have two questions.

What were they observing and why does he think it was deliberate?

Could it be that, like previous examples, the "peacekeepers" were actually aiding and abetting the Hezbollah terrorists. I mean, I often tell my daughter, when she's babysitting her brothers, "when I say watch them, I don't mean watch them destroy the house." So what exactly were these UNIFIL observers observing?

Look, if they were in fact, innocent bystanders, then it is a tragedy. However, it is highly unlikely that they were killed intentionally by Israel. The fact that Annan says it's true gives me even more reason to suspect it's false. After all, this is coming from the man who stood aside and "observed" 800,000 murders in Rwanda. A man who has done little at all to avoid the genocide in the Sudan. This is the man who was in charge of the greatest financial scandal in World history and who turned a blind eye to the human rights abuses and terror that comes from radical Islam. This is a man who was pictured in a warm embrace with Hasrallah. You know, the dude who is desperately trying to finish the Final Solution (with the nut-job in Tehran).

If Israel did target the UNIFIL observers, there must be a reason. Otherwise, it was just an errant missile. Either way, the full blame for that, as well as every other fatality in this war, falls completely, and totally, upon the heads of Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran.

I disagree with those who say Annan is now showing his true colors. Maybe they've been fooled by him all along and are just realizing what a horrible excuse of a man he is. But not me. I'm only sorry "Kofi" wasn't "observing" with them.

Great picture found at Yeshiva World:



It's obviously a fake, but it's funny anyway.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, says it better than Michelle Malkin. With uncompromised wit and presentation, her daily Vent video on hotair.com is a must watch. Today, she once again exposes the hatred and stupidity of the unhinged Left. See the video here.

Silly, I thought the leftists were the tolerant ones. Who knew?

Here's an update on a posting I made last week about the possibilities of an attack on Tel-Aviv, from the Jerusalem Post:

'Missile strike on TA still real threat'

Just a quick follow-up from Hot Air. Remember, you heard it here first.

CNN reporter admits Hezbollah segment was propaganda

CNN Falls For It Again

You would think that an organization as experienced as CNN would know better. But I guess they still haven't a clue. All they've managed to do is to justify their position as the number two cable news outfit, and only there because the big three, ABC, CBS and NBC, are even more clueless.

Yesterday, the network that interrupted the coverage of the beginning of the war with a breaking news story about the death of Red Buttons (OMIGAWD!!!), took us on a "tour" of the bombed-out Hezbollah terror center. Now of course, seeing this area is certainly newsworthy. But CNN went one step further. Instead of just showing what Israeli retaliation can achieve, they had a Hezbollah guide!

Imagine during WWII, an American news network bringing in a Nazi soldier to show how innocent the villagers were after being blown up by the Allies!

Aside from the deeply one-sided tour - I'm sure CNN plans to send a camera crew to visit the families of the 8 people killed in Israel by Hezbollah rockets - the CNN anchor who "got" the exclusive, Nic Robertson, simply gushed as the terrorist warned him that he was in the "most dangerous spot in the most dangerous area" of Beirut.

The fact that Hezbollah stores weapons in people's homes is a proven fact. The fact that the Islamofacists modus operandi is too use human shields to force Israel (and the USA) to hit civilian targets is a given. The carnage that ensues because of these tactics are exactly what the terrorists want. They know that once pictures are sent to CNN, or Al-Jezeera or to the New York Slimes depicting the poor "innocent" victims of Israeli (or American) "aggression", that the Arab street, the UN and the Israeli (and American) left will start demanding Israel to cease and desist.

Basically, Hezbollah (and Iran and Syria) know that no matter how many times they start up, the left and the UN will force a cease-fire. They know that Israel and the United States won't attack them unless forced to retaliate. And even then, any aggression is met with cries of restraint, restraint, restraint. You never hear Hamas or Hezbollah call for restraint. Just kill, kill, kill.

CNN, like the Times and others like them, have fallen all over themselves to be "neutral". They sit in their pretty glass offices and wax poetic about "making a difference". They reminisce about the glory days of the Vietnam era and Watergate where the World considered them the shining light of democracy. But since then, they have morphed into global monster who no longer can spot the difference between right and wrong. All the protests and demonstrations ended up doing was costing more lives due to the communist takeover of Vietnam and Cambodia. Chalk that up to the left.

Could you imagine the outcry if Tokyo Rose were broadcasting from a station in Cincinnati? Yet it's happening right here in Dearborn, Michigan. Imagine the outcry if the day before Washington led his troops over the Delaware, a major newspaper published his war plans for all the world to see? Imagine the outcry if NBC broadcast live from Normandy in the hours leading up to the Allied invasion. What about an exclusive with Hitler showing the world how wonderful is country was with nary a Jew in site. Would that be newsworthy?

CNN proved its immorality when Eason Jordan admitted to covering up for Saddam in return for access in Iraq. Why would we believe a word they say now? The left seem to consider FOXNews as the mouthpiece for the Bush administration. I like to consider them the voice of America. CNN? The New York Times? We already know who's side they're on.

In a fight for the right to even exist, yes - it does matter.

If you think this fight is just between Hezbollah and Israel, wake up before it's too late.

I’m on a new crusade. It is my goal to expose to you the unabashed anti-Semitism that permeates the New York Times.

Yeah, I know most of us no longer/have never read the Times, at least not regularly. But many people, including many Jews, do. The “paper of record” certainly has a long one when it comes to a double-standard with Jews and the Jewish state and while the Times is known as an anti-Bush paper, it is subtly (and not-so-subtly) anti-Semitic. What makes matters worse is that Jews make up a large number of their subscribers.

So why do Jews continue to support a paper that it so antagonistic to the very people who support it? I assume two reasons. Firstly, like their support of the Democratic Party, which is far less pro-Israel today than the GOP, it is a force of habit. Historically, Jews have flocked to the Democratic Party because of their concern for social justice. However, as the Dems become more anti-Israel and less tolerant than their Republican counterparts, switching allegiance is a difficult choice.

Secondly, less religious Jews, while still supporting Israel in name, have less emotional ties to the land. In fact, most Orthodox Jews I know (and have heard from) are fervently pro-Bush because they see that, for the first time, an administration is not being taken in by Arab propaganda. In many liberal views, admitting that human beings are each different from others goes against their core beliefs. They internalize emotions and believe that all anyone wants is to live in peace with each other.

Unfortunately, that is a very naïve way to view the world. One of the liberal’s biggest complaints about President Bush is that he uses “cowboy diplomacy” and that he dares strike a difference between good and evil. They criticize his core religious belief that there is evil in the world. His critics can not understand his way of thinking because in their view, there is no such thing as God – only man. Sure they talk up G-d when they need to reach out to “middle-America”, but in practice, belief in the Almighty – true belief – is laughed at, and even demonized (how’s that for irony?).

So it makes sense to liberals they abhor war and all that goes with it. Everyone I know abhors war and would prefer it not to have to happen. But taking a stand that it is ALWAYS wrong is such plain foolish. Israel is in a war against people who simply hate the fact that we live. Should we give in to that and say, “That’s okay. You have a right to that opinion?”

Not recognizing that the enemy is different from us is suicide. Did Hamas win the election in Gaza? Yes. Does that mean we should allow them, since they are an elected group, to fire rockets and kill innocent Israelis? Of course not. One of the biggest mistakes liberals make is that they can not accept, nor understand evil. I believe it was Sting who sang, “I hope the Russians love their children too.” Well guess what? The Islamofacists love their children too. You see it all the time when you witness some poor Arab crying that the big, bad Jew bulldozed her house. Of course, what you don’t see is the other child who loved so much that he strapped a bomb around his waist and killed dozens of people (along with their children) in a pizza shop.

The question was asked by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; “How many of our children must die before the world realizes they are killing us?” Apparently, all of them.

So, to get off the tangent, let’s get back to the New York Times. In its stated goal of “all the news that’s fit to print”, only they decide what that is. Unfortunately, the news THEY find fit is often the same news that comes out of the headquarters of Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Jezeera. So for my top 10 list this week, I present to you this:

THE TOP TEN PROOF THE NEW YORK TIMES IS ANTI-SEMITIC
(taken from the outstanding article on The American Thinker)

10. When Democratic Congressman John Conyers staged a mock anti-Bush hearing some months ago. The hearing was simulcast at the Democratic National Headquarters, since a number of democratic Congressmen were in attendance at the “hearing” itself. The “hearings” featured anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, and during the event anti-Semitic literature was handed out at the DNC. How do we know this? The Washington Post was at the event and reported on the anti-Semitism; the New York Times was there as well, yet had not one iota of news about this aspect of the conference when it reported on it.

9. In its story on the funeral of Rosa Parks, the NY Times noted as dignitaries, The Reverends Louis “the Jews are a gutter religion” Farrakhan and Al “Crown Heights” Sharpton. Dignitaries?

8. (Former) Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet commented that Arafat was politically "right" to take up arms against Israel, and even uses the word "heroic" in a description of the terrorist leader, following Arafat’s death.

7. The Times gave front-page treatment to the story of an illegal immigrant teenage Muslim girl who was deported after investigations revealed she was frequently visiting Islamic anti-Semitic websites. The Times vehemently objected to this deportation.

6. The Times refused to publish the Danish anti-Mohammed cartoons that stirred up riots in Europe, yet had no problem with an anti-AIPAC ad replete with anti-Semitic stereotypes about mysterious Jews working behind the scenes, with a hirsute gorilla holding an Israeli flag on top of the dome of the US Capitol. The ad was sponsored by a well-known anti-Semitic group,a fact that if not known could have been easily discovered, if by no other means than simply by looking at the advertisement.

5. Featured columnist Nicholas Kristof engaged in a many-columned defense of Florida professor Sami Al-Arian who was charged by the Federal Government with funding terror groups. Kristof was outraged by charges and ignored evidence of well-documented ties to terrorists, as Joel Mowbray noted. Al-Arian admitted making statements along the lines of “Let us damn America,” referred to Jews as “monkeys and pigs” and called for the death of Jews. Yet Kristof defended his character in a March 1st, 2002, column as “someone who denounces terrorism [and] promotes interfaith services with Jews and Christians.”

4. In April, 2005 a prison Imam named Umar Abdul-Jalil gave a speech to prisoners in which he claimed that Muslim inmates are “literally tortured” in the federal jail in Manhattan and that “Zionists of the media” dictate what Islam is to us. His slur about Jews in the media is one of the hoariest and most dangerous of anti-Semitic clichés. Mayor Bloomberg merely gave him a slap on the wrist: a suspension of two weeks. The New York Times op-ed page praised this weak rebuke.

3. The Times’ star columnist Maureen Dowd seemed to have no trouble cooing over the new Saudi Arabian Ambassador to America, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who founded the Saudi equivalent of the Gestapo (a Heydrich reincarnated), and is part of a kleptocracy that has exported anti-Semitism all over the world, including here in America. Dowd characterized him as a “charming” prince, “dressed in a long white robe and checkered headdress” going on and on about him. This is a charmer who has justified suicide attacks against Israelis. How ironic that this adulation comes from a woman who works for a newspaper that advocates income equality (certainly not the economic system found in the Saudi Arabia that keeps its millions of foreign workers in servitude) and who wrote a book titled Are men necessary? I suppose in Dowd’s worldview the charming new envoy is a necessary man.

2. A New York Times reporter, Philip Shenon, was charged by the Justice Department with giving the Global Relief Foundation a phone tip that the FBI was going to be raiding its offices the next day (December 14, 2001). As now-legendary U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an August 7, 2002, letter to the New York Times legal department, “It has been conclusively established that the Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of the New York Times.”

1. While other newspapers and magazines across the political spectrum are suitable alarmed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program and by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad’s stated goal of destroying Israel, the Times itself is rather blasé about the issue. Despite Iran’s lead role in international terrorism, its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its role in the killing Americans over the last 20 years and the hostage crisis 30 years ago, and numerous statements from its leaders over the years (a former President openly gloated that Israel could be destroyed with one nuclear bomb and the current leader echoes this when he talks of “Rotten Israel will be annihilated by one storm”), the Times doesn’t seem to see a problem with an Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Tom Friedman wrote that “I’d rather live with a nuclear Iran because it “is the wisest thing under the circumstances”. This is despite Ahmadinejad’s statement in October 2005 that the “Zionist regime” must “be wiped off the face of the earth.” He also proudly hosted a conference “A World without Zionism.”

I am sick and tired of the liberal occupation of the World. Okay, maybe occupation is a strong word, but what else would you call it. In Denmark, the high-court ruled that a political party, based on the platform that the legal age for sexual consent be lowered to 12 (leading to total abolishment in the future), is legal and approved to join the political arena.

The "slippery-slope" theory that says that when you allow one exception to morality, you will eventually demoralize everything is coming true. Look no further than the gay-marriage issue. For what it's worth, my personal belief is that I could care less what people do behind closed doors. If two homosexuals love each other, let them be. However, changing the rules and calling their union "marriage" is wrong. If you're worried about health benefits and the like, I'm all for "civil unions". But don't force me to accept a lifestyle that as a religious and observant Jew I find immoral.

But once we accept "sex-marriage" in America, how can we not allow bigamy? Unfortunately, too many on the right use the example of beastiality, which obviously can not be consensual. That just makes those who argue because of it sound foolish. But bigamy doesn't. If we, as a society, are to make our own moral judgments, who decides what's wrong or right. The problem with liberalism, as I see it, is it's inability to draw that distinction. Sure, we can say that killing is wrong, but who are we to say what's right or wrong for someone else.

With gay marriage, the liberals tell us it's okay. What about bigamy? If I can marry another man, why can't I marry two women (aside for the obvious stress of ONE wife)? Who is to say I can't marry my sister (sorry, Debbie)? Who's to say that 12 should be the legal age of consent? Maybe it should be 10, or even 3?

Where do we draw the line.

Many liberals are aghast at the idea of a religion-based life. Even though liberalism itself is a religion, liberals don't see it. Liberals have decided that G-d and evolution don't mesh, so they've outlawed all references to G-d in schools. You can talk about the "fact" that a man and a monkey are the same (and women won't disagree either), and you can talk about the "fact" that their was a "big bang" to start the world, but utter the G-word and you get expelled.

When I was in college, I was taught that the university was the place where nothing was taboo. Ideas were presented and you were given the opportunity to make your own decisions and mold your own opinions based on all the lessons taught.

Boy has that changed. Good luck finding a professor who will allow you to disagree with his core belief. It's as if you are going to a school in Saudi Arabia, where the teaching of anything contradictory is not allowed. Sure, you can bring up the subject, but you will pay the consequences.

Earlier in the month, I learned that the University of Wisconsin has hired a teacher, Kevin Barrett, to teach an introductory class on Islam. While I could applaud the hiring of a teacher to help shape the minds of our youth, the school went overboard in their desire for a balanced approach. Mr. Barrett, who is scheduled to teach an introductory class on Islam at UW-Madison this Fall, claims that the US Government (not Al Qaeda) planned and carried out the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, costing nearly 3,000 American lives. Barrett has said that he discusses his beliefs about 9/11 in the classroom. In his own words "....We discuss the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.....".

This, the college allows. But a few months ago, a right-wing Middle-East expert, and a member of President Bush's Middle-East advisory committee, who spoke out against Hamas attacks on innocent Israelis was un-invited because the school felt it had a "safety concern". Why do you suppose there was that concern? Could it be the fact that the same university has promoted anti-Israel and anti-American marches to take place? Consider the fact that the school is a public university, which you and I pay for.

Do you really want to know why "they" hate us? It's not too hard to realize. Oh, yeah, that hate us for being friendly to Israel, but they'd hate us anyway. They hate us because "we" are not Muslim. Period. End of story. Unless we all convert to Islam and pray to Mecca five times a day, they will continue to hate us.

We have two choices. We either weaken ourselves by allowing ourselves to be taught that WE are the reason they hate us, or we strengthen ourselves and say no to anyone who wishes to destroy the Judeo-Christian values that we were founded upon. Each little exception towards that slippery-slope is one more notch in the belt of the Islamofacists who would kill Kevin Barrett just as quickly as he would anyone else.

The Bible tells of the story of Korach. He also figured that by being "nice" to his Egyptian captors, that if he kept tabs on the Jews for them, he would be rewarded. Yet, when it came to the Exodus, he was shoved out like the rest of the Jews. But even when he was free, he continued his sabotaging of his fellow Jews, until G-d had enough and destroyed him and his followers. History repeats this story over and over again. Think about the Jews who figured they would help the Nazi's when they came to power. They were gassed as well.

We are letting the Nazis in and by ignoring it - in the name of liberalism - we will all fail to react until it's too late. Liberalism is destroying this country (and the world) from the inside. As with the British who thought the Nazis only wanted the Sudenteland, we too will learn our lesson too late. This time, America will be too weak to help. She'll be the victim.

Who draws the line?

There is no liberal anti-American bias in the press? How about this...

From an Associated Press Washington dispatch:

"We'd love to have a cease-fire," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "But Hezbollah has to be part of it. And at this point, there's no indication that Hezbollah intends to lay down arms."

The AP headline? "U.S. Opposed to Cease-Fire With Hezbollah."

Hat tip -- Best of the Web

Here's a great series from the American Thinker that I found at the Mediacrity blog. I strongly recommend reading both parts.

Part One

Part Two

With all the talk of a needed cease-fire, here is an excellent article by Caroline Glick: An Acceptable Cease-Fire.

And of course, no Friday would be complete without the wisdom of my favorite writer, Thomas Sowell. With keen precision, he makes difficult issues so easy to undertand that it you want to smack your head that you didn't come up with it first. In my opinion, no one tells that absolute truth better than him.

Here is today's article. It is definitely a must-read: Pacifists versus peace.

I can't help but beat a dead horse. Here is another reason (#434, I think - I've lost count) why I thank G-d everyday that John Kerry did not win the 2004 election. This comes courtesy of The Bookworm Room, via the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal:

In September 2004, there was a huge gathering of anti-American, anti-Israeli organizations in Beirut to attend a conference entitled “Where Next For The Global Anti-War And Anti-Globalization Movements? An International Strategy Meeting.” The resulting manifesto, simultaneously turgid and strident, has as its primary goal attacking the U.S. war in Iraq. It’s secondary goal is to challenge Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian lands. It’s a nasty document, with a decidedly anti-American tone. What makes it interesting today is the identity of one of the organizations playing host to all these anti-American Leftist organizations: Hezbollah (identified on the last page as one of the Local Welcoming Committees).

Aside from the little refresher about American and Israeli friends and enemies, the document has a couple more interesting participants. First, George Galloway was one of the attendees. You remember him, don’t you? He’s Saddam Hussein’s good buddy, Fidel Castro’s good buddy, a rabid anti-American, and someone who looks loathsome in a cat suit. (Little Green Footballs has been tracking Galloway’s exploits for some time. Just go to LGF and, in the search box, enter the world Galloway. You’ll enter a world of disgusting with all the posts that are returned on that subject.)

Second, one of the participants from the United States was a group called United for Peace and Justice. Ordinarily, this would just be one of the icky little anti-American groups that America produces, along the lines of Code Pink : Women for Peace (which also attended this little American and Israel hatefest). What distinguishes United for Peace and Justice is that Teresa Kerry funds it. So, in 2004, a couple of months before Americans decided whether to put John Kerry in the White House, his wife’s money was being used to fund one of the participants in a virulently anti-American meeting held in Beirut and hosted by Hezbollah. Once again, we have reason to be grateful that American voters put their money on George Bush.

UPDATE: For a little primer regarding Hezbollah’s deadly relationship with America, read this American Thinker post.

For those of you who voted for Kerry, even if it was just a vote against George Bush, this should serve as a wake-up call. Consider what would come of the State of Israel in a Kerry administration. Perhaps President Bush is not perfect and has made some mistakes regarding foreign policy. But had Kerry won, not only would Saddam Hussein still be in power, but would it even be a possibility that Israel would be able to disarm Hezbollah?

Absolutely not.

Because of the successes of the Bush Doctrine, every single Arab nation, with the exception of Syria and Iran, has stood back and allowed Israel to succeed. Never before, in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict has that EVER happened. Not even once.

American Jews should remember this when they decide whom they should vote for in 2008. Voting for the party of Kerry, Dean and Pelosi is tantamount to voting for Hezbollah.

I kid you not.

It 1492 all over again.

In Spain, anti-Semitism is new leftist trend

I'm not vain enough believe Alan Dershowitz read my postings yesterday, but he certainly echoes what I wrote about. Read his excellent article here.

BTW, I really AM that vain, I was just being polite.

Patrick J. Buchanan has has completely lost his cover (and mind). While he was never considered a "friend", per se, of Israel, his anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism had always been kept somewhat in check.

No longer.

When he received more votes in Palm Beach county, Florida's election in 2000, than anyone expected, it seemed quite odd, given the large Jewish population there. However, some Jews forgave his negative historical stance on Israel and really did vote for him. It was if some people felt that "deep down, Buchanan's not so bad."

Well, anyone who thought that then must have been stunned by his comments today:

Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its airstrikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.

What Israel is up to was described by its army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."

First of all, a "shining example"? Is that what Lebanon is? I thought it was a weak government held hostage by a terrorist organization that takes it's orders straight from Damascus and Tehran. Secondly, perhaps Bush understands that we are in the same war in Iraq that Israel is in Lebanon. Then, to make what was clearly a racially-motivated comparison regarding Brooklyn Heights, a heavily African-American neighborhood in New York - well that was just perfect.

Maybe the reason Halutz wanted to "turn back the clock" in Lebanon was because 20 years ago, Israel had the opportunity to completely destroy the PLO and didn't. That lone act of cowardice has caused more Jewish (and Arab) deaths than during the previous 35 years.

Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.

A "pre-planned attack"? What source is he using? Air Arabia? And now that Israel has completely left Lebanon, does it matter that they couldn't finish the job in 18 years? Decides, Israel's goal in occupying Lebanon was not the destruction of Hezbollah. It was to keep a security buffer between them and Israel. There was a reason that Hezbollah missiles didn't rain down on the northern communities!

Now he faults Israel for doing what Lebanon, the "shining example of democracy" wouldn't, or couldn't do. Even though the United Nations ordered them to.

Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians...

That should instead read, "$50 million in money to be spent on weapons to strike Israel from the south", shouldn't it Pat? If the Palestinians want to have a terrorist organization running their government, that's their problem. As long as that government uses it's power to fire missiles and suicide missions in Israel, it becomes our problem.

...what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.

Another case of moral-equivalency. This is something I would expect a renown journalist to understand. As long as the Lebanese people (government included) allow Hezbollah to hide weapons in their homes, offices and towns, they are no longer considered "innocent".

It's true that there will be civilian deaths in the course of this war. However, that isn't and shouldn't be Israel's problem. Like in every conflict before it, Israel goes way above and beyond in trying to minimize the death toll. This, of course, is in contrast to Hezbollah and Hamas. While Israel has gone so far as to exchange murderer for a few already dead soldiers, the Arabs raise their children to strap on vests laden with explosives - often times with nails to maximize civilian deaths.

There is no moral equivalency in play here. If we, as American, believe that the pursuit of life and happiness are two of the basic rights of our citizens and of the world, we can not compare the two sides.

What gets me is Buchanan's blatant disregard for reality. In his myopic view of all things horrible about Israel, he shows an ugly side that is reminiscent of the loony left. They too share a hatred that completely blinds them to the very freedoms we hold so dear in America (and in Israel). Instead of recognizing that the enemy wants democracy - and I'm not talking about the kind of democracy that is hijacked by Islamofacists in Gaza - wants nothing short of the total destruction of Israel and America, Patrick J. Buchanan (may I never have to utter his name again) falls prey to the old standard of anti-Semitism.

Just like the Nazi's before them, radical Islam and their sympathizers will not be long for this world. For if they are, the world will end soon enough for the rest of us.

Great Moments in UN Peace-keeping Action

Run for the hills! The UN is at it again.

Heeding the call to get in the way of Israel's right to secure borders, once again the international corruption agency, known officially as the United Nations, is contemplating sending in a military force to ease the tensions between Israel and Lebanon. Of course, there already is one there called UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon), but clearly what's needed now is yet another UN group because, you know, we can never have enough of these. Besides, look how well the UN has taken care of the Palestinian people through UNRWA.

So now, in keeping of their long-held goal of incompetence, anti-Semitism and corruption, the UN wants to put a "peace-keeping" force in Lebanon.

Well, that got me thinking. If memory serves me, there have been a number of such efforts designed to keep the peace between Israel and her neighbors over the years. Let's look back at the success of these endeavors, shall we?

1956 In September 1955, in violation of international agreements and in what amounted to an act of war, Egypt sealed off access to the Israeli port of Eilat, effectively stopping Israel's sea trade with much of Africa and the Far East. Then, on July 26, 1956 Nasser announced Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal, most of whose shares were held by Britain and France. With diplomacy failing to reverse Nassers' decision, Britain and France embarked on preparations to regain control of the Canal, and on October 29, 1956 together with Israel, launched a military operation in the Sinai Peninsula. Four and a half months later, on March 16, 1957, Israel withdrew her troops from the Sinai and Gaza strip after receiving international reassurances that Israel's vital waterways would remain open. Three thousand three hundred United Nations troops replaced them. Despite Israel's withdrawal, the Egyptians refused to open the Suez canal to Israeli shipping.

1957-1967 Palestinian Refugees, unlike other refugees in the world, were denied resettlement opportunities, so that they could be used as political pawns. Over the last 48 years, numerous projects have been proposed, international funds provided, studies undertaken, all indicating the benefits that could be derived by the Arab refugees from their absorption into the brethren cultures of the Arab host countries.

Despite findings of the 1950 United Nations Palestine Conciliation Commission, which recommended "concentration on Arab refugees' resettlement in the Arab countries with both the technical and financial assistance of the United Nations and coupled with compensation for their property," the Arab League insisted that relief projects should not prejudice the right of the refugees to return to their homes or to receive compensation if unwilling to return. However, at the time, the French Lebanese Revue du Liban reported that, "it is a fact that many Arabs leave Israel today of their own free will."

Earlier, The United Nations created the UNRWA in order to help solve the displacement issues of Arabs who did not wish to live in Israel. At this point, however, UNRWA expanded its work to include the refugees who were turned away from their Arab neighbor homes for politicaposturingng. However, at the same time, many Jews were expelled from many Arab controlled countries - some families living there for hundreds of years. At no time, in the 58 year history of the State of Israel, has the United Nations addressed this.

1967 The UN forces that had remained in the Sinai for the previous 10 years, during which numerous raids by EgyptiaEgyptianan militia squads killed a large number of Israeli, were forced out of the area by Gammal Nasser, President of Egypt. Although Nassar had no authority to do so, the UN capitulated to his decision. As was the case in 1956, Israel considered this an act of war. This led to the Six-Day war. When the hostilities ended, the UN demanded that Israel return all land that was conquered. Never before, in the history of warfare, had a nation been forced to cede land in a defensive war.

1973 Just before 2 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 6, 222 warplanes took off from seven airfields and flew low on bombing missions against Israeli military targets in the Sinai. In the meantime , 60 warplanes took off from several air bases in Syria to bomb Israeli targets on the Golan Heights and guns opened a fierce and intense barrage.

Thrown onto the defensive during the first two days of fighting, Israel mobilized its reserves and eventually repulsed the invaders and carried the war deep into Syria and Egypt. The Arab states were swiftlresupplieded by sea and air from the Soviet Union, which rejected U.S. efforts to work toward an immediate cease­fire. As a result, the United States belatedly began its own airlift to Israel. Two weeks later, Egypt was saved from a disastrous defeat by the UN Security Council, which had failed to act while the tide was in the Arabs' favor.

And it went on and on and on...

Some people with whom I spoke have laughed when I bring up the issue of the United Nations bias against Israel as if it's some sort of fantasy made up in my head. So I found a wonderful website online that tracks the UN's history as it relates to the Jewish State. Even upon reading all the example presented, I was simply amazed at the enormoudiscrepancycy and lack of fairness. For example, from 1948 until 1991, there had been 175 resolutions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. 97 went against Israel, 74 were neutral, and just 4 were for Israel. JUST FOUR!

So what do you think is going to happen if the UN gets their grubby hands on this conflict? Will they stay just long enough for Hezbollah to rearm? Will they use their platform to keep Israel from defending her territory?

History tells us it will be one or the other. If the UN wants to do something constructive, how about settling those "refugees" in their neighbor's homes. It would be about time. I mean, wasn't that the reason Jordan was created?

From Arutz Sheva:

Ma'an: Nasrallah Will Give Tel Aviv Residents One Hour to Flee

Arab press sources close to the Hizbullah say that residents of Tel Aviv will be given one hour to flee before the terrorist group launches a barrage of missiles at the city.

The unnamed sources are quoted by the Palestinian Authority-based news agency Ma'an as saying:

"The Lebanese resistance is preparing a retaliation parallel to Israel's military actions. Hassan Nasrallah will address the people of Tel Aviv and warn them to evacuate the city within one hour. As soon as the delay ends, hundreds of heavy missiles will start landing in the city, which has been divided into squares in order to let damage reach every inch of the city. An estimated 500 missiles are expected to land in Tel Aviv in a short period of time."

The Arab sources further said that the Hizbullah has been very careful in cultivating its public image, in order to increase the surprise effect of the planned barrage on Tel Aviv.

The war, from the perspective of Nasrallah, has not yet begun, the sources said, adding that other "surprises" planned by the Hizbullah include more kidnappings of Israeli soldiers from along the Lebanese border.

Also claiming to have "surprises" in store for Israel is the Gaza-based Islamic Jihad. On Tuesday night, the terrorist organization claimed to have fired a Katyusha rocket at Sderot. The Katyusha is a more deadly rocket than the Kassam, and is being deployed against Israel in the north of the country by the Hizbullah.

Now, truth to be told, I have a hard time believing it. Especially since the initial source is is the Arab press. When we last heard from them, we heard this nonsense from Iraq. But assuming that it has some truth behind it, what does it mean for Israel, and in a greater context, for the world?

I hearken back to the words of Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations:

"If they hit Tel Aviv, it won't be an escalation. It will be doomsday. It will be the end of everything for them. We would consider it not just an escalation but something which they and their sponsors, mainly Iran and Syria, would pay very, very dearly."

For a video clip, click here.

I believe that if Hezbollah should somehow hit Tel-Aviv, then unquestionably, the gloves will come off for Israel. I also believe that Israel's target will no longer just be Hezbollah, but Iran as well. Should THAT transpire, I expect the conflict to take on a more international flavor, bringing the United States into the conflict as well.

Right now, in polls taken in Israel, over 95% of Jewish Israelis support what their government is doing. In America, I don't have any figures to state, but my impression is that Israel's support and support for what she's doing is considerable. The very fact that the news that the US House of Representatives is to express its support for Israel and to condemn Hezbollah, and in parallel votes in the Senate and the House of Representatives expected before the weekend, it can be assumed this country is very supportive of Israel's measures.

There are moments where I am truly stumped by the stupidity of the Iranian government and what the Arabs are doing. I realize that Iran's intention all along was to force the G8 away from talking about Iran's nuclear capacity, but I wonder if they expected such a strong response from Israel. It would be clear to me that if Iran did expect this response, then they would have held off any aggression until they were capable of nuclear power. But by doing this now, Ahmadinejad may well have played his hand too soon. Suddenly, the world is beginning to notice how diabolical Islamofacism is.

This poses an interesting dilemma for many in the left, especially in Europe. It flies in the face of what they've been preaching since they first pushed "Oslo" on us. Israel did everything the left wanted them to do. They wanted us out of Lebanon, so we left. They wanted us out of Gaza, so we left. Each time, most of us on the right hollered that it was causing more problems, not less. While we watched our brethren being forced from their homes, some living there all their lives, we were assured that this "token" of peace" would lead to a peaceful settlement with the Arabs.

I knew it wouldn't and many of Israel's true friends knew it wouldn't either.

So now that we have been proven right again, the world is beginning to understand that there can not be peace between Israel and those who wish her annihilation. With the exception of France (what else is new?), all the members of the G8 stand solidly behind whatever steps Israel must take to destroy Hezbollah.

I should clarify regarding the French position. For what it's worth, since Lebanon (as well as Syria) were once occupied by the French, they do have a shared bond.

In conclusion, if the Bush administration is honest about the defeat of terrorism, he should not hesitate to help Israel in this war, even if it means the US confronting Iran head-on. Iraq was a perfect gateway for the US to begin the democratization of the Middle East, but aside from killing the terrorists who are still foolish enough to fight, the Iraq invasion doesn't accomplish as much as it could. Pulling Iran and Syria into the war via an attack by Hezbollah on Tel-Aviv, could well spell the beginning of the end of the terrorist network. While I shudder at the thought of Tel-Aviv coming under attack, even the threat should be enough to put an end to this nonsense once and for all.

Quotes of the day

Israel’s U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, responded at the New York rally:

“To those countries in there who claim that we’re using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: You’re damn right we are. Because if your cities were shelled the way ours were, if your citizens were terrorized the way ours are, you would use much more force than we are using.’‘

--From The Yeshiva World

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow answering Helen Thomas's irrational questions:

"Thank you for the Hezbollah view" -- watch the hilarious exchange here.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean showing why you should never politicize war:

“If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

--From Tailrank

That's right. Bill Clinton had the "moral authority that brought the together the Israeli's and the Palestinians." Aside from ol' Bill not knowing what the word "moral" meant. wasn't it during the Clinton years that the second Intifada broke out? You know, the one where Oslo was finally buried?

Beween the three of these, I love Gillerman's the best. For sheer entertainment value, nothing beats watching Helen Thomas getting bitch-slapped. But for sheer lunacy, Howierd Dean tops them all - again!

In today's Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen wrote the following, which prompted me to send off a letter to his editor. Here are Cohen's comments:

The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights ezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.

And here is my letter:

Mr. Cohen:

Perhaps you are unaware that the Jewish population exceeded that of the Christian population, or that the Jews numbered as many as 35% of the total population of Palestine prior to 1948, the year Israel was founded. To state that "the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism" is simply irresponsible and false.

As a respected member of the media, and someone who often writes about the Arab/Israeli issue, you - more than most - should understand the facts and the history of the conflict. It simply amazes me that you can make this declaration at a time when the truth about the current war is so necessary. As with every war in the Middle East since Israel's creation, Israel's only goal is peace and to be able to live without the constant threat of annihilation.

To imply that Israel was a "mistake" (albeit an honest one in your words), simply continues the fallacy of moral equivalency between the two sides. By making such an irresponsible and repugnant claim, you embrace the claims of the revisionists who also believe that Israel is "illegitimate" and who wish the elimination of the State of Israel and her people.

In conclusion, I must add that I am shocked that the Washington Post would allow such a lie to be published, even if it is on the editorial/opinion page. Shame on you for not knowing the history of the conflict. And if you do know it, shame on you for lying about it.

While Cohen has always tilted left in regards to Israel, to my knowledge he has never shown a penchant for revisionism. You can mail him your comments at mailto:cohenr@washpost.com..

Daryl Cagle
















Gary Varvel

I am a creature of habit. When I do a project, I usually do it the same way every time. So, when presented with a choice of writing a new top 10 list this week, instead of continuing my focus on the war in Israel, I decided to do what I have been doing and write up a new top 10 list.

But in light of the ongoing crisis, which is far more important that any frivolous list, I found it increasingly difficult to focus on anything other than the war. So, in order to satisfy me desire to post a top 10 list and to keep in tune with what is happening in the Middle East, I present to you this weeks Top 10.

There are a lot more myths than I could post, but I'm stopping at 10. If anyone has any questions, needs more proof, or are wondering what other myths are out there, just ask.

THE TOP TEN MYTHS ABOUT THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT
With the facts that debunk them

Myth #10. The current Israeli aggression was unprovoked
Fact: This current crisis began with the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. On July 12th, Hezbollah terrorists launched rocket attacks across Israel’s northern border, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two. Soon after, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) invaded Lebanon in an effort to force Hezbollah to release the captured soldiers. The IDF reported over 700 rockets had been fired into Israel from Lebanon.

Myth #9. Israel’s reaction has been disproportionate
Fact: What would be a proportionate response to 700 rocket attacks on a civilian population? After leaving Lebanon after 18 years of occupation, Israel continues to be faced with attacks over her sovereign border. After the latest development, where members of Hezbollah snuck over the border and attacked, it became too much for the Israeli’s to accept. The amazing thing is that it took as long as it did for Israel to react. Any other country would have gone to war much sooner.

Myth #8. The Palestinians only want the land promised them
Fact: In 1917, the Balfour declaration promised land in the Middle East to the Jewish people. This agreement was accepted by Emir Faisal and the Arab Congress. Upon disagreement of borders by the Arab Congress, Israel agreed to a partition of the land, giving back the land east of the Jordan River to be used for an Arab homeland. Although accepted by the Jews, the Arabs refused that and other partitions that gave them more land and the Jews much, much less. The final borders, agreed upon by the United Nations in 1947, covered less that 13% of the area originally promised to the Jewish people. At the time of the original promise, the Jews comprised over 55% of the population, but only received 13% of the land.

Myth #7. Israel has always been the aggressor in their wars with the Arabs
Fact: In 1948, upon declaring her independence, Israel was attacked by the Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi armies. In 1956, Israel, France and England were forced into war by the closing of the Suez Canal by Egypt. From 1965 to 1967, Arab infiltrators successfully carried out over 100 terror incursions into Israel. In addition, tremendous anti-Jewish rhetoric came from Gammal Nasser in Egypt (even more disparaging than what’s coming from the idiot in Iran). Upon discovering imminent attack plans of the Syrians and the Egyptians, Israel attacked and defeated both armies, as well as the Jordanian army (who entered the battle a day later) in 6 days. In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the Holiest day of the year in sneak attack. In 1982, after consistent attacks by PLO factions in Lebanon, Israel defeated the PLO militants and occupied southern Lebanon.

Myth #6. The PLO was formed in order to force Israel out of the West Bank
Fact: The Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded by Yasser Arafat in 1965 – 2 years before Israel won the West Bank and Gaza strip.

Myth #5. Hezbollah only wants the Shebaa Farms that belong to Lebanon
Fact: Upon leaving Lebabon on May 24, 2000, Israel evacuated every inch of land that belonged to Lebanon. The Shebaa Farms, according to the UN Security Council 425, belongs to Israel. That was again reviewed and accepted by the UN one year later.

Myth #4. Jerusalem has always been an Arab city
Fact: Jews have been living Jerusalem continuously for over 2000 years and have constituted the largest single group of inhabitants since the 1840’s. The city was never a capitol of any Arab entity and never considered a cultural center of Islam. Although the Dome of the Rock is there, Jerusalem is not mentioned with any honor in the Koran. However, it is mentioned in the Old Testament many times as the center of Jewish life.

Myth #3. The root of Arab hatred of the USA is due to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians
Fact: Arab animosity with the West was fervent during World War II, when the Mufti of Jerusalem sided with Hitler. The anger towards the West has to do with the West’s “Moral decay” and their own jealousy of Western progress. Even today, while defending Arabs from their more zealous protagonists, the United States is still considered the enemy. If Israel did not exist, there would still be anger and animosity between the West and the Arabs.

Myth #2. Israel has no right to the West Bank, Gaza or the Golan Heights
Fact: In every war, the spoils go to the victor. Israel is the first nation in the World that has been forced to surrender land it won in a defensive war. If has to cede the West Bank and the Golan Heights, then shouldn’t Texas be returned to Mexico? Shouldn’t Jordan return to Israel? What about America, should the US return to England? Canada to France? Mexico to Spain?

Myth #1. The Al-Aksa Intifada was a spontaneous reaction to Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount
Fact: Months after the second Inifada began, Imad Faluji, the PA Communications Minister admitted that the uprising had been planned months in advance of Ariel Sharon’s visit. In fact, the opening attacks of the Intifada took place in the days leading up to Sharon’s visit. Unbelievably, the World’s media used a legal visit, one that had been arranged with the Waqf (Arab administration in charge of the Mount), as the “reason” for the unrest. On May 4, 2001, the international “Mitchell Report” declared "the Sharon visit did not cause the 'Al-Aqsa Intifada.'’

My dear old friend, K2, posted a comment on one of my postings that I felt was significant enough to address here:

Don't misunderstand my response or my question for opposition to your posting, Shayne, but the devil's advocate in me has to ask...without keeping the door open for peace how does it all end?

Do we settle for a constant state of war, with consistent killing on both sides, instead of keeping an eye on a potential peace (as remote as the possibility may be)?

Do we set an Islamic genocide as our end-objective? Regardless of the fact that there is plenty of land in the Sinai Desert for concentration camps and the playout of final-solution scenarios...well, that just doesn't seem like something the French would tolerate (though I hesitate to say the same for the US these days). Heh.

At least the head-in-the-cloudser writing for The Daily Kos cyber-rag (which is an apt description of the VAST majority of political-minded blogs...they aren't news sites, and you should endeavor to remember that) dares to imagine and present a possible solution to the madness in the Middle East, as wrong-headed as it may be. Here you do nothing more than stoke a fire that absolutely must and should not be allowed to burn.

First of all, I want to say that I very much appreciate his comments and understand exactly what he is trying to convey.

So the question is, how does it end?

Firstly, so there isn't any question about where I stand on the matter, understand that in a perfect world, I, along with most everyone else, would love to see complete and total peace in the region (and everywhere else as well). Secondly, I would never call for an Islamic genocide. Nor would I ever call for the opening of Arab concentration camps. What happened to the Jews in the 1930's and 40's must never happen again to anyone.

My entire point of my posting was in essence an acceptance of reality. The reality is that there can not be peace between Israel and the forces that wish to destroy her. In order to have a plan for peace, you must have someone who whom to make peace with. In our generation (and before), with limited exception, regardless of the words out of their mouths to the West, the leaders of most Arab nation's ultimate goal is the elimination of any Jewish presence in the region.

How do you make peace with that? By the very fact that in order to begin talking peace, you have to accept the notion that your enemy doesn't even consider your presence to be legitimate. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the PA and countless other governments- all members of the United Nations - have said time and again that they do not accept the legitimacy of a sovereign Jewish state. From the War of independence through the Six-Day War, from the Yom Kippur War until even today, the leaders of the Arab nations have energized their people to believe that the Jews must be "driven to the sea". You see it in their textbooks, you hear it in their Mosques and you watch it on Al-Jazerra and Internet web sites.

There is no mistaking the voracity of their venom.

So, how does it end? I'm glad you asked.

There has been a growing movement within Lebanon for the elimination of Hezbollah. As part of UN Security Council resolution 1559, Lebanon must disarm the terrorist organization. Clearly, the Lebanese government does not have the power to reign in Hezbollah, mostly because of it's unified support from Iran and Syria. However, given this opportunity, it would behoove them to allow Israel to take care of the problem.

As Prime Minister Olmert stated today, the conflict must continue until Hezbollah is completely disarmed. By doing this, Olmert shows that he understands the mentality and dynamics of the key players involved. Should Israel succeed (and it's quite likely they will), three very positive things will occur:

1. The liberation of Lebanon from the grips of Iran and Syria

2. A crippling defeat of the Ahmadinejad regime and quite possibly the beginning of the end of the Ayatollah-led government.

3. The security of the northern part of Israel.

4. Tremendous repercussions throughout the Palestinian-controlled territories.

How is this all possible, you ask?

It's possible because Hezbollah (and Iran, by proxy) never expected the Israeli government to react this harshly. However, once engaged, Arab honor must not be forgotten. Therefore, Hezbollah has no choice but to fight it out. As it becomes more clear that they will suffer sound defeat, both militarily and strategically, more Iranians, Lebanese and Palestinians (those who want to make peace) will become more vociferous and begin challenging their leaders to the point of a revolution.

Think it can't happen? I'll give you four examples where it has:

Egypt (although it caused Sadat's death)
Lebanon
Jordan
Iraq

It was hoped that the Palestinian leaders would have followed suit after Oslo, but apparently it was a ruse. However, there are many people in Iran, Lebanon and in the Palestinian-occupied territories that want to live free of the oppressive, intolerant, corrupt regimes of their rulers.

So to answer your question, my dear old friend, the answer is to let Israel do whatever it needs to do defeat Hezbollah - and defeat it completely. Only out of force can the terrorist organizations be defeated. Force is the only language they know. To continue to play on the delusion of "peace" would just be met with a more dangerous situation later.

I know you dismiss the intelligence of President Bush, but what he said a few years ago still resonates with me today. We can not afford the luxury of waiting until the terrorists have the capacity to wage nuclear war. For if we wait until they have them, it's already too late.

Hit them now. Hit them hard. Hit them until they can't hit anymore. Ever.

Wow, three posts in one day. Must be some kind of personal record.

I just read the most disturbing piece of crap ever posted on the web. Well, probably not the most disturbing, but in regards to Israel, quite disturbing. It should be noted that this posting was on the far-left Daily Kos (I absolutely refuse to link to it). The Daily Kos is known for it's unwavering support of John Kerry and all things Democrat. Furthermore, it is widely read and quoted by such luminaries as Hillary Clinton, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore and Howard Dean.

What does this post say about the Democratic Party and the American liberal movement in general?

Anyway, here's the post:

Imagine a world without Israel

Muslims, Jews, and Christians could live in peace without fear of mutual destruction.

There would be no more need for US AID or justification for Dimona.

We could bring down the Wall, send prisoners home, and families could be reunited.

We could dismantle checkpoints, open crossings, and pull down barbed wire fences.

There would be no more settlements or armed settlers because the people would be united.

We could replant trees and olive groves and rebuild battered cities.

No more suicide bombers or sniper fire, and no more dead civilians.

No more targeted killings and hell-fire missiles, or systematic demolitions.

Palestinians and Jews could live together and the world could address other issues.

What a simpler place this world would be

if there was no need for a Jewish majority - where there would otherwise be none.

Is it so hard

Personally, I could imagine a world without the Daily Kos. I was a bit relieved to read some of the comments to the posts, and I know that no one should have to have their comments censored. But what this posting tells me is not that he/she hates the Jews, but rather they have no idea that there is a world out there outside their little bubble of delusion.

If this writer even had a clue about what the world was like, he/she would know that without Israel, regardless of one's personal religious belief, life around the world would take horrible turn for the worst. This idiot doesn't realize that the Islamofacists desire is not just the elimination of the "Zionist regime", but the Islamification of the world.

Imagine a world without Israel? Imagine a world without freedom!

I'm torn between rage and pity for this writer. While she's out singing "kumbaya" and trying to stop Halliburton with verse, there's a real war going on.

Hey, maybe she likes the way she looks in a burka.