...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

 

Another “winner”: And the awards to the repellent and egregious just keep on coming. First, Kojo’s dad, bespoke dunderhead Kofi Annan scoops the coveted Olaf Palme award. Now, ailing despot Fidel Castro has won the august Amilcar Cabral prize.

 

The whosit whatsit prize, you say?

 

The Amilcar Cabral, apparently an award named for great hero in Africa, and more specifically in the pestilential backwater, Guinea Bissau.

 

Here’s how the award was announced on the Cuban site periodico.cu:

 

President Fidel Castro Awarded Amilcar Cabral Medal

·        The highest distinction of the government of Guinea Bissau, the Amilcar Cabral medal, was received by Esteban Lazo as representative of the Cuban president. It was delivered by the prime minister of Guinea Bissau, Mr. Aristides Gomes

By: Luis Luque Alvarez

Taken from www.juventudrebelde.co.cu

 “It can be said that with few leaders have I developed such a deep friendship as the one there was between Amilcar and I,” said Cuban President Fidel Castro once, referring to African national hero Amilcar Cabral, “a thinker of great intellectual capacity, a creator and an especially humane person.”

These statements were made yesterday by the Cuban Communist Party Political Bureau member Esteban Lazo after receiving the Amilcar Cabral Medal on behalf of the Cuban leader. The award was delivered by Guinea Bissau’s Prime Minister, Mr. Aristides Gomes.

The medal granted to Fidel is the highest distinction given to outstanding personalities who have contributed to the establishment and strengthening of Guinea Bissau.

Lazo noted that this medal also pays homage to all Cubans who died in Guinea Bissau while fulfilling their internationalist duty. He noted that there are others who continue to render their services to that nation and region inspired by the lessons of the Commander in Chief, an advocate of “sharing what we have, not merely giving away what we don’t need.”

Gomes pointed out that Fidel Castro “will leave his mark not only on the history of Cuba and Latin America, but the entire World. He has left a deep mark in the patriotic consciousness of Guinea Bissau, in its fight for independence and later in its social-economic and cultural development and progress.”

“We wish him,” he added, “a speedy recovery. We are sure that this is another battle he will win, with the certainty that he still has a lot to give to the noble cause of humanity.”…

Well, live and learn, as they say. Who knew that Cubans had died in Guinea Bissau while fulfilling their internationalist duty—which, I take it, had something to do with helping the G-Bs fight a war. (Right-o, says wiki.) And who knew the grateful Guinea Bissauians (Bissauers? Bissauniks?) knew how to shmear up a dictator so well; the smarm is so thick it’s a wonder how anybody attending the ceremony could even shake hands. And what gives with the hyphen between Guinea and Bissau, which seems firmly in place in some reports, and strangely absent in others? If they can’t get something as picayune as punctuation right, what the odds of the G-Bers getting anything else right.

 

Case in point: The country is currently underdoing a spot of turmoil, in which its now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t hyphen may well be implicated. (Contentious punctuation having been known to stir up more than few crisis throughout history.) From Reuters alertnet:

 

BISSAU, 30 January (IRIN) - The United Nations secretary-general's representative in Guinea-Bissau, Shola Omoregie, has negotiated an end to a 17-day crisis involving the government and prominent politician Carlos Gomes Junior who had sought refuge in the UN building in Bissau.

 

Gomes Junior, chairman of the former ruling African Party for the Independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde, previously served as prime minister. He had been a close ally of President Joao Bernardo "Nino" Vieira before the 1998 civil war but has since called him a "bandit and mercenary who betrayed his own people".

 

Vieira was overthrown in 1999 and returned to power in elections in 2005.

 

Gomes Junior sought refuge at the UN following a series of violence incidents, including the beating in December of another outspoken opponent of the president, Silvestre Alves, and the assassination in January of Navy Commander Mohamed Lamine Sanha.

 

Sanha was a former leader in the junta that ruled from 1999 to 2000 after Vieira had been toppled. Gomes Junior alleged that Vieira was involved in Sanha's death and the government issued a warrant for his arrest.

 

After Sanha's died on 6 January fighting broke out in Bissau between protestors and security forces. At least one person was shot dead and one of President Vieira's houses was destroyed…

Yikes. Sounds like it may be a good time to send in more Cubans.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:14 | link | comments (3)

What can happen when a Muslim behaves like a “mensch”: He puts himself at risk of being murdered by true believers who wish he’d knock it off. From Reuters via Der Spiegel Online:

Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, winner of the 2006 Nobel prize for literature, has cancelled a reading trip of Germany.

The Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk has decided to cancel a trip to Germany in the light of the recent murder of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Threats shouted at Pamuk by the alleged mastermind behind that murder seem to have persuaded the author to keep a low profile for the time being.

The celebrated Turkish writer was due to receive an honorary doctorate at Berlin's Free University on Friday before embarking on a reading tour of major German cities. Pamuk's German publisher, Carl Hanser Verlag, and the Free University confirmed Wednesday media reports that the author had cancelled the trip at short notice.

Pamuk is believed to be concerned about travelling following the assassination of Hrant Dink on Jan. 19. Yasin Hayal, the alleged mastermind behind that murder, declared on his way into court on Jan. 24: "Tell Orhan Pamuk to wise up!" The nationalist is accused of initiating Dink's slaying, having admitted to police that he urged the underage Ogün Samast to carry out the killing and even provided him with the weapon.

The decision to cancel the tour will be another blow to Turkey's reputation when it comes to the issue of freedom of expression. Pamuk, like Dink, had appeared before a Turkish court charged with "insulting Turkishness" after commenting on the deaths of up to one and a half million Armenians at the end of World War I.

However, the case was dropped after the Turkish Minister of Justice said that a new legal code removed it from his jurisdiction. Official Turkish policy is to deny that there was any genocidal campaign against the Armenians, claiming that they died along with many ethnic Turks during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Pamuk is despised by militant Turkish nationalists for talking about the mass murder and for criticizing the Turkish government's handling of the conflict with the Kurdish separatists in the south east of the country.

The author of Snow and My Name is Red had planned to travel to Berlin, Cologne, Hamburg, Stuttgart and Munich to read from his latest book Istanbul: Memories and the City. Berlin's Free University confirmed that the presentation of the honorary doctorate had been postponed, and that no new date had been set for the ceremony. The university announced that it "greatly" regretted the cancellation.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:13 | link | comments

 

Don’t stand so close to him: One of my favourite groups of the 1980s, the Police, is set to reunite for the Grammys, and I couldn’t be more pleased. I’ve always been a sucker for that killer combo of high-pitched Sting vocals married to a kick-ass reggae beat propelled by Andy Summers’s guitar riffs. The news has inspired me to do my own update of a Police classic, that infectious confection—“Every Little Thing She Does is Magic.” In my version, though, the “she” becomes a “he,” and the “he” in question refers to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a.k.a. the hairy Islamic Hitler, a.k.a Moo Jihad:

 

Oh, he tried before to tell us

Of the loathing he has for us

In his heart.

So he’s written lots of letters

‘Cause that’s how he’s s’posed to do it

For a start.

 

Every little thing he does is tragic.

Every thing he do just turn us off.

Even though he claims that he is magic

All the infidels can’t help but scoff.

 

Does he have to tell the story

Of a thousand years or more

Since Mahdi’s gone?

Says he’s ending his occlusion

To announce there’s gonna be

A brand new dawn.

 

Every little thing he does is tragic.

Every thing he do just turn us off.

Even though he claims that he is magic

All the infidels can’t help but scoff.

 

He’s resolved to blow us up

And so he’s building bombs.

The IAEA is watching out

For those phenomenons.

But it’s also doing nada

To derail his evil deeds.

A regime change in Iran now

Is what ev’rybody needs.

 

Every little thing he does is tragic.

Every thing he do just turn us off.

Even though he claims that he is magic

All the infidels can’t help but scoff…

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:28 | link | comments

 

Numbers game: Tiny minority of extremists update. From the Jerusalem Post:

It's time we open our eyes and confront reality. Ever since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the media has sought to reassure us that only a tiny minority of Muslims actually support the use of violence against Israel and the West.

It's just a small fringe, a marginal few at best, they tell us, so don't worry about it all too much. One percent or three percent - who cares? Just sit back, enjoy your morning eggs and coffee and have a nice day.

But a look at the numbers tells a very different story. The extent of support for global jihad is frightening in its proportions, and the numbers are anything but insignificant.

Consider, for example, the following statistics regarding support for suicide bombings and other types of terror attacks.

In a poll conducted five months ago, and broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 TV, nearly 25% of British Muslims said the July 7, 2005, terror bombings in London, which killed 52 innocent commuters, were justified. Another 30% said they would prefer to live under strict Islamic Sharia law rather than England's democratic system.

Now, one in four justifying terror may not be a majority, but it certainly isn't a "small fringe" either.

In other countries, the figures are no less unsettling. A survey published in December found that 44% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombing attacks are "often" or "sometimes" acceptable. Only 28% said they were never justified.

According to the annual Pew Global Attitudes Survey, released in July 2006, "roughly one-in-seven Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam." The report also found that less than half of Jordan's Muslims believe terror attacks are never justified. In Egypt, only 45% of Muslims say terror is never justified.

STILL THINK only a "tiny minority" are in favor of violence? In Israel, the percentages are even more alarming. After Cpl. Gilad Shalit was abducted by Hamas terrorists last summer, a poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center revealed that 77.2% of Palestinians supported the kidnapping, while 66.8% said they would back additional such attacks.

More than six out of 10 Palestinians also said they were in favor of firing Kassam rockets at Israeli towns and cities.

And lest you think that war fever lay behind the results, consider this: four additional polls published in September, nearly a month after the Lebanese conflict had ended, all found large majorities of Palestinians backing terror attacks against the Jewish state.

Indeed, in various countries around the world, support for Muslim fundamentalist terror groups appears to be widespread…

You don’t say. I thought they were all like those funny Muslims in Saskatchewan—sweet, benign ethnics forced to put up with the inherent racism of the white folks around them. You know, Islam as scrubbed clean by the multicultist Ceeb.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:41 | link | comments

 

Don’t miss it: A chilling summary of the links between Nazism and Islamism, The Islamic Mein Kampf. The presentation shows how, once again, the world is averting its eyes and ignoring the obvious while the Jew-haters get set to launch a second genocide of the Jewish people—the final Final Solution.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:43 | link | comments

 

If you can't lick 'em, join 'em: A Conservative politician in the U.K. is set to give a major speech tonight, encouraging the Brits to distance themselves from allies like the U.S. and embrace their inevitable dhimmitude.

 

Of course, he probably won’t use the words “dhimmi” or “dhimmitude” in what sounds like a painfully self-abasing surrender speech. Then, he doesn’t really have to. From politics.co.uk:

 

William Hague will tonight call for British foreign policy to turn towards the Middle East, saying there must be a "concerted national effort" to engage with Muslim states.

The shadow foreign secretary will accuse the government of neglecting some Gulf countries, noting that Tony Blair's visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before Christmas was his first in almost ten years in power.

He will also call for greater emphasis on forging links with countries in the Asia-Pacific region, saying: "Britain has not yet been sufficiently successful at promoting trade with China and India, and has sometimes lost out to other European nations as a result."

Mr Hague will blame the government's focus on events in Brussels and, in particular, in Washington, for its "slow" reaction to the changing balance of world power.

In a keynote speech to Chatham House this evening, the shadow foreign secretary will argue that events in Iran and Iraq, relations with Syria and the state of Israeli-Palestinian relations mean ministers should be "steeped in knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs".

"The potential dangers that lie ahead call for the maximum understanding of Middle Eastern societies as well as the firm anchoring of the friendships between countries of the Middle East and of the wider West," Mr Hague will say.

"While we are certainly engaged in a struggle against international terrorism, we are most certainly not engaged in a clash of civilisations."…

 

Perish the thought. No “clash of civilisations” here, folks. Just a bunch of disgruntled young “immigrants”, upset by “Islamophobia” and their lack of opportunity. And who take out their frustration by launching terror attacks so they can blow up a bunch of infidels for Allah.

 

Nope. Sleep tight, little Bits, ‘cause all's quiet on the civilizational front.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:27 | link | comments

Smells like teen shahid spirit: The National Post has a piece about the scent-sation that’s sweeping the nation—the nation of Lebanon, that is. It seems that, along with his coup d’etat, a work in progress, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has launched an olfactory offensive. The Hezbollah honcho has become the latest celeb to release his own brand of stink water. And if you think Britney, JLo, Paris, Shania and Celine smell purty, wait’ll you get a load of Eau de Hezbollah:

Last summer, during the war with Israel, Hezbollah's Al Manar satellite TV channel ran an advertisement featuring Reem Haidar, an attractive Lebanese woman with a special request for Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah. "I want his cloak that he sweated in while he was defending me, my children, my sisters, and my land," said Haidar, with a toss of her highlighted hair, as martial music played in the background. "I want it so that I can rub some of its sweat on myself and my children. Maybe they can also distribute pieces of it to the people, so that they can soak up some dignity, honour and nobility." In her sunglasses, plunging V-neck and red bandanna, Haidar made quite an impression. Al Manar put the Haidar clip in heavy rotation, and, after the war, she got her wish: Hezbollah presented her with Nasrallah's presumably sweat-soaked clerical robe.

Haidar's desire for the perspiration of Hezbollah's black-turbaned leader may strike Westerners as a little odd (imagine, or perhaps don't, American women clamouring for the sweaty garments of Dick Cheney). But the odour of sanctity is a powerful draw; just as Catholics traditionally believed that the bodies of saints gave off the scent of roses, Shiites believe that the soil of Karbala -- where the martyr Imam Hussein was beheaded -- smells sweet, like musk.

Muslim or Christian, man or woman, everybody wears perfume here in Beirut: Men hawk bootleg couture fragrances on street corners, and stores will custom blend knock-offs of your favorite fragrance while you wait. So, given the cult of Nasrallah and the culture of perfume, perhaps it was inevitable that, sooner or later, Beirut's latest must-have item would invoke the essence of his sweaty robes: the "Perfume of Resistance" -- eau de Hezbollah.

I first smelled the Perfume of Resistance at the opposition sit-in that began occupying downtown Beirut on Dec. 1, 2006, in an attempt to topple the U.S.-backed government. There seemed to be some disagreement about what exactly the smell of the resistance was: Non-Shiites, outraged at seeing Lebanon's permanent underclass occupy its swank city centre, started sending out text messages sneering that the protesters smelled bad. (One suggested that the statue of dead Sunni politician Riad Solh came to life in order to hold its nose.) But, for the Shia faithful and their Christian allies, the sit-in took on the character of an outdoor bazaar, with vendors offering a wide and enticing array of Hezbollah- themed items. It was there, amid all the tchotchkes of resistance- Hezbollah banners, Hezbollah cellphone holders, flashing Hezbollah buttons, lighted crystal Nasrallah paperweights, smiling Nasrallah keychains -- that I spotted the little yellow packets of Nasrallah-themed perfume.

The Attar (literally, essence) of Resistance comes in jasmine, gardenia and tea rose (the latter, because it supposedly found favour with Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, is rumoured to be Nasrallah's personal pick). The slender vials are packaged in little laminated folders with excerpts from Nasrallah's speeches printed inside. On the front, Nasrallah waves a hortatory hand, with Lebanese and Hezbollah flags fluttering behind him, while a missile sinks an Israeli gunboat. On the back, there's a photo collage of lilies and rocket launchers. All this for $1? Who could resist?...

Who, indeed? Well, actually, I, for one. As an infidel not much given to the niceties of political correctness, and as a member of the religious group that the Prophet Mohammed turned into apes and pigs, I’m not too interested in smelling like Sheik sweat and tea roses; I’m pretty sure that the rose aroma, powerful though it may be, doesn’t go nearly far enough to mitigate the stink of Nasrallah B.O. I can, however, suggest a more fitting—and perhaps even more marketable—name for the product (although, at $1 a bottle, I’d say it’s the price point that’s making it fly off the shelves): Eau de Jihad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:56 | link | comments (2)

 

Unreasonable demand: Somalia is struggling to keep the jihadists from retaking power, an effort that’s become all the more difficult since the EU and the U.S. are refusing to send the regime that ousted the Islamists any money until it agrees to hold “reconciliation talks” with its enemies. The jihadis. Tellingly this demand wasn’t required of Mahmoud Abbas before transferring $180 million to him so he could pay the salaries of his police force (and perhaps siphon some of it to the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the Fatah militia that collaborated with Islamic Jihad the other day to bomb a bakery in Eilat). Which begs the questions: can one ever reconcile with jihadists, and why is this demand being made? From News 24:

Addis Ababa - Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed is to host a national reconciliation conference in a bid to turn the page on 16 years of bloodshed in his country, says European Union commissioner Louis Michel.

Yusuf, who took up power in Mogadishu a month ago, told Michel of his intentions to stage the gathering in the next few weeks during a breakfast meeting at the ongoing African Union summit in Addis Ababa.

Michel, the commissioner for development, said: "I am impressed by his decision to call a conference of reconciliation. It (the conference) could happen in two or three weeks."

Yusuf, who appeared alongside Michel after the meeting, declined to comment on the conference and cancelled a press briefing that he was scheduled to hold immediately afterwards.

'We agreed to work together'

His only comment after the Michel meeting was that "we fully understood each other and we agreed to work together".

The EU had made clear earlier this month that it was only prepared to contribute 15 million euros to an AU peacekeeping force due to be deployed to Somalia as long as Yusuf's interim administration took concrete steps towards reconciliation.

Michel said Yusuf had met the EU's precondition by deciding to convene the reconciliation conference. He said: "In my opinion, all the conditions are fulfilled" for the EU to now release the funds for the AU force.

The interim administration, which was formed in 2004, had been confined to a provincial backwater until late last month after Ethiopia intervened on its behalf and helped oust a coalition of Islamist hardliners from Mogadishu.

'A very broad reconciliation'

The United States, United Nations and AU had all urged the interim government to reach out to rival factions in Somalia, including moderate Islamists…

Moderate Islamists? That’s a new one on me. We’ve heard of moderate Muslims (although so far, they seem to have made themselves scarce). We’ve heard of radical Muslims, a.k.a. Islamists, who are waging jihad in order to conquer the infidels and make Islam supreme. But “moderate Islamists”? Now, there’s a real head scratcher. What are they, exactly? Islamists who don't impose every last Draconian precept of sharia law? “Yes" to executing homosexuals by burying them chest deep in a pit and flinging large rocks at their heads; “no” to summarily killing all apostates?

 

It’s fair to say that the very concept of “moderate Islamists” is oxymoronic, along the lines of that classic oxymoron, jumbo shrimp.

 

Moronic, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:37 | link | comments

 

Festival of flayed flesh: It’s one of my favourite Shia holidays—the day of the year when Shias commemorate the death of the guy they believe to be the Prophet’s rightful successor, and who was killed in battle way back when in Karbala fighting against those who believed another successor had the better claim (hence the unbreachable and inexorable split between Shias and Sunnis). And what better way to celebrate than by slicing, dicing and julienne-ing your epidemis, and then parading through the streets with blood coursing down your head and body?

 

Now that’s devotion.

 

And since the Shias and Sunnis have decided to re-enact that medieval battle by killing each other in modern-day Iraq, suddenly, everything old is new again.

 

Which, come to think of it, could be the motto of the jihad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:25 | link | comments (1)

 

Kofi’s prize: Kofi Annan, the most feckless Secretary-General in UN history, a man who presided over the most lucrative scam in history and who did his utmost to further the jihad against Israel and the West, has won an award for his stellar accomplishments.

 

Who on Earth would want to give the bespoke buffoon a prize? Why, the Swedes, of course. From AP:

STOCKHOLM, Sweden — Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Darfur human rights activist Mossaad Mohamed Ali won the Olof Palme Prize on Tuesday for their work to protect human rights, peace and security.

The award will be presented at a ceremony in Stockholm in May, and the two winners will share the $75,000.

The Palme memorial fund board, which selects the winners, cited Annan's courage and involvement during his U.N. leadership, saying he had "given proof of the utmost integrity" while also defending U.N. principles and international law when those were challenged.

"His fight for human rights, and his way of stressing that development is a necessary part of the work for security, has left indelible traces in the world o0rganization."…

True enough. But only the Swedes and those of a similarly delusional mindset would consider that to be a good thing.

I am reminded of a statement made upon Richard M. Nixon’s resignation—a statement that also applies to Kofi: Nothing so became his term in office as his leaving of it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:51 | link | comments (2)

 

The benefits of bakery butchery: Who needs unity talks and Saudi-sponsored negotiations? All you have to do is send a shahid into a bakery and, presto, instant solidarity. From Reuters:

GAZA (Reuters) - A ceasefire between rival Palestinian factions appeared to be holding on Tuesday, bringing people out of their homes for the first time in five days as shops reopened and traffic again clogged narrow Gaza streets.

"We are very happy and we hope that this time, the ceasefire will last," said Yahya Zaki, a clothing store owner.

Some gunmen remained on the streets in the Gaza Strip and police deployment was limited, but no major violence was reported.

The truce took effect after Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas met an aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah on Monday in a bid to stem a surge of fighting in which at least 30 Palestinians were killed...

The truce took effect after a human bomb self-detonated and offed some Jews for Allah.

 

Unity built and sustained solely by mass-murder: hardly the basis for viable nationhood.

 

Update: It looks like three dead Jews won’t be enough to keep them united. Quel surprise.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:33 | link | comments (1)

 

The IDF made him do it: The odious AP justifies the murder of Jews:

BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip — The Palestinian who blew himself up in the Israeli resort of Eilat on Monday was unemployed, despondent over the death of his baby daughter and driven to avenge his best friend's killing by Israeli troops, relatives said.

Dozens of neighbors celebrated outside 20-year-old Mohammed Siksik's house after the fiery attack that killed him and three other people, waving his photo and praising him as a martyr. Inside, his mother greeted mourners with a smile.

"He told me: 'Meeting God is better for me than this whole world,'" said Rowayda Siksik, wearing a white veil.

She said her son told her only that he was going to carry out an operation inside Israel. "He said, 'Goodbye, I am going, mother. Forgive me.' I told him, 'God be with you.'"

Siksik never found steady work, getting by with occasional jobs with his father, installing tiles. "You can't find work in this place," his mother said. Her son lost his 7-month-old daughter to a nerve disease, she said.

Sitting on the floor of her bare house, the mother said her son's best friend, Nader Amrein, was killed six months ago in an Israeli military operation in northern Gaza. Amrein was a member of Fatah, the movement of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

As the brother of a top Islamic Jihad official, Siksik made an easy target for recruitment for the suicide attack.

Originally sympathetic to the more secular Fatah, Siksik's life changed after the death of his friend. "He became religious about six months ago," his mother said. "He joined Islamic Jihad."

Outside the house, Islamic Jihad and Fatah members argued heatedly over who would sponsor Siksik's funeral. The two groups claimed to have jointly planned the attack.

Secular, shmecular. A Jew-killer’s a Jew-killer, whether he’s killing because he’s an Arab “nationalist” or because he’s religious nutter. And the AP’s condoning such depravity helps ensure that it will continue.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:28 | link | comments (1)

 

Thanks for nada: Demonstrating yet again their complete inability to read and understand Palestinian intentions, the EU and the U.S. condemned the Eilat bombing—but for the entirely wrong reasons: the EU, because it’s a bid to “derail” the fragile “peace process”; the U.S., because, in failing to reign in terrorism, the Palestinians are undermining their heart’s desire, a state of their very own.

 

Dumbkopfs! Once and for all, there is no peace process, fragile, hardy or anything in between. There is only a resolve on the part of the Arabs/Persians to excise the Jewish “tumour.” And George, Condi—really, now. You actually expect Stinky Abbas to reign in the terrorists? It was his militia that co-sponsored the bakery blast, and the Palestinians are jubilant because, after weeks of murdelizing each other, they finally have something to celebrate; something to bring them together.

 

As for the aspirations of the Palestinian people—it should be Windex-clear by now that they have but one aspiration: they aspire to push the Jews into the sea. Barring that, they’ll settle for blowing them all up. Statehood is just something they pretend to want, to string along the Western suckers (like Bush and Olmert, who between them have just sent $180 million to the political arm of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade so it can conduct more “resistance” operations like the one yesterday).

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:10 | link | comments

 

Banki’s blather: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon says it’s finally time to do something to prevent Iran from building its deadly WMDs.

 

Oh, wait. Wrong initials. From People’s Daily Online:

The United Nations Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon said 2007 is a critical year for the world body's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) aimed at reducing poverty when he spoke Monday in Addis Ababa at the opening of the two-day summit of the African Union (AU).

"If we are to make the target date of 2015, we have to see concerted action in 2007 -- the mid-point in the work to reach the MDGs," Ban said when addressing the opening ceremony of the 8th AU Summit of heads of state.

Ban, who assumed his post as UN chief earlier this month, pledged to convene in the coming months a working group on Africa and the MDGs, a coalition of the willing bringing together key African stakeholders, as well as international organizations and donors.

"We will aim to meet by March, to formulate an action plan supporting practical initiatives for accelerating progress in 2007 and 2008," Ban said…

Can’t hardly wait to read it. I’m sure it’ll be a model of UN progressiveness and practicality.

It looks like Banki (as I like to call him) has already mastered the subtleties of UN doublespeak, a skill that served his predecessor so well and that will undoubtedly come in handy in the days ahead.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:00 | link | comments

 

My Unfair Loony: A song for kafiyah-wearing, Hezbollah-loving Mr. Bean doppelganger, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (see post below):

 

The birdbrain in Spain

Is easy to explain.

(I think he’s frightened.)

The birdbrain in Spain

Is easy to explain.

(By George, he’s frightened.)

 

Now, once again,

The hate’s aflame

In Spain, in Spain.

And why’s the hate germane?

It’s plain, it’s plain.

 

The birdbrain in Spain

Is easy to explain.

(It’s quite Satanic.)

The birdbrain in Spain

Sees fascists rise again.

(This time Islamic.)

 

Now once again,

There’s a campaign

In Spain, in Spain.

And once again Jews are the bane

Of Spain, of Spain… 

 

Enough of that. Those castanets are giving me a headache.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:46 | link | comments

 

Adios, Espana: Contemplating a visit to sunny Spain? Don’t. As this FrontPage piece explains, the land that brought us the Spanish Inquisition is a hotbed of judenhass and Holocaust denial. Spain should be avoided like the plague—or the Spanish flu:

 

January 25, 2007 joins the annals of history as the first time a part of Europe adopted Ahmadinejad’s customs officially. Those stying the transformation of Europe into Eurabia will surely see the case of Ciempozuelos (Madrid) as the first warning of the Islamification of Spain. However, the picture is slightly different.

 

Ciempozeulos is a village near Madrid. Excluding punctual scandals—like the mayor’s recent resignation under charges of corruption—for the 12, 768 inhabitants of Ciempzeulos, life is good—and progressive. The Socialist Party PSOE calls the shots, so it was so surprise when the town announced there was not going to be any commemoration of the Holocaust Memorial Day, which Miguel Angel Moratinos, Spanish Foreign Minister like to say he established in Spain (even though the date was established in the Berlin Accords signed by previous Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in 1995).

 

The townhall will host the Day of the Palestinian Genocide instead, a hate-fest against Israel, Israelis and Jews in general.

 

Middle East politics notwithstanding, attacks against Jews in Spain keep rising. The Foreign Minister himself, known for his pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel points of view, starred in an episode a few days after the Spanish PM Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero appeared wearing a Palestinian handkerchief. Spanish business Mauricio Hatchuel Toledano was heavily admonished in front of an astonished press by Moratinos when Mr. Hatchuel, a Jew, pointed out the fact that no one in Spain—Osama, Chavez, Castro, Putin, and Ahmadinejad—is so heavily attacked by Zapatero’s executive as Israel. Moratinos simply could not argue. In a country whose citizenship jumpted to the streets to protest for the Lebanon war carrying swastikas to denounce Israel’s existence and as part of the western government congratulated by Nasrallah himself in one of his fatwa-speeches, Moratinos was forced to use the only method he could to shut up critics: It is not true because I tell you so.

 

While the sensation of the day is Abbas’ visit to Spain—the Foreign Ministry is working heavily to make Madrid one of the capitals to host a Middle East conference plan—Zapatero’s position towards the Holocaust was known around one year ago, when Europe MP Vidal-Quadras explained in (sic) Interconomia Radio a dark, grim Spanish episode very revealing in terms of Spanish anti-Semisitm. To make a long story short, during a semi-official dinner, Zapatero said he quite understands the Nazis, since the Jews are a problem?

 

Hey, aren’t we always? And isn’t Israel one shitty little country (in the immortal words of that French ambassador)? No wonder Zapatero has decided to align himself with the forces of darkness who want to wipe it out.

 

I have to say, though, that Spain’s angling to host a Peace in Our Time Conference—the apogee of chutzpah. Or however you say it in Spanish.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:07 | link | comments (1)

 

Jihadi justifications: Fatah is tied up at the moment trying to kill Hamas, but don’t think that’s deterred the “moderate” Abbas from his primary goal: terminating the Jewish “occupation” of Israel. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the militia associated with Fatah, got together with some hotheads from Islamic Jihad, and together they plotted a successful suicide bombing of an Eilat bakery; three people were killed. They feel perfectly justified in unleashing this terror; something about “resistance” being justified by Israel having the cheek to continue existing. From YNet News:

 

Monday’s suicide bombing attack in Eilat, which left three civilians dead, “underscored the Palestinian resistance's intent to continue the Jihad (holy war) until all Palestinian lands are freed,’ an Islamic Jihad spokesman said.  

"This is a message to the world saying that the Palestinian resistance has the right to choose the time and the place for their actions,” he said.

A high ranking official from one of the Palestinian organizations told Ynet that the terrorist attack in Eilat was an operation coordinated between Islamic Jihad's al-Quds Brigades and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Fatah's military wing.

A senior al-Aqsa operative told Ynet, “The attack in Eilat was a natural response to Israel’s continued crimes in the West Bank.

“Each time the Israelis breach the ceasefire we will find a way to respond, be it through rocket fire or suicide attacks,” Abu Ahmad said.

'Israeli leaders stupid'

The al-Aqsa member said the bombing should not lead to the collapse of the agreed-upon truce with Israel as "the IDF killed and apprehended dozens of Palestinian activists during the period of calm."

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said, “The suicide bombing in Eilat came as a response to Israeli military policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as its ongoing boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian government.”

"So long as there is occupation, resistance is legitimate," he said…

See? Hamas and Fatah can agree on something.

 

Such charming, delightful, reasonable people. I’m sure if and when they get their very own state, it will be a light unto the world and become a shining testament to Jihadist ingenuity.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:33 | link | comments (4)

 

Jihad? What jihad?: An august member of academe weighs in on the War on Terror and posits an intriguing theory: What if 9/11 wasn’t really all that bad, and the reaction that followed constituted a massive—and completely unwarranted—overreaction?

 

And what if there were no jihad and what if pigs had wings? From the L.A. Times:

 

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.

Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents…

 

Now, I’m sure this professor of history at Johns Hopkins is a pretty clever guy; you don’t get to be professor of history at Johns Hopkins if you’re a dolt. However, he’s making a huge mistake here. He’s claiming that the number of fatalities is the most crucial factor, and is ignoring the fact that traffic deaths are the result of accidents, while 9/11 deaths were the result of jihadis, inspired by their reading of their religious texts, who are convinced they have a God-given duty to conquer that portion of the planet where Islam is not yet in charge—and who are determined to wage jihad until they prevail.

 

You cannot change this mission by, say, building better roads or lowering the speed limit. Or by pretending it’s no big deal. Although it would sure be swell if you could.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:10 | link | comments

 

Hollywood’s duck and cover: On an evening when Hollywood is geared up once again to deliver another batch of awards to itself, an interminable annual ritual (I believe this time it's the Screen Actors Guild Awards, which precede the Oscars but come after the Golden Globes), it's instuctive to read this piece by L.A. Times columnist Andrew Klavan. Klavan tries to account for Tinsel Town’s reluctance to make movies about the key issue of our time—and we ain’t talkin’ global warming:

 

I RECENTLY attended "FBI 101," a G-man seminar for Hollywood writers. I do this kind of thing a lot: law enforcement seminars, ride-alongs, citizen academies and the like. It's a simple deal. The writers get information and research contacts; the lawdogs get a fighting chance at being portrayed realistically and maybe, on occasion, even sympathetically.

Now, in my case, the federales were preaching to the converted. Any agency with a record of battling gangsters, communists and dirty pols can show up as good guys in my work anytime. And never mind just their record. Since 9/11 — chastened by blunders from within and above — the FBI has reinvented itself as a thin gray line against Islamic terrorism. Pulling 16-hour days, volunteering for repeated tours of duty at FBI outposts in the Middle East, constantly aware that their failures will be remembered when their successes are forgotten, the G-people are clearly heroes.

But if they're hoping that their seminar will win them props from filmmakers in general — a picture or two celebrating their courageous work in the war on terror — I suspect they are going to be disappointed. In the history of our time as told by the movies, the war on terror largely does not exist.

Which is passing strange, you know. Because the war on terror is the history of our time. The outcome of our battle against the demographic, political and military upsurge of a hateful theology and its oppressive political vision will determine the fate of freedom in this century.

Television — more populist, hungrier for content and less dependent on foreign audiences — reflects this fact with shows such as "24" and "The Unit." But at the movies, all we're getting is home-front angst and the occasional "Syriana," in which "moderate" Islam is thwarted by evil American interests. But the notion that this war is about our moral failings is comfort fantasy, pure and simple. It soothes us with the false idea that, if we but mend ourselves, the scary people will leave us alone…

 

Sounds like the gist of the Toronto Star editorial that appeared a few days ago.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:46 | link | comments (2)

 

The power of polls: Oh, the absurdities of modern times. Palestinians have been killing each other for weeks now, but no one has been prepared to call it a civil war. Until now. There has now been a poll on the matter, and Palestinians, who can't seem to agree on much of anything these days, are unified in acknowledging that, yes, indeedy doo, it is a civil war, can it officially be labelled as such.

 

It's as though the polling, and not the warfare, is the key to apprehending reality and that, had the poll not been conducted, there would be no civil war; that it's only a civil war because the poll says it is.

A pretty freaky state of affairs, if you ask me.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:43 | link | comments (2)

 

One way street: Alan Dershowitz came to Brandeis University last week to engage Jimmy Carter in something Carter claims to want above all else: a dialogue. Instead, Dershowitz found Jimmy bloviating away in a one of his customary monologues.

 

Dershowitz isn’t pleased.

 

From the New York Daily News:

...President Carter and I agree on many things. We both want a two-state solution to the conflict. We both want an end to the occupation. We both oppose new Israeli settlements. We both wish to see a democratic, viable Palestinian state emerge.

But President Carter and I have our differences, too. I favored a compromise peace based on the offer by President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000-2001. Carter defends Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept these generous terms, or to make a counteroffer.

In fact, Carter never mentions in his book, or in his speech, that the Palestinians could have had a state in 1938, 1948, 1967 and on several other occasions. Their leaders cared more about destroying Israel than about creating Palestine. That is the core of the conflict. It is Palestinian terror, not Israeli policy, which prevents peace.

Why does Carter cling to his version of history? We know from Carter's biographer, Douglas Brinkley, that Carter and Arafat strategized together about how to improve the image of the PLO. Did Carter advise Arafat to walk away from a Palestinian state? That is an important question - one I would have asked Carter had I been given the chance.

President Carter told the Brandeis audience that he wants to reduce America's role in the peace process in favor of Russia, the United Nations and the European Union. To me, that is not a serious proposal. As Carter himself showed during his presidency, American leadership is both positive and necessary.

And President Carter continued to make the kinds of inaccurate claims that run throughout his book. He said that Hamas began a 16-month ceasefire in August 2004. What about the Hamas rocket attacks in the weeks and months that followed, which killed innocent Israeli women and children?

He claimed that Israel's security barrier was designed to seize land, when in fact it was proposed by liberal and left-wing Israelis to protect civilians from bombings and sniper fire.

And Carter's omissions speak volumes. Not once in his speech did he mention the Palestinian refugee problem, which the Arab states still exploit against Israel. And not once did he mention Iran and the nuclear threat it poses - not just to Israel, but to the entire world.

I give President Carter credit for the concessions he made at Brandeis. He at last apologized for an infamous passage in the book that condones Palestinian terrorism. He acknowledged that the use of the word "apartheid" in the title might have caused offense.

I would like to join with President Carter in working for peace in the Middle East. But peace will not come if we insist on blaming one side in the conflict. And real dialogue, at Brandeis or in the Middle East, means talking with people with whom you might not agree.

I’d say it means more than that. It means listening to people with whom you might not agree—a far more difficult feat.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:47 | link | comments

 

Wilful blindness: As someone who supports Jewish sovereignty in Israel, and who is revolted by the Left’s attempt to delegitimize it by embracing Israel’s enemies (enemies who, not co-incidentally, are also  the enemies of Western civilization), I have often wondered how Left-leaning Jews who support Israel are able to reconcile their political leanings with the pathological loathing for the Jewish state.

 

As Thomas Lifson explains on the American Thinker site, they can’t. All they can do is blame Israel for its bad behaviour. Were they to take the time and trouble to examine their own worldview, it might call it into question--and who the heck wants to do that?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:04 | link | comments

 

Three cheers for sanity: The inestimable Melanie Phillips conducts a post mortem on the recent Livingstone-Pipes debate in Londonistan, and is cheered by what she sees:

…This remarkable reaction [cheers for Pipes; jeers for Livingstone] provokes two reflections. First, the reason why Livingstone has got away with it for so long is simply because he has been allowed to do so. Thanks to a media that slavishly laps up his every utterance and largely supports his odious world-view, and opponents who tend to be intellectually spineless (think of the Tories, who can’t find one single candidate able enough to stand against him) he has never effectively been held to account. Faced with opponents who are formidably well-informed and intellectually fearless, he is promptly exposed for the empty ideologue that he is and duly crumples.

The second reflection is that, despite all the opprobrium that fashionable opinion generally heaps upon the Pipes/Murray view of the world, despite all the name-calling of ‘Islamophobe’ and all the rest of it, below the surface at least some people have clearly been listening hard and thinking for themselves. They have undoubtedly noted that the Islamists are not exactly committed to fundamental human rights, and that the alliance between sections of the left and those committed to the genocide of the Jews, the killing of homosexuals, the beating of women and the extinction of individual liberty is as loathsome as it is lethal. In other words, opinion has shifted. That’s why they cheered. And that is immensely cheering.

It was a defeat for the totalitarian left and a move towards sanity and decency. And that, no doubt, is why it has not been reported.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:28 | link | comments

 

The sacred and the profane: During the last Lizard lunch here in Toronto, a visiting Lizard mentioned that while viewing Air Canada’s in-flight screening of The Queen, he noticed that the word “God” had been bleeped out several times.

 

The assembled reptiles remarked that it was indeed odd to treat “God” as though it were an expletive, but, unlike some who are quick to proffer a conspiracy theory to explain the inexplicable, we did not attempt to account for the censorship.

 

The reason behind it has now been revealed. From the CBC:

ATLANTA (AP) - So much for God and country, at least during some in-flight showings of the Oscar-nominated movie "The Queen."

All mentions of God are bleeped out of a version of the film distributed to Delta and some other airlines. Jeff Klein, president of Jaguar Distribution, the Studio City, Calif., company that supplied the movie to the airlines earlier this month, said it was a mistake, committed by an overzealous and inexperienced employee who had been told to edit out all profanities and blasphemies.

"A reference to God is not taboo in any culture that I know of," Klein said. "We excise foul language, excessive violence and nudity."

Airline passengers watching the movie hear "(Bleep) bless you, ma'am," as one character speaks to the queen. In all, the word "God" is bleeped seven times. (At no time in the original movie is "God save the queen" uttered.)

Klein said he discovered the mistake after a London-bound Air New Zealand passenger complained. Jaguar has been sending out new, unedited copies to the airlines.

Airlines routinely show movies from which graphic scenes and strong profanities are edited out.

"The Queen" is about Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Tony Blair in the week following Princess Diana's death in 1997.

A spokesman for Miramax, which produced the movie, had no comment on the episode.

The editor responsible for the mistake is still working in the Jaguar editing lab, Klein said.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:20 | link | comments (2)

 

Running on empty: Mark Steyn notes a disturbing whiff of late-era Soviet-style exhaustion on the American political scene. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

…Alas, the air of Andropovian exhaustion is not confined to Massachusetts. In the State of the Union, the president (as presidents are wont to do on Tuesday nights in January) spoke about energy, but he didn't seem to have any. Five years ago, when he was genuinely engaged by the subject, he wanted to drill in ANWR and go nuclear: He was energetic about energy. When both those excellent ideas went nowhere, President Bush retreated to some familiar bromides about vague targets and new regulations and increased efficiencies: His list was listless.

This seems to suit the Democrats. The only energy displayed by Nancy Pelosi was the spectacular leap to her feet within a nano-second of the president mentioning Darfur. Up went Madam Speaker and the entire Democratic caucus like enthusiastic loons on a gameshow. Darfur! We're all in favor of Darfur. People are being murdered! Hundreds of thousands! We oughtta do something! Like, er, jump up and down when it's mentioned in a speech. And, er, call for the international community to mobilize. Maybe one of those leathery old '60s rockers could organize an all-star concert or something. If Darfur were indeed a game show, the Sudanese would quickly discover it's one of those ones where you come on down to discover you've missed out on all the big prizes but you're not going away empty-handed: No, sir, here's your very own SAVE DARFUR! T-shirt autographed by Nancy Pelosi and George Clooney.

Darfur is an apt symbol of early 21st century liberalism: What matters is that you urge action rather than take any…

With good reason. Urging action without actually taking any allows one to feel morally superior—and, oh, what a wonderful feeling it is.

 

Update: The political scene isn't the only one where words speak louder than actions. Harvard professor Ruth Wisse notes that acadme is similarly inclined—an inclination she dubs "gliberalism." From OpinionJournal: 

 

…Recent surveys confirm that university faculties have been tilting steadily leftward, but I think it is wrong to assume they have been tilting toward "liberalism" as is commonly assumed. Liberalism worthy of the name emphasizes freedom of the individual, democracy and the rule of law. Liberalism is prepared to fight for those freedoms through constitutional participatory government, and to protect those freedoms, in battle if necessary. What we see on the American campus is not liberalism, but a gutted and gutless "gliberalism," that leaves to others the responsibility for governance, and arrogates to itself the right to criticize. It accepts money from the public purse without assuming reciprocal duties for the public good. Instead of debating public policy in the public arena, faculty says, "I quit," but then continues to draw benefits from the system it will not protect.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:55 | link | comments

 

Shot shunners: There are growing numbers of parents in the U.S. and the U.K. who, for various reasons, are disinclined to allow their children to receive one or another vaccination As a result, the incidence of highly contagious childhood illnesses—measles, mumps, whooping cough—have been making a reappearance, and parents have been putting their kids and other kids at risk of contracting these potentially fatal infections. Now, a Muslim medical association in the U.K. is adding to the risk. It has encouraged Muslim parents to eschew some vaccines because, hold onto your niqabs, it’s “unIslamic.” From the Sunday Times Online:

 

A MUSLIM doctors’ leader has provoked an outcry by urging British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella because it is “un-Islamic”.

Dr Abdul Majid Katme, head of the Islamic Medical Association, is telling Muslims that almost all vaccines contain products derived from animal and human tissue, which make them “haram”, or unlawful for Muslims to take.

Islam permits only the consumption of halal products, where the animal has had its throat cut and bled to death while God’s name is invoked.

Islam also forbids the eating of any pig meat, which Katme says is another reason why vaccines should be avoided, as some contain or have been made using pork-based gelatine.

His warning has been criticised by the Department of Health and the British Medical Association, who said Katme risked increasing infections ranging from flu and measles to polio and diphtheria in Muslim communities.

Katme, a psychiatrist who has worked in the National Health Service for 15 years, wields influence as the head of one of only two national Islamic medical organisations as well as being a member of the Muslim Council of Britain. Moderate Muslims are concerned at the potential impact because other Islamic doctors will have to confirm vaccines are derived from animal and human products.

There is already evidence of lower than average vaccination rates in Muslim areas, reducing the prospect of the “herd immunity” needed to curb infectious diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella.

Katme’s appeal reflects a global movement by some hardline Islamic leaders who are telling followers to refuse vaccines from the West…

Look for the infidels to start making special provision for the faithful by producing “halal” vaccines. Presumably, that would go a long way to persuade British Muslims to get their shots. However, the following story from a few years back shows what can happen in more backward places when ignorance, zealotry, fear and conspiracy theories collide.  From AP via Dhimmi Watch:

 

KANO, Nigeria -- A suspected large-scale polio outbreak was reported Friday among children in a heavily Muslim northern Nigeria state that had boycotted immunization campaigns, and local authorities appealed for urgent action to stop the spread.

The suspected outbreak was in Kano state, one of several in northern Nigeria that had shunned polio vaccination drives over suspicions the vaccines were part of a U.S.-led plot to render Muslims sterile.

On Friday, local officials in the Kano state city of Rogo disclosed that they had recorded dozens of suspected polio cases in recent weeks. Rogo is 60 miles southeast of the state capital, also named Kano. ...

In September, Shekarau suspended participation in a global immunization program on the grounds that local scientists had discovered traces of a hormone in foreign-made vaccines that they feared could make girls infertile.

Some local Islamic leaders accused the Nigerian federal government of being part of a U.S. plot to kill off Muslims with the vaccines.

Apparently, one of the biggest objections to the polio vaccine is that it was developed by two Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:27 | link | comments

 

Tempus fugit, and so does Iran’s nuclear timetable: Caroline Glick, a woman who doesn’t mince words—although often her forthrightness makes for very disturbing reading—says Iran will be ready to blow much sooner than anticipated. From the Jerusalem Post:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an evil man. But he is not a stupid man. Indeed, he is smart and fastidious. He understands power and how to get it. And he understands that the purpose of a nation's foreign policy is to sell ideas and messages and to build coalitions that enable a state to achieve its national aims. Due to his understanding and his abilities, Ahmadinejad has achieved significant success in advancing his policy aims of defeating the United States, destroying the State of Israel, and acquiring nuclear weapons.

The source of his frenetic motivation for destruction is his deep-seated and fanatical desire to hearken the arrival of the Shi'ite messiah - the twelfth imam or the Mahdi. Ahmadinejad promises that the arrival of the Mahdi will signal the enduring defeat of liberal democracy and the notion of human freedom and the eradication of Christianity and Judaism. All will be replaced by the "pure" Islam of the Mahdi, of Ahmadinejad and of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

Over the past week evidence of Ahmadinejad's success was legion. On Wednesday, London's Daily Telegraph reported that Iranian-North Korean nuclear collaboration has reached new heights. Not only were Iranian scientists present at North Korea's nuclear test last October, according to the Telegraph, North Korean nuclear scientists are in Iran today assisting their Iranian counterparts in preparing a nuclear test that could take place by the end of the year.

This new information means that the time line for Iranian acquisition of nuclear bombs has been shortened dramatically. If just months ago US intelligence officials claimed that Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons until 2011, and if just six weeks ago Mossad chief Meir Dagan told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran needed two years to acquire the bomb, the report that Iran could test a nuclear weapon by the end of 2007 means that there is reason to fear that Iran will have the means to launch a nuclear attack against Israel next year…

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:56 | link | comments

 

Bloody rivalry: Mahmoud “Stinky” Abbas promises that he and his nemeses are going to have those last few kinks in a Fatah-Hamas unity plan ironed out within the next three weeks.

 

Which still leaves everyone plenty of time to kill each other before any final agreement kicks in.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:21 | link | comments (1)

Carter's little "liberation" pills: From the fertile, acerbic minds & pens of the peerless Cox & Forkum:

Thugocracy

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:15 | link | comments

 

Fit to be Thai’d: Say buh-bye to Thailand, another dhimmi nation that finds it easier to capitulate to Islam than to defy it. From Islam Online:

 

PATTANI, Thailand — As part of the military-backed government's efforts to quell violence in the troubled Muslim-populated South, Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Saturday, January 27, that the government will introduce the teaching of Islam in its education system in the Buddhist country.

"I've assigned the Foreign Ministry to coordinate with the Malaysian government and to study whether what educational syllabus is needed to be improved for primary education in our country," Chulanont said in statements carried by the Thai news agency (TNA).

He said the Islamic teaching will be allowed in schools from the primary grade to the university level in the Muslim-populated southern provinces on the long run.

Surayud said that his government was also mulling recruiting graduates to teach Islam in state-run schools.

A lack of Islamic studies at Thailand's state-run schools in the south has prompted many Muslims to enroll their children at private Muslim schools.

Thailand's southern provinces have been gripped by violence over the past three years with more than 1,800 people killed.

The three southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat were an independent Muslim sultanate.

Thai Muslims, who make up more than five percent of the predominantly Buddhist kingdom's population, have long complained of discrimination in jobs and education…

Thereby proving the old addage, “The squeaky jihadist, er, wheel gets the grease.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:10 | link | comments

 

Centrifugal force: The Mahdi may be getting here soon rather than later as the Shias announce they are in the process of installing 3,000 centrifuges in Iran’s nuclear facilities.

 

It’s a good thing the UN’s nuclear watchkitty, the IAEA, has been keeping an eye on things, otherwise we might be in real trouble.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:59 | link | comments (1)

 

Weird science: Some extraordinarily bizarre experiments, by and for those who have too much time on their hands.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:48 | link | comments

 

Rare bird: It’s as uncommon a sight as the seldom-seen yellow-bellied sapsucker—a letter in the Toronto Star that actually makes sense:

 

Mideast proposals have not worked

Canada must seek Mideast balance

Editorial, Jan. 25.

Please note that global jihad isn't something U.S. President George W. Bush made up so he could send troops into Iraq. The jihad – which, it must be emphasized, is something the Islamists have declared against the West – has been going on for decades.

The 9/11 attacks and the attacks on other global cities (London, Madrid, Moscow, Bali) that followed should have served as our wake-up call. Your editorial appears to be advising us to ignore the threat and go back to sleep.

Canada has not been "diminishing" contacts with the Arab and Muslim world. It remains as engaged as it has always been. What the Harper government has done is acknowledge that Israel faces Islamist enemies – Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran – who are actively working to destroy it, and support Israel's right to defend itself against these foes. The Harper government knows full well that the Islamists threaten Canadians, too, and that in defending Israel it is also defending Canada.

The "fresh approaches" you mention – empowering "moderate" Palestinians, encouraging Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to root out "extremists," working through the United Nations to convince Iran to set aside its nuclear ambitions – are actually the same tired, old approaches that have been tried for years and that have always failed. There is no reason to believe they would work any more effectively this time around.

The Star counsels a "more sensible, balanced approach." All well and good, as long as it doesn't blind us to the genuine long-term threat we face, and that the approach, whatever it is, doesn't endanger us even more by causing us to lapse into a false sense of security.

David Modlin, Toronto

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:38 | link | comments (1)

 

He works hard for the jizya: You definitely can’t call Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas a slacker. There he is, divvying up newly forked-over Western shekels to Palestinian security forces while, pausing briefly to change his bespoke suit,he jets over to Davos, to assure the assembled that a unity deal with his arch-rival, Hamas, is a mere three weeks away (a matter of tying up a few loose ends. And without taking a breath, he tends to a spot of bother in his own backyard—a buncha the bruthas shooting up Canadian and German premises in Ramallah.

 

Phew. I’m exhausted just reading about his unflagging efforts. But not too tired to write him a fitting tribute (think Donna Summer circa the Disco era):

 

He works hard for the jizya.

So hard just to plizya.

He works hard for the jizya

So you’ll say he’s “moderate.”

 

He works hard for the jizya.

So hard just to plizya.

He works hard for the jizya

So you’ll say he’s “moderate.”

 

We met there with Arafat,

A kleptocratic like him.

And it’s strange to me

Some people can’t

See that he’s just as grim.

Wishful thinking’s taken hold

And there’s longing now for peace

And since they need Abbas to stay

They’ve sent him lots of grease.

 

He works hard for the jizya.

So hard just to plizya.

He works hard for the jizya

So you’ll say he’s “moderate.”

 

(Repeat)

 

Hamas has ruled for ten long months

And there’s not an end in sight

For the ones voted in.

They really seem to like it there.

And to starve their people day be day.

For little money, no jizya they say,

But it’s worth it all

If it lets them get somewhere.

 

He works hard for the jizya.

So hard just to plizya.

He works hard for the jizya

So you’ll say he’s “moderate.”

 

Already knows, he’s seen their bad times.

Already knows, these ain’t the good times.

He’ll never sell out, just pretend he will

So the infidels’ll foot the bill.

He works haaaaard…

 

(Instrumental interlude)

 

He works hard for the jizya.

So hard just to plizya.

He works hard for the jizya

So you’ll say he’s “moderate.”

You bet…

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:16 | link | comments

 

They heart Islam: I don’t always agree with what Christopher Hitchens has to say—it seems to me that his flat out antipathy for all religious beliefs makes him singularly ill-equipped to understand and opine about Israel and Jewish sovereignty. However, giving credit where credit is due, I must say that in this book review of Nick Cohen’s blistering attack on the credulities of the loopy, nihilistic, Islam-embracing Left (the Left he left post-9/11), Hitchens nails it:

...It’s all here: from the pseudo-radicals who said there was nothing to choose between Nazi imperialism in Europe and British rule in India, through the supporters of the Hitler-Stalin pact, all the way to those who defended Slobodan Milosevic as a socialist and those who took, quite literally took, money from the bloody hands of Saddam Hussein. Just in the past decade or so, had this “anti-war” rabble had its way, we would have seen Kuwait stay part of Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo cleansed and annexed by “Greater” Serbia, and the Taliban retaining control of Afghanistan. You might think that such a record would lead its adherents to be dismissed as a silly and sinister fringe, but instead it is they who pose as the principled radicals and their opponents who are treated with unconcealed disdain in the universities and on the BBC.

This betrayal (because there is no other word for it) has been made possible in part by a degraded version of multiculturalism. The hard left has junked its historic secularism, to say nothing of its principles of equality for females and homosexuals, to make common cause with Muslim outfits some of which are associated in other countries with the extreme right. It has done this by the use of nonsense terms such as “Islamophobia”, which are designed to give the no-less nonsensical impression that Islam is some kind of persecuted ethnicity. But the vile attacks by Islamists on the Jews (Britain’s oldest minority) and on India (Britain’s most important democratic ally after the United States) show the truly reactionary and hateful character of the opportunist alliance between failed ex-Stalinists and fanatical theocrats. For Cohen, as for some others of us, this is no longer a difference of emphasis within the family of the left. It is the adamant line of division in a bitter fight against a new form of fascism, at home no less than abroad...

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:31 | link | comments

 

Ugly Dicky: Richard Dawkins is a scientist and science writer who writes for a lay audience. His specialty is evolution, which he writes about with all the zeal of a religious true believer—ironic since, at the same time, he cannot abide religious belief of any stripe, and has done his utmost to trash it, most recently in his book, The God Delusion.

 

In his column in the National Post, Colby Cosh springs to Dawkins’s defence after another Post columnist, Jonathan Kay had criticized him for spearheading a group of radical atheists. Colby says that Dawkins’s views are far less threatening that those of, say, fundamentialist Christians. Here’s Cosh’s closing paragraph:

We also still encounter controversies like the one now going on in several Ontario municipalities, where secular groups have quarrelled continually with religious conservatives over the right to commence council meetings with public prayer. If prayer works, there should be no reason elected Christians cannot ask God's blessing on their work in private. Evidently they're not fighting for the right to pray, which no one proposes to deny them, but for the right to make a collective gesture of exclusion -- to seek public sanction for the supremacy of religious faith and, by implication, the supremacy of believers. What has Richard Dawkins ever said or done that is uglier or more dangerous to social peace than this?

As it turns out, I happen to know that Richard Dawkins has said something that is uglier and more dangerous than that. I came across it not long ago in Marilynne Robinson’s review of the aforementioned Dawkins book that appeared in Harper’s magazine. In her review, Robinson, a practising Christian and author of the luminous novel Gilead, takes most if not all of the wind out of Dawkins’s bluster—and mentions an extremely disturbing statement he made about the Jews. Here’s the letter I sent the Post about the ugly statement. (I felt compelled to write the letter, even though I knew it couldn't be printed because I’ve had one in the paper within the past two weeks.)

 

I don’t want to wade into the bog of the religion vs. science debate—personally, I have no trouble reconciling the two. However, since Colby Cosh has asked for an example of something Richard Dawkins has written that is both “ugly’ and “dangerous to social peace,” I am happy to oblige. In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins writes that, historically, the Jewish custom of not “marrying out” encouraged “wanton and carefully nurtured divisiveness” and represents “a significant force for evil.”

 

That’s right, “evil.”

 

Now, I’m no scientist, but as a student of antisemtism I can tell you that these sorts of words—whether they emanate from religious true believers or from atheistic rationalists—have always been “ugly” and “dangerous to social peace.” In fact, while it was religious disdain for the Jews that helped lay the groundwork for the Holocaust, it was science, in the form of the now discredited science of eugenics, which gave Hitler the idea that he could preserve Aryan racial purity by eradicating the Jewish people who threatened to pollute it.

 

It doesn’t get any uglier than that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:31 | link | comments (1)

 

Jihad juvies: Sigh. Don’t you long for the days when teenage rebellion meant motorcycles, leather jackets, rock ‘n’ roll and bad attitudes instead of explosive young jihadis on the prowl for ethereal virgins?

 

I know I sure do.

 

From the National Post:

TORONTO -- Canada’s intelligence service says a “very rapid process” is transforming some youths from angry activists into jihadist terrorists intent on killing for their religion.

Enraged over what they perceive as a Western “war on Islam” and coaxed on by extremist preachers, a few have embraced terrorism with frightening speed, the service warns in a new study. “The transformation from radical to jihadist can be a very rapid process,” says the “secret” report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, obtained by the National Post.

The study, released under the Access to Information Act, is the government’s latest attempt to understand why a handful of Canadian Muslims are alleged to have become involved in terrorist plots. It comes as a preliminary hearing is underway in Brampton, Ont., for four of 18 suspects charged for their alleged role in a Canadian terrorist group accused of plotting attacks in southern Ontario.

For at least the past two years, CSIS has been studying how some young people have been lured into terrorism. They are particularly interested in what made them radicalized and how they evolved from radicals to violent terrorists, a process known as “jihadization.”

The conclusion: It depends on the individual. But analysts have come up with a list of factors they say are leading some Muslims to radicalism. They include the belief in the need to defend Islam from perceived Western aggression, the influence of spiritual leaders and extremist family members, and overseas training, the report says.

“The most important factor for radicalization is the perception that Islam is under attack from the West. Jihadists also feel they must preemptively and violently defend Islam from these perceived enemies.

“They also watch what is happening in the Islamic world and the many conflicts that involve ‘Western’ or other aggression: Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and others.

“A few will act on these events and support or carry out terrorism in an attempt to change Western foreign or military policy. These individuals take the violent defence of Islam as a personal goal and religious obligation.”

Those who undergo this process of radicalization reject mainstream Islam and instead adopt a narrow, literal, intolerant interpretation, CSIS says.

The CSIS report notes that the failure of some Muslim immigrants to integrate into Western society is also a factor, but “this is seen more in European countries where the Muslim communities are more homogenous and there has been less integration than in North America.”

Many Canadians were shocked when the RCMP announced last June 3 it had arrested a group of adults and juveniles for allegedly planning truck bombings in Toronto. The group had also allegedly stockpiled firearms and intended to take hostages at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa and behead them unless Canada pulled its troops out of Afghanistan.

Prosecutors allege the suspected terrorists were encouraged partly by an extremist leader who has claimed that Canadian troops are only deployed to Afghanistan to rape Muslim women.

The report notes that younger jihadists are now often getting their inspiration online from spiritual leaders who are “available 24/7.”…

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:35 | link | comments (5)

 

Two letters: Here’s an example of the kind of fair-minded letter to the editor you can expect to read in the Toronto Star:

 

Harper ignoring Jewish history 

 

January 26, 2007

Canada's policy on Hamas correct

Letter, Jan. 25.

Ofir Gendelman criticizes Jim Travers's comparison of Israel's gangs (i.e. the Haganah, the Stern Gang, Irgun and Mapai) to Hamas by saying these Jewish gangs were scrupulous in avoiding killing civilians.

Here is a brief listing of some of the results of these Jewish actions: . There was the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed 91 and injured 45 British and Arabs; the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944; the 1947 letter bombs to British cabinet ministers; the blowing up of the Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed the Viscount de Tapia and 19 other civilians. All of these were admitted by the Haganah and are a matter of public record.

The grossest outrage was Deir Yassin and the killing of 254 women, children and old men in April 1948. Then we have the assassination of Count Bernadotte and his aide by the Stern gang because of the rumour that Bernadotte was going to recommend that Jerusalem be made an international city.

It seems this history is being ignored by the Harper government, which is applying a different standard toward Hamas than toward Israel because of political and economic support of the Jewish lobby in Canada.

Bohdan Zaputovich and Maria Hrycaiko Zaputovich, Toronto

 

And here’s an example of the kind of letter that almost never finds its way onto the Star’s letters page:

Whenever someone wants to try to discredit Israel, one of the favourite tactics is to cherry-pick two events that occurred prior to Israel’s independence: the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre.

 

I’m not going to defend either event—although, I would say that, unlike Islamist suicide bombers, those who blew up the King David didn’t do so with the intention of killing civilians and gave people plenty of advance warning of their intentions; I would also point out that the aim of the King David bombers was to establish a Jewish state, while the aim of Hamas is to wipe out Israel. However I would demand that these events be placed in the larger historical context. And the bigger picture would reveal these are isolated occurrences in Israel’s decades-long struggle to fend off Arab attacks, first from armies and more recently from militias and suicide “martyrs.”

 

The problem with cherry-picking history is that it is so highly selective. For example, here’s another historical fact ripe for the plucking. In 1970, Jordan’s King Hussein ordered an attack on Palestinians—an attack that has come to be known as Black September—that resulted in between three thousand and five thousand Palestinians being killed. That is more Arab casualties than have been killed in all the wars against Israel.

 

Odd how no one ever trots out that statistic to try to undermine Jordan’s right to exist.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:12 | link | comments (3)

 

Jewish default setting: A comment on The Corner tries to account for the Jewish and African American disinclination to vote Republican:

My son ... and I went, for the first time earlier this week, to a book signing/talk for Zev Chafets new book regarding the relationship between Jews and evangelicals.  The event was sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition, a minority group within a minority group.  In fact, we felt almost subversive for being there, even though I have been a Republican Jew since, well, since I could think logically.  But your writer makes a good point about the unlikelihood of blacks ever voting Republican in large numbers, similar to the Jewish experience.  I think both my son and I have concluded that, while not inscribed in Ashkenazi DNA, the tendency to vote Democratic is somehow psychologically imprinted from birth by Jewish guilt, desire to assimilate, Franklin Roosevelt, and a basic lack of confidence in a Jew's place in contemporary society.  Kinda like we Jews are still looking into the candy shop from the outside, wanting in, and still not feeling like we are welcome inside, turn our backs on the shopkeeper, who, let it be known, is  happy to welcome us to the Party.  I'm sure there are many blacks who feel the least they can do to maintain their authentic blackness is vote Democratic.  You avoid an awful lot of arguments with your family if you do.

I can think of an even better way to avoid an awful lot of arguments with your family: don't discuss religion or politics.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:10 | link | comments

 

The power of truth: The best thing about having the stones to speak truth to power is the awesome power it has to cut through the bull crap. Witness the match last week between Ken Livingstone and Daniel Pipes, in which Pipes, by daring to speak the truth, made mincemeat out of the world’s most clueless and dangerous mayor (with a little help from Sir Martin). From the New York Sun:

Last Saturday many thousands of Londoners — plus a small but determined corps of Americans — came to Westminster to debate the clash of civilizations. Ken Livingstone, the notoriously pro-Islamist mayor of London, had invited Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, to be the neoconservative fall guy.

Not only Mr. Livingstone, but also almost everybody else expected the professor to be eaten alive by the politician. Mr. Pipes was warned by his British friends that he was walking into a trap.

But it didn't turn out that way. The audience — eccentrically attired and coiffed, sporting cranky badges and sandals — were atypical political activists, and to judge from their questions, heavily inclined to the left. "This is liberal hell!" muttered one New Yorker, contemplating the "Free Palestine" and anti-racism stalls to which the mayor was giving house room. Yet the loudest cheers were not for him, but for the Daniel who had ventured into this lions' den.

As soon as the self-styled "young British mom" in a hijab who was seconding the mayor, Salma Yaqoob, referred to the July 7 London suicide bombings as "reprisal events," I felt the audience shudder. There was another shudder when Ms. Yaqoob refused to utter the word "Israel."

Then the biographer of Winston Churchill, Sir Martin Gilbert, rose. "My son was on the subway when these ‘reprisal events' took place on 7/7. Would you mind telling me what these reprisals were for?" Ms. Yaqoob had no answer. What could she say to him? A great historian who has done the British state some service, who happens to be a Zionist? How could she justify the killing of scores of innocent people, and the attempted murder of countless others, including his son, as a "reprisal event"?

The mayor himself seemed taken aback by the lack of enthusiasm for his side. It is fashionable to describe figures like Mr. Livingstone as "former" Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, or whatever. But there was nothing in his demagoguery to indicate that he has really changed his mind about anything for 40 years. His heroes are Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. The only difference is that instead of Marx, he now quotes Mill — though he couldn't resist reprimanding that great advocate of women's emancipation for failing to write "he or she."

Mr. Livingstone's world is one gigantic conspiracy, with American neoconservatives pulling the strings. The Cold War was, he said, a conspiracy cooked up in Washington in 1943, just as the war on terror was devised by a "nexus around the White House and Wall Street." He stopped short of claiming that the CIA had ordered the September 11 attacks, but they had certainly created Al Qaeda. The state of Israel was an American conspiracy too: It "should never have been created" but the Americans, who of course control the United Nations, set it up on Arab land because they and the British were too anti-Semitic to accept Jewish refugees in their own countries. This is pretty rich coming from Mr. Livingstone — the mayor who was censured by his own party for abusing a Jewish reporter as a Nazi concentration camp guard.

Such fantasies are as commonplace as his assertions of moral equivalence between the "crude Islamophobia" of American neoconservatives and Islamist terrorists. But when Mr. Pipes pointed out that the Americans would have been mad to invade Iraq for the sake of oil, since the predictable effect had been to raise oil prices, the mayor replied that "the people in the White House were mad" and went on to make the apocalyptic prediction that if the war on terror continued, there would be "casualties in the tens of millions." The audience did not know what to make of this, and gave the mayor a distinctly muted response.

Mr. Pipes, however, was rewarded for his sweet reasonableness — which contrasted sharply with the malevolent extremism of Mr. Livingstone and Ms. Yaqoob — with hearty rounds of applause. He got a few laughs, too, as when he told one of his critics that Hezbollah "did not get to eliminate Israel this time round — I give you my condolences." Much of the audience having never seen a real, live American neoconservative in the flesh before and doubtless surprised that he had neither horns nor a tail, listened with rapt attention to what he had to say.

In essence, Mr. Pipes had a warning for Londoners: Thanks to the multicultural policies of politicians like Mayor Livingstone, "your city is a threat to the rest of the world."…

Maybe, just maybe, the Brits are beginning to wake up.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:48 | link | comments

 

Lower education: Hezbollah has taken its attempted coup d’etat to a new venue: the campus of Beirut university, where Islamist thugs have been setting things on fire and hurling anything that isn’t nailed down at students who support Lebanon’s democratic government. And just when it looked like jihadists were loosing ground, they sent for some off-campus reinforcements. From the Jerusalem Post:

…The battle grew out of an argument between pro-government Sunni Muslims and supporters of the Shi'ite Hizbullah opposition movement in the university cafeteria, students said.

As the melee grew, Hizbullah supporters called in help, and residents from the surrounding Sunni neighborhood joined in. Dozens of vigilantes wearing blue and red construction hats and carrying makeshift weapons - chair legs, pipes, garden tools, sticks and chains - converged on the university and started clashing with the police.

The army was called in with armored vehicles and fired tear gas and live fire in the air to disperse the crowd.

Hizbullah's al-Manar TV reported one of the Shiite group's supporters was killed. Security officials could not confirm the death but reported 17 people injured. Other TV stations reported that about 25 people were hurt.

The growing street battle illustrated Lebanon's struggle to contain violence sparked by the power struggle between the Hizbullah-led opposition and the US-backed government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. Many fear the violence could spiral out of control and even plunge the country into a new civil war.

The university melee came two days after a general strike called by the opposition turned into the worst day of violence since the political crisis began. The strike sparked opposition-government clashes around the country that killed three people and took on a dangerous sectarian tone, with fights between Sunni Muslims and Shiites...

An odd way of describing what is essentially a fight between jihadists who want to impose sharia law on Lebanon and those who want the nation to remain a democracy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:14 | link | comments

Waiting for Mahdiman: He’ll be here any minute now.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:37 | link | comments

 

A song for Hamas: It’s the revolting regime’s first anniversary. Here’s hoping it’s the only one it ever has.

 

Unhappy anniversary to you.

We hope that you’re through.

Your people are starving

And they’re all blaming you.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:28 | link | comments

 

The clueless leading the clueless: The lead editorial in the Toronto Star advises Canada to seek “balance” in the Middle East.

 

In other words, retreat, defeat, appeasement, dhimmified acquiescence and throw the Jews to the wolves:

U.S. President George Bush had his eye on the political exit ramp this week as he gave his State of the Union address. And he is leaving as Commander-in-Chief, playing on fears of another 9/11 attack to legitimize his "decisive ideological struggle" with a growing array of Muslim foes.

That bleak message is one that Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to ponder as he tends both to the Canada-United States relationship in the twilight of the Bush administration, and to our broader global interests.

Canada under former prime minister Jean Chrétien was careful not to get pulled into the disastrous Iraq trap, as the British were to their regret. Now, Harper must resist being drawn into futile conflicts elsewhere.

If anything, Canada's interest lies in re-energizing – not diminishing – contacts with the Muslim and Arab world.

Specifically, we should increase aid to Palestinian moderates and use our modest leverage with Israelis and Palestinians to promote a peace deal before the Mideast climate worsens. We should urge Syria and Lebanon to do the same. We should insist Pakistan and Saudi Arabia crack down on extremists. And we should echo the United Nations in advising Iran that it can have political normalization and security guarantees if it stops seeking nuclear weapons and bankrolling terror groups.

Clearly, fresh approaches are needed, both in Canada and Washington. Americans worry where Bush may strike next before his presidential term ends two years from now. And with good reason. The war on terror "is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others," he told U.S. lawmakers.

In Bush's dark vision, even Washington's so-called successes thwarting terrorism become justifications for expanding a conflict that many Americans fear already is out of control. "Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy," he said Tuesday night in one of his more memorable lines.

That view should cause the Democrat-controlled Congress to recoil, because it legitimizes keeping the U.S. on a permanent war footing, fighting an enemy, terrorism, that can never be fully routed.

As well, it should be a red flag to Ottawa. Canadian politicians should think twice before hitching our cart to any further Bush misadventures.

Bush's approach has been disastrous. Rather than suppress Al Qaeda and its ilk mainly through police action, Bush first ordered the invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban, then sent U.S. troops against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and is now playing up the military threat from Iran. While the Afghan intervention was a legitimate act of self-defence, the Iraq war was a tragic fiasco and an Iranian conflict should be preventable.

By heavily militarizing America's response to threats from "the Islamist radical movement," Bush has alienated much of the Muslim world, emboldened radicals, eroded America's moral leadership and strained relations with its allies. None of this has made his country any safer.

The verdict Americans delivered in November's elections when his Republican Party lost control of Congress to the Democrats was: "Enough. This isn't working." They are right.

What Americans want is for Bush to articulate a more sensible, balanced approach. It is also what Canadians should be hearing from Harper.

Here’s the letter I sent the Star:

 

Your editorial implies that the global jihad is largely a figment of George W. Bush’s “dark” imagination, and that if we could only redress the "imbalance" in the Mideast, the threat of Islamic terrorism would somehow evaporate. That is wishful thinking of the most perilous kind. It ignores the ideology that is actively working to subvert Western civilization, and that is counting on our acquiescence—what in another era, would have been called appeasement—to advance its implacable agenda.

 

Israel has been on the front lines of this war for decades. Now, the war has spilled out of the region and has come to the West—to London, Madrid, and New York. Pretending that the war doesn’t exist, or that it’s something Bush and his minions have concocted for their own malign purposes, isn’t going to make it go away; neither will the vain attempt to placate those who seek to destroy us. Much as we’d like to, we can’t sit out the jihad. The “sensible, balanced approach” you counsel may work in the short term, but in the long run it won’t take Canada or Canadians out of the Islamists’ line of fire.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:35 | link | comments (9)

 

Sweet charity: Canada is poised to send some $15 million in humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, suffering under the onerous burden of a Hamas government that refuses to jump through the hoops required to officially restart the jizya.

 

My question: how about sending a few shekels to these deserving folks?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:40 | link | comments (3)

 

Too true: From the February issue of monthly journal First Things:

 

Islam was on a triumphant course of conquest until stopped at the siege of Vienna in 1683. This is the conventional wisdom, and it is conventional because it has the merit of being true. But there is in some enlightened circles a deep devotion to the proposition that Islam is “a religion of peace,” and, even if Muslims have been terribly aggressive at times, it is not really religion that motivates their assertiveness. Thus British critic Eric Ormsby reviews John Stoye’s new book, The Siege of Vienna (Pegasus): “Mr.  Stoye’s careful accumulation of detail makes one fact abundantly clear. The Ottoman campaign, for all the religious rhetoric on both sides, was no ‘jihad.’ The Turks were less interested in spreading Islam than in augmenting their empire.” To be sure, no military campaign is driven by any one motive. People go to war to gain territory, revenge wrongs, ward off threats, advance ideologies, or just for the sheer pleasure of beating up on those whom they view as their enemies. The fact is, however, that the Turks attacked Vienna in the name of Allah and, had they succeeded in conquering the heartland of Europe and continued “augmenting their empire” from that conquest, the basic texts at the universities of Vienna, Paris and Oxford would have been the Qur’an, hadith and sharia law. Which is not to deny that some may have been permitted to study also Augustine, Bonaventure, and Thomas under the severe limitations of dhimmitude. The subsequent and very different history of the world would likely have been the ever expanding dar al-Islam. Religion is hardly the only variable in world affairs, but to deny that it is a major variable, as Mr. Ormsby does, is to gravely distort the past and blind us to the challenge of the present, with very specific reference to jihadist Islam.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:18 | link | comments

 

Identity theft: What all the Carter kidz and Christian Peacemaker Teams are wearing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:26 | link | comments (2)

 

American dreams; Israeli nightmares: President Bush and Condi Rice dream of Israel toddling down the yellow brick road map to Peace in Our Time (to mix two of my most oft-employed metaphors). Mort Zuckerman notes that there’s an obvious and immense stumbling block on the road: a regime of genocidal Islamists who plan to reclaim Israel, the existence of which is un-Islamic, for Allah. From JWR:

 

The roadblock to peace is Hamas. Prime Minister Haniyeh is just back from Tehran, where he declared time and again that his organization will never recognize Israel, will not honor any of the existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, and will continue its jihad until Jerusalem is liberated and "the face of the Zionist state would disappear," according to the Economist. Hamas seeks constant combat against Israelis in the hope of wearing them down morally, physically, and psychologically.

 

The elections Fatah is now calling for offer at least one cause for hope: They could tell us whether most Palestinians want pragmatic moves toward peace or ideological moves toward war. The crux, as it has been all along, is Hamas's refusal to accept Israel's right to exist, which stems from a visceral hatred of Israel, the blood lust of popular resistance, the destructive influence of radical Islam, the interference of Iran, and the belief in so many Arab hearts that sooner or later Israel will disappear from the map because it has no right to exist.

 

The U.S. role in this nightmare scenario ought to be clear, though it is anything but. Washington is banking on the hope that Palestinians will remove Hamas from power and strengthen President Abbas and Fatah. That, this hopelessly wishful thinking goes, would prepare the grounds for negotiations, which would then be confirmed by a referendum, after which a Palestinian state with temporary borders would be established.

 

The presumption here is that Hamas will be contained and the security threat it represents eliminated — not a chance! We were foolish in believing that Hamas couldn't win an election, and we were dead wrong to overrule Israel's desire to retain control of the Gaza-Egyptian border, the source of so much of today's chaos.

The American proposal for this spiraling crisis is worse than premature. It will damage our credibility and our influence. The last thing America needs in this increasingly dangerous part of the world is yet another demonstration of its naivete.

 

I see it as more than a matter of naivete. It’s about failing to understand your enemies—and failing to appreciate your friends.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:09 | link | comments

 

Israel alone: The Cricket made all nicey-nicey at Brandeis last night, but his real views are obnoxious, and symbolic of the fact that, as Alan Dershowitz explains, Israel is losing ground and facing a terrifying—and potentially devastating—isolation. From CNS News:

 

Despite America's current strong support for Israel, the Jewish State should be prepared to "go it alone" in the years ahead, an American professor warned.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz mentioned several events as reasons to be concerned. They could create "the conditions for a perfect storm," he said, with Israel at the center.

The first event is the recent publication of former President Jimmy Carter's book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dershowitz, addressing a recent national security conference in Herzliya, Israel, called Carter's book a "watershed event" in U.S.-Israeli and U.S.-Jewish relations.

Carter's book asserts the "old canard" that Jews control the media and because they do, it prevents fair coverage of the Palestinians' plight, said Dershowitz, who addressed the gathering by satellite.

Carter's book also promotes the idea that Jewish control of American politics makes it "suicidal" for any American politician to present a "balanced view" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Carter gave legitimacy to arguments that undermine Israel, Dershowitz said. Until now, such arguments have only been heard from the extreme right and left, he added.

The professor also mentioned college campuses where "junk academics" have created a debate on the proper role of "Jewish influence" on American foreign policy. This is instilling questions about Israel's right to exist in the next generation, he said.

Then there's the "media war" against Israel, where terror groups such as Hizballah and Hamas attack Israelis, using civilians as cover -- then reap public relations benefits when Israel retaliates and kills the civilians, Dershowitz said.

Finally, there are comments from prominent Americans such as retired General Wesley Clark, a former Democratic presidential hopeful and Supreme Allied NATO commander, who recently hinted that there is too much Jewish involvement in U.S. foreign policy. "New York 'money people' are pushing the U.S. into war with Iran," Dershowitz quoted Clark as saying.

"Israel must be prepared for the possibility of losing American support over the coming years, diplomatically, economically, militarily and morally," said Dershowitz. But Israel should not allow "these stereotypes to weaken its resolve but it must be prepared to go it alone."

Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that on a "popular level," Americans deeply support Israel. But on the "elite level," there is a "weakening" of that support…

 

We’d be well-advised to watch out for the “elites.” They’ve already facilitated the demise of Europe, and, given the chance, will do the same to Western civilization as a whole.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:38 | link | comments

 

The real Jewish plot: Have you heard the latest one making the rounds? Actually, it’s one of those hoary old canards that the Jew-haters like to take out for a stroll every now and then, something having to do with “the Jew tax” gentiles are forced to fork over to the Rabbis to get them to put their kosherific imprimatur on grocery items.

 

As this piece in the Jerusalem Post explains, there is a Jewish plot, but it’s not one of the ones (world domination, formenting all wars and revolutions, toppling skyscrapers, sanguinary baked goods, to name but four) the crackpots had in mind:

…The persistence, ubiquity and sheer creativity of anti-Semitism rightfully concern us. But there is also something curiously invigorating about it all.

Because it points to what underlies Jew-hatred: the suspicion that the Jewish people are special.

However odd it might seem of God, He did indeed choose the Jews. In other words, yes, Bubba, there is a plot (though not exactly a conspiracy; there's only one Plotter).

But Bubba needn't panic. What anti-Semites like him don't realize is that the Jewish mission isn't to subjugate but to educate. Keep it under your hat, Bubba, but what we Jews are charged with is living lives of holiness and service to God and man.

That includes prayer, charity and acts of kindness, study of holy texts and meticulous honesty in all our dealings - as well as a multitude of ritual matters, including eating kosher food. But no, Bubba, undermining society and levying hidden taxes aren't on the list.

One day, God willing - likely when we Jews shoulder our mission with more passion and determination - those who labor so hard to hate us will suddenly be stopped cold in their tracks and made to meet a reality they never considered: that Jewish specialness was never a threat to them at all, but a gift.

As someone who is obsessed by judenhass and has been studying it for some time, I’m not so optimistic.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:17 | link | comments

 

Olympian death spiral: The London Olympics seems to have run into a spot of bother. It seems guesstimators had low-balled the calculation of costs, and the event—still five years away—is already facing a 900 million pound shortfall.

 

Oh, well. Organizers could always ask the Saudis, who are so keen to help build gibungous mosques in Londonistan and elsewhere in the U.K., to make up the difference.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:21 | link | comments

 

Cricket at Brandeis: One would expect that someone who was once president of the U.S. and who has spent the years ever since as a freelance foreign policy buddinsky—and who was awarded for his “vision” with the ultimate accolade of the internationalists, a Nobel Peace Prize—would at least have a clue or two about what’s going on in the world. Guess again. Jimminy “Cricket” Carter appeared at Brandeis yesterday evening, and the only thing he seems to have learned in recent years is that when you tell lies about Jews, some of them (like Alan Dershowitz, there in person to rebut Carter’s nahrishkeit) are going to call you on it, and that the Palestinians should knock it off with that suicide terrorism stuff, not because it’s barbaric, not because it’s reprehensible, but because it makes for bad P.R.

 

How are all the young leftoids going to be able to see you as the sympathetic underdog if you go and act like that? (Actually, that’s not really a problem. They would likely take their lead from Cherie Booth Blair who once opined following a successful human bomb detonation that conditions were so dire and the bomber so powerless that he couldn’t help but act out in this way.)

 

Here’s an account of Carter’s appearance from a student who was in the audience:

 

Following weeks of uncertainty over whether and in what format he would address the campus, former President Jimmy Carter spoke for about 20 minutes before answering pre-selected questions from nine students in a packed Shapiro Gymnasium Tuesday.

Carter, whose speech defended the ideas presented in his recent book, was rebutted almost immediately by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in an event that capped months of controversy over the circumstances of their visits and the contents of Carter's controversial book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

"My bottom line was that the Palestinians are horribly treated, and their treatment is not known or minimally known in the United States," he said of his book. "I chose that title knowing that it would be provocative."

But, Carter acknowledged, the title may have been counterproductive to initiating peaceful dialogue.

"I realize this has caused great concern in the Jewish community," he said, emphasizing that he believes the word "apartheid" applies only to the conditions in the Palestinian territories and not in Israel proper.

The widespread criticism of his book did not compare to snubs he received on his many campaign trails, Carter said to the crowd of about 1,700.

"This is the first time I've ever been called a liar, a bigot, an anti-Semite, a coward and a plagiarist. This has hurt me."

Still, in his first major address on his book, Carter did not respond directly to the criticisms Dershowitz had made against his book. But he seemed to embrace the controversy leading up to his visit, joking that "I didn't think that Brandeis needed a Harvard professor to tell you how to" hold constructive dialogue.

The former president called his invitation to speak at Brandeis "the most exciting invitation I've ever received" except for the invitation from Congress to deliver his inaugural address. Although most of the questions he was asked were critical, the audience largely greeted his answers with applause, and gave him a standing ovation on both entrance and exit.

Carter described his first-hand observations of the hardships faced by Palestinians living in the West Bank, accusing Israel of running the Palestinian territories in a manner analogous to the state-sponsored system of segregation between blacks and whites in South Africa in the mid-20th century.

"The forced separation and domination of Arabs by Israelis," he said, is exemplified by the "dividing wall" that separates Israel from the Palestinian territories, the hundreds of checkpoints Palestinians are forced to cross to enter into Israel and the "spider web" of roads that connect the Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank.

"Palestinians are not permitted to get on those roads or even to cross some of them," Carter said. "All this makes the lives of Palestinians almost intolerable."

Carter expressed his hope for peace, arguing that Israel needs to withdraw completely from the West Bank and return to its 1967 borders.

Carter spoke of his personal stake in Israel's security that started at the age of three when he was taught as an evangelical Christian to "protect the chosen people."

In 1978, Carter helped negotiate the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which established diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Since then, however, the peace process has taken a downturn, he said.

"I left office believing Israel would soon realize its dream of peace with its neighbors," he said. "The current policies are leading toward an immoral outcome … and not bringing peace to the state of Israel."

Yet he voiced optimism for the Middle East's future, which he said he learned from his experience negotiating the agreement between Israel and Egypt.

"The Jordanians want peace, the Egyptians want peace, the Palestinians want peace, the Israelis want peace."

And it is only "a minority of Israelis" who are the "driving force" of Palestinian persecution, he said…

 

Whereas an egregiously large majority of Arabs/Muslims are banking on the destruction of Israel. Therefore, spare us your platidutes and "protection",  Jimminy. They're the kind that helped put the Ayatollah in power, the kind that persist in the dangerous delusion the “Palestinians want peace.” Yes, they do want peace—but it’s a peace that entails removing the dhimmi “tumour” (Ahmadinejad’s colourful coinage) and plastering it over with Dar al-Islam. And don’t for a minute think they’ll be satisfied with that. No siree. All you have to do is listen to the Palestinian foreign minister who, on the front page of Canada’s newspaper of record the other day, advised Canadian infidels to fall in line with the Islamist agenda—or suffer the horrible consequences. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

 

Oh, and you can take your “protection” and insert it slowly up that dark, narrow passageway which for many years now has served as the repository for your head.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:57 | link | comments

 

He’s getting his act together and taking it on the road: Jimminy “Cricket” Carter brings his sanctimonious Casaubon act to Brandeis this evening. A piece on the American Thinker site expresses exactly how I feel about Jew U. giving this blackguard a forum for his despicable ideas:

 

Of all the universities, in all the towns, in all the states, it had to be Brandeis that chose to make itself a patsy by providing a protected platform  for Jimmy Carter to spout his anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian propaganda -- in effect placing a  "kosher" seal of approval on the former president's scurrilous book about Israel and his constant railing against the so-called "Jewish lobby."

 

Saint Somebody Catholic University could never get away with such a ploy; not could Anyplace Methodist U or Artexas Christian -- they'd be accused of bigotry and Israel-bashing in a minute. But not so Brandeis, which the real anti-Semites and anti-Zionists will herald as another case of liberal Jews lending support to something that, therefore, couldn't be as bad as it really is.

 

The university, founded in the 1940s by the American Jewish community to provide educational opportunities to Jews beyond what were available on the often heavily "restricted" campuses elsewhere, has in recent decades suffered the trauma of a distinct identity crisis, often supporting students and causes who were distinctly anti-Jewish, such as Black Panther Angela Davis and some of her fellow Jew-hating radicals.

 

It clearly appears that the university in Waltham, named after America's first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, has lost so much sense of both justice and Yiddishkeit that it no longer understands the word shonda [shame]. It's no longer a school I'd recommend my grandchildren even consider, let alone put on their college application A-list.

 

Now, Carter will be hosted this afternoon and sheltered from criticism and hard questioning by the banning of all outsiders from even attending the speech -- including Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, whose request to debate Carter on his controversial anti-Israel book was turned down by the former president. Similarly, Stephen Flatow, whose daughter, Alisa, was a Brandeis student when she was killed by an Islamic Jihad bomb attack, says he's been "privately discouraged" from attending, although he has questions he'd like to put to the former president…

 

I hope Dershowitz sticks it to him, but good.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:45 | link | comments

 

Scary cherries: Last week, British documentary show Dispatches revealed the disturbing Infidelophobia occurring as a matter of course at supposedly mainstream, moderate mosques in the U.K. As predicted, the usual suspects are trying to divert attention away from their own hatred by claiming statements made by imams at the mosques were “cherry-picked,” and that the infidels picking this rotten fruit did so out of some animus toward an otherwise peaceful and benevolent faith.

 

Cherry-picking, huh? In a certain way, I can see what they’re getting at: 

Jihad is just a bowl of cherries.
Best take it serious.
Makes you delirious.
You rant, you rave,
And when they probe,
Accuse 'em all of being "Islamophobe."
Oh, jihad is just a bowl of cherries.
It's rancid and poisonous fruit.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:24 | link | comments

 

Go, Claudia, go: Pitbull journalist Claudia Rosett, daring to do to Jimmy Carter what she did to the UN’s Oil-For-Food program. From NRO:

 

Did Jimmy Carter do it for the money? That’s the question making the rounds about Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, an anti-Israeli screed recently written by the ex-president whose Carter Center has accepted millions in Arab funding.

Even in Carter’s long history of post-presidential grandstanding, this book sets fresh standards of irresponsibility. Purporting to give a balanced view of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, Carter effectively shrugs off such highly germane matters as Palestinian terrorism. The hypocrisies are boundless, and include adoring praise of the deeply oppressive, religiously intolerant Saudi regime side by side with condemnations of democratic Israel. In one section, typical of the book’s entire approach, Carter includes a “Historical Chronology,” from Biblical times to 2006, in which he dwells on events surrounding his 1978 Camp David Accords but omits the Holocaust. Kenneth W. Stein, the founder of the Carter Center’s Middle East program, resigned last month to protest the book, describing it in a letter to Fox News as “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.” As this article goes to press, more protest resignations, this time from the Carter Center’s board of councilors, appear to be in the works.

If there is a silver lining to any of this, it is that Carter’s book has drawn much-overdue attention to some of the funding that pours into the Carter Center, whose intriguing donor list includes anti-Israeli tycoons and Middle East states. Founded in 1982 and appended to Carter’s presidential library, the center has served for almost a quarter century as the main base and fund-raising magnet for Carter’s self-proclaimed mission to save the world.

In recent weeks, a number of articles have noted that Carter’s anti-Israeli views coincide with those of some of the center’s prime financial backers, including the government of Saudi Arabia and the foundation of Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, whose offer of $10 million to New York City just after Sept. 11 was rejected by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani because it came wrapped in the suggestion that America rethink its support of Israel. Other big donors listed in the Carter Center’s annual reports include the Sultanate of Oman and the sultan himself; the government of the United Arab Emirates; and a brother of Osama bin Laden, Bakr BinLadin, “for the Saudi BinLadin Group.” Of lesser heft, but still large, are contributions from assorted development funds of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as of OPEC, whose membership includes oil-rich Arab states, Nigeria (whose government is also a big donor to the Carter Center), and Venezuela (whose anti-American strongman Hugo Chávez benefited in a 2004 election from the highly controversial monitoring efforts of the Carter Center)…

 

It’s not as if Jimmy wasn’t predisposed to hate Israel and the Jews prior to the founding of the Carter Center, but a little judiciously-targeted Saudi lucre certainly helps keep the pump of his judenhass well primed.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:40 | link | comments

 

Tumult in Lebanon: After weeks of feckless sit-ins (occupations?) Hezbollah has ramped up the violence and has come one step closer—maybe—to toppling the dhimmi infidel government in Lebanon with which it has been forced to share power.

 

Notice how far-left Brit rag, the Guardian, awash in the kind of “nuance” beloved by the Toronto Star’s James Travers (see second post of the day), refers to the Hellzbollock’s supporters as “strikers” and “protesters,” and how the imperilled infidels attempt to set the record straight by calling it what it is: an attempted coup d’etat:

 

Dozens of protesters were wounded today as Lebanese opposition supporters took to the streets to impose a nationwide strike and effectively shut down the country in its latest attempt to force the government's resignation.

In Beirut, fires raged at many major junctions and thick plumes of smoke blackened the crisp winter sky above the city's largely silenced streets. Supporters of the mainly Shia and Christian opposition had gathered at dawn to set up roadblocks using parked cars and by setting fire to tyres and scrap vehicles.

At flashpoints throughout the country, strikers clashed with the army and pro-government supporters. Security sources reported a number of separate shooting incidents in various parts of Lebanon.

They said at least four people were wounded during a firefight between opposition and pro-government crowds in the northern Christian village of Halba, while in the ancient Christian town of Byblos, a gunman fired on protesters wounding three people before soldiers arrested him. Another three opposition protesters were wounded in separate shootings in other parts of the country, and more than 20 people were hurt in scuffles, especially in Christian areas.

The embattled cabinet had warned that the army, which has remained neutral since the start of the opposition's campaign, would fire on demonstrators if necessary. But pro-government leaders today denounced the strike today as a "coup attempt", and criticised the army and security forces for failing to prevent opposition supporters from shutting roads.

“Opposition supporters”—The “unnuanced” among us may prefer to cut through the fog of euphemism and see them as they really are: Islamic supremacists, funded by Iran’s mully-bullies, who are bent on destroying Lebanon’s fragile democracy and replacing it with the “nuances” of sharia law.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:12 | link | comments

 

Equality in the U.K.: I found the following story highly instructive. From The Muslim News:

 

A SMOKER was refused cigarettes at a Cambridge store because the Muslim shop assistant said it was against her religion to sell tobacco.

A 31-year-old woman, who asked not to be identified, was shocked when she attempted to buy a pack of 20 cigarettes at the WH Smith store in Market Street and was turned down.

She said: "I asked for a pack of 20 Lambert & Butler and the woman behind the desk asked me if they were cigarettes.

"When I said they were she told me that it was against her religion to sell them - I couldn't believe my ears.

"I rang up the manager to complain and he said the shop assistant has to ask someone else to serve them for her if a customer wants tobacco.

"If she had just said, I can't serve you, then that would have been fair enough, but the thing that really annoyed me was the way she gave me a lecture as well.

"She started saying she doesn't agree with smoking, that it kills you - I was really gob-smacked."

When contacted by the News, the store's assistant manager, who refused to give her name, said: "It is true that Muslims can't sell cigarettes - I used to be Jehovah's Witness and I wouldn't on religious grounds either."

She said the customer should have realised the shop assistant was a Muslim, and would not sell her tobacco, because she was "sitting there in her full robes".

Asked why the store had someone who would not sell tobacco working behind the till, she said: "It is against the law to discriminate against people on religious grounds"…
 

I think I have it sorted out. Apparently, it’s against the law to discriminate against someone who’s looking for a job, but it isn’t against the law if, after that employee has been hired, he or she discriminates against customers who don’t abide by the employees’ religious practices.

 

Got it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:46 | link | comments (1)

 

Double haram: In the ideology of “no fun,” man’s best friend and a cold brewski are both strictly verboten. Which could make the following story doubly disturbing for those who believe in such proscriptions. From the CBC:

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - After a long day hunting, there's nothing like wrapping your paw around a cold beer.

That's why Terrie Berenden, a pet shop owner in the southern Dutch town of Zelhem, created a beer for her Weimaraners made from beef extract and malt.

"Once a year we go to Austria to hunt with our dogs, and at the end of the day we sit on the veranda and drink a beer. So we thought, my dog also has earned it," she said.

Berenden consigned a local brewery to make and bottle the non-alcoholic beer, branded as Kwispelbier. It was introduced to the market last week and advertised it as "a beer for your best friend."

"Kwispel" is the Dutch word for wagging a tail.

The beer is fit for human consumption, Berenden said. But at US$2.14 a bottle, it's about four times more expensive than a Heineken.

Actually, my dog prefers a nice cold Crantini, shaken, not stirred.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:29 | link | comments (2)

 

Listen up, Mo: A bunch of Osmaists wanted to send “a message” to an associate of “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas, so they blew up part of an abandoned resort in Gaza.

 

What, they couldn’t send a Candygram?

 

From the Jerusalem Post:

Dozens of masked gunmen claiming to be members of al-Qaida stormed an empty beach resort and blew up a reception hall on Tuesday, saying they were sending a message to a close ally of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Officials said there were no injuries and they were investigating the Qaida claim. Security officials have discounted such claims in the past.

Yousef Sari, director general of the resort, said about 40 masked gunmen raided the building. The attackers said they attack was aimed at Gaza strongman Mohammed Dahlan, a confidant of Abbas, the moderate Palestinian president.

"Tell Dahlan al-Qaida has arrived in Gaza and his property and assets are targets," Sari quoted the attackers as saying. Dahlan is widely rumored to own the resort, which used to be popular with Israeli tourists in the 1990s, though he denies any business connection to the place.

Israeli officials have long warned that al-Qaida was trying to infiltrate Gaza following the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the coastal strip in 2005.

Abbas also has claimed the group has established "sleeper" cells in Gaza, and al-Qaida has issued statements claiming responsibility for several violent attacks on Palestinian officials.

However, Palestinian security officials say there is no evidence the group is operating in Gaza. They say the claims are usually made by local militants or crime gangs trying to divert attention.

Hamas, which controls most government functions, denies any connection to al-Qaida. It says its violent tactics, which have included dozens of suicide bombings, are aimed strictly at Israel, not the Western world at large.

Bullcrap. Hamas is just as committed to the jihad as al-Qaida; it’s the local branch of the global effort. But it looks like al-Qaida may be encroaching on Hamas’s turf, and that can only lead to further divisions between Palestinian factions—and heightened threats of terrorism for the Jews. (Lucky there’s an “apartheid wall” to help keep them out.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:17 | link | comments

 

Travers blows smoke: James Travers, one of the Toronto Star’s squish-brained pundits, criticizes Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay for his “muddled mission” to the Middle East. What’s the muddle? For Travers’s standpoint, it’s the lack of muddle, i.e. the Conservative government’s refusal to see things, as Jimbo does, through a soothing grey filter. This filter is a pre-requisite if one is to avoid the pitfalls of those gung-ho black-and-whiteists (the U.S., Israel, the Harper Conservatives) and allows one to view Hamas as merely a democratically-elected government, and terror as merely another tactic on the road to statehood (the same tactic, notes the ever helpful Jim, that the Jews used on their road to independence.)

 

Jihad? Infidels? Dar al-Islam? Islamic triumphalism?—don’t be silly. You’ll find nary a mention in Jimbo’s column: far too “black and white” for his taste:

…Among the most popular [prevailing myths] are that we are at war with terrorism, that today's conflicts can be resolved with yesterday's methods and, most significantly, that the dominant colours in the international spectrum are black and white.

Together those myths fit a reassuring frame around a frightening world. They also distort the picture.

Terrorism is just another tactic, a time-tested vector for the desperate underdog's political aspirations.

Had Canada applied its current Hamas strategy to the 1940s Middle East, it would have isolated not only groups fighting to establish the state but also some of Israel's future elected leaders.

Troop and technological superiority are no longer reliable predictors of military or, ultimately, political victory.

Israel, with the region's most sophisticated military, is no more successful in rooting out Hezbollah than the United States, the sole remaining superpower, is in making Iraq a model market democracy, or NATO, with its collective muscle, is in defeating Afghanistan's Taliban.

It's the annoying hues of grey – those shades of beliefs, values and experience – that make a confusing world impossible to compartmentalize.

Painting it black and white, while politically comforting, only masks the riot of colour underneath…

Here’s the letter I sent the Star:

 

James Travers counsels us to resist the temptation of seeing events in the Middle East in terms of black and white, but to consider the “hues of grey” that lend them subtlety and nuance.

 

The problem with these hues of grey is that instead of adding to our understanding of complicated situations, they have a tendency to fog them up, making it difficult to see things clearly. For example, looking at the Hamas-Israel issue through such a fog makes it difficult to tell the difference between Hamas, a regime of Islamists waging a holy war against the Jews of Israel with the aim of liquidating the Jewish state, and Israel, which insists on its right to exist as a sovereign Jewish entity—the only one in the world.

 

Peter MacKay and the Conservative government seem refreshingly free of these smokescreens. I’d say the world needs more of this type of moral clarity, not less.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:44 | link | comments

Gruesome twosome: According to reports, “Stinky” Abbas and “Meshuganeh” Meshaal have "come closer." Apparently, the two have grown fonder of each other because Stinky, who has a delightful Barry Manilow-esque voice, has been crooning this golden oldie in the Hamas terror boss's shell-like ear:

Cuddle up a little closer,

Meshy mine.

Cuddle up so we can plot

A plot Divine

Long enough to fool the kafirs.

Make ‘em set aside all their fears.

Finish off the Jews in ten years,

Meshy mine.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:49 | link | comments

 

Hamas threatens Canada: In his ongoing efforts to elicit sympathy for the Palestinians and antipathy for Israel, the Globe and Mail’s Middle East scribe, Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon usually concentrates on writing up overwrought, emotionally manipulative sob stories about suffering Palestinians (funny how there aren’t similar stories on the same regular basis from, say, Darfur). Today, however, he takes on a different role: taking dictation for (and from?) the Hamas foreign minister. And guess what? The minister isn't too thrilled with Canadian infidels and our support for the dhimmi infidel state crouched in the bosom of dar al Islam. MacKinnon brings us this dire warning/threat from an extremely tetchy Mahmoud Zahar: get with the Islamist program, or incur the wrath of Allah’s warriors.

 

Ooooo. I’m quakin’ in my Hush Puppies:

GAZA CITY — Canada risks making itself an enemy of the Palestinian people and of the broader Islamist movement by boycotting Hamas and openly siding with Israel, Palestinian foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar said Sunday after he was shunned by visiting Foreign Minister Peter MacKay.

During an hour-long interview that he said was a replacement for the meeting Mr. MacKay denied him, Mr. Zahar alternated between saying he was anxious to open a dialogue with Canada and saying he looked forward to the moment that Canadians voted the “extremist” Conservative government out of office.

Had Mr. MacKay travelled to Gaza City to meet with him, Mr. Zahar said, he would have found an open door. However, Mr. Zahar said he would have challenged the minister to explain why Canada led the world in suspending aid to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas won legislative elections a year ago. The United States and the European Union, which like Canada consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization, also stopped giving aid, leaving the already cash-poor government bankrupt and unable to pay full salaries to its 170,000 civil servants for most of the past year.

“I would ask him very simply: What is the moral basis for these sanctions and boycott?” Mr. Zahar said, adding that the sanctions have primarily hurt ordinary Palestinians while leaving the Hamas government standing.

Canada has forbidden its diplomats from dealing with the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. Mr. Zahar said that Canada was not acting in its national interests by joining the boycott, but rather serving those of Israel and the United States.

“What is Israel providing you? Nothing. What are you achieving from such policies? What have you gained? Nothing, except the hatred of innocent people. If you would like to be the tail of the American dog, it's up to you. Or you can be a leading country, a linkage,” he said.

“For the sake of the future — one, two or three decades from now — the only way to help everybody, everywhere is to co-operate with the Islamic movements and Arabic countries because they are not your enemy.”

Addressing the absent Mr. MacKay, he added: “The question is very simple: Why do you refuse to meet us? As a human being, as a man, what is preventing you from meeting us? We are not eating human flesh.”…

No, just trying to blow it up into itty bitty pieces.

Where to start here? How about with Zahar’s assertion that the Conservatives are “extremist”? This from a man whose government has an agenda of liquidating the Jews; nothing extreme about that, I suppose. Next, there’s the stuff about Western nations “considering” Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Well, I guess since jihad-supporting regimes consider that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing—waging jihad on infidels through acceptable means—Hamas's terrorist status could be considered a matter of opinion; one person’s terrorist organization is another person’s jihadi outfit fulfilling God's commands, after all. And, yes, he does have a point about Canada not getting too much in return from its support for Israel. No oil. No love. Nothing except cutting edge medical research, technological developments and scientific advancements.

But who needs all that when you can wipe the Jews away and put the Palestinians and their manifold contributions to humanity (car swarms, kafiyahs, shahids, semtex) in their place?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:18 | link | comments

 

Stella goes out on a limb: Paul McCartney, silly old fool, decided not to bother with anything so romance-crimping as a pre-nup. Now that his marriage to uni-limbed loudmouth, Heather Mills McCartney, has irrevocably broken down, he’s going to have to fork over $80 million--$20 million for each of four years they were wed.

 

Needless to say, Sir Paul’s daughters are furious about the deal—especially since, as part of the settlement, their Dad won’t be able to publicly rebut any of Heather’s claims (which include physical and emotional abuse). According to a source quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald,

"Stella and Mary are baying for blood. Their poor dad has been dragged through the mire by this woman, and all they wanted was to see his name cleared on the record, in public," the paper quoted a source as saying.

"Stella used to joke about looking forward to the day when Heather didn't even have one leg to stand on in court. But now that day will never come," the source added.

Oh, that Stella. She’s such a card.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:14 | link | comments

 

An heir of little brain: Prince Charles has three great loves—Camilla, Islam and the soon-to-be-late, great planet Earth. He has done what he can for the first two, and has now resolved to go that extra kilometre for the last one. From Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) - Prince Charles, criticised for booking a trans-Atlantic flight to collect an environmental award, has cancelled a ski trip to Switzerland to reduce greenhouse gases, a palace source said on Saturday.

The decision not to take the annual holiday in Klosters was made some time ago and was part of the heir-to-throne's commitment to reduce his "carbon footprint", the source said.

Now if he could only do something to reduce the squishyness of his in-bred royal brain…To continue:

Environment Minister David Miliband has questioned the need for the heir to the throne to fly to New York next week with a 20-strong entourage to collect the Global Environmental Citizen Prize from former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.

"Was it a particularly heavy award?," Miliband told London's Evening Standard newspaper. "A lot of business can be done by telephone and video link these days."

Buckingham Palace defended the Prince's trans-Atlantic trip, saying the two-day visit on January 27 and 28 was being made at the request of the Foreign Office and would include a number of other engagements.

But environmentalists accused the prince, renowned for his green leanings, of skating on thin ice…

I imagine that must leave unsightly skid marks.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:00 | link | comments

 

War games: Since Moo’s the hairy Islamic Hitler, I’m giving his Reich a more fitting name: Iranmany. And it looks like Iranmany is getting set to launch the final Final Solution (Hitler’s now turning out to have been the penultimate Final Solution). From My Way News:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran plans three days of military maneuvers, including short-range missile tests, beginning Sunday - its first since the U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions against it in late December, state-run television said.

"The elite Revolutionary Guards plans to begin a three-day missile maneuver on Sunday near Garmsar city," said the broadcast. The city is located in northern Iran on the edge of Kavir desert, about 60 miles southeast of Tehran.

"Zalzal and Fajr-5 missiles will be test fired in the war game," the television quoted an unnamed commander of the guards, as saying. Both are considered short-range missiles.

Iran conducted three large-scale military exercises last year as tensions with the West and the United States rose.

In November, for example, it test-fired dozens of missiles, including the Shahab-3 that can reach Israel, in military maneuvers that it said were aimed at putting a stop to the role of world powers in the Persian Gulf region.

Sunday's maneuvers are to be the first by Iran since the U.N. Security Council imposed limited sanctions on the country on Dec. 23, banning selling materials and technology that could be used in Iran's nuclear and missile programs and freezing assets abroad of 10 Iranian companies and individuals.

Iran regularly holds large maneuvers, often using them to test weapons developed by its arms industry.

The latest Iranian maneuvers also come just days after the U.S. announced it would deploy a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, the USS Stennis.

That appeared to have alarmed some in Iran's hard-line leadership. A prominent member of a powerful cleric-run body this week warned that the U.S. plans to attack Iran in the coming months, possibly by striking its nuclear facilities.

The United States has said it is focusing on diplomacy but will not rule out other options…

Like, say, getting the Jews to do all the heavy lifting?

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:03 | link | comments

 

It’s off, it’s on, it’s off, it’s on, it’s...: Make up your minds, already. You’re giving me a headache.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:50 | link | comments (1)

 

Holy terror: Authorities in the U.K. can’t seem to lay off those poor pilgrims. From the Sunday Times:

 

THE intelligence agencies are monitoring every Muslim who travels from Britain to Mecca on pilgrimage in a wider effort to piece together intelligence on suspected Al-Qaeda terrorist activity.

A senior Whitehall official has disclosed that the operation targeting trips to the holy city in Saudi Arabia by more than 100,000 British Muslims is part of a trawl by MI5 and MI6 for information about movements of suspected terrorists. It follows evidence that British Islamic terrorists have visited the city before carrying out attacks in Britain and abroad.

The importance of the intelligence operation was one of the reasons given by spy chiefs for maintaining ties with Saudi Arabia when the Saudi government was threatening to break off intelligence ties over a bribery investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into BAE, Britain’s prime defence contractor.

Sir John Scarlett, the head of MI6, and Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director-general of MI5, told Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, that Saudi co-operation in the fight against Al-Qaeda was vital.

A well-placed security official said Scarlett and Manningham-Buller used the Mecca surveillance operation as evidence of the need for continuing intelligence ties with the kingdom: “They made it clear to Goldsmith that they were concerned about the implications for national security of losing Saudi co-operation. They said that every British Muslim who makes the pilgrimage to Mecca was monitored.”

This weekend Muslim leaders voiced their unhappiness about the operation. Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim parliament, said: “It is absolutely wrong that people who are going to Mecca for entirely religious purposes should be monitored by the security services. It is a sad commentary on Britain’s relations with Saudi Arabia.”…

I see it more as a sad commentary on the jihad imperative, a 7^th Century concept now wreaking havoc in the 21^st Century.

 

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, you may recall, assured everyone shortly before the London transit bombings that reports of an impending terror attack had been grossly exaggerated. While you would think that the Leeds lads self-detonnating not long after her pronouncement would have forced her to resign there and then, she has hung around until now, and won’t be retiring until the spring.

 

Since I like her euphonious name so much, I wrote her the following limerick:

 

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller

Had a mouth that was full of wool. Her

Premature calming

Was disrupted by bombing,

Yet her professional life could not have been fuller.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:39 | link | comments

 

The difference between Liberals and Conservatives: This throw-away item, one of four brief stories under the NEWS TICKER heading in the Sunday Star, caught my eye:

 

Former Liberal MP regrets advisor post

Is Liberal scepticism about MP Wajid Khan’s Mideast report to Prime Minister Stephen Harper based on experience?

 

Onetime Liberal MP Sarkis Assadourian says he never did a day’s work after being appointed a special advisor to then-prime minister Paul Martin.

 

Before the 2004 election, Assadourian agreed to step aside in his Brampton riding so a star recruit could run. In return, Martin named him a special foreign policy adviser: “The whole thing was a lie…I never a single day worked in his office,” Assadourian said in an interview.

 

Rest assured, Mr. Assadourian, that’s not what’s going on with Wajid Khan. What you experienced was a Liberal pay-off, wherein you receive lots of moolah and aren’t expected to do an ounce of work in return; heck, the whole Adscam was built around that kind of pay-off. When the Conservatives buy your loyalty by giving you a job for which you have neither the experience nor the expertise, they actually expect you to do something, like write up a report of your findings.

 

They just don’t expect it to be any good.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:03 | link | comments

 

The big O: Hillary Clinton has announced she’s seeking the Presidency and that, in her words, “I’m in, and I’m going to win.”

 

Think again, Hill. All the cool kids, like Oprah, seem to have decamped from the Clinton camp—a place which, let’s face it, is just soooo 90s (you remember the 90’s don’t you?: Oslo, Monica, JonBenet, “that depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is?). They’re all putting all their money behind the great mulatto hope, Barack Obama.

 

Mark Steyn explains the Obama appeal: he’s a “blank slate” on which people can write anything they want.

 

You know, kind of like Pierre Elliot Trudeau was back in the day (although, at the moment, Obama seems far less edgy and arrogant that P.E.T., who was always considered “sexy” and “charismatic” but never had a reputation, as Obama does, for being “nice”). From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Barack Obama announced last week that he was forming an exploratory committee to explore whether he can really be as fabulous as the media say he is. And happily the answer is: Yes! He's young, gifted and black, and white, and Hawaiian, and Kansan, and charismatic, and Congregationalist, and Muslim. He rejects the way "politics has become so bitter and partisan,'' he represents "a different kind of politics." He smokes, which is different. He was raised in an Indonesian madrassah by radical imams, which is more than John Edwards can say. And he looks totally cool when he smokes! I haven't smoked since I was 14 but I'm thinking of taking it up again just because the sophisticated refreshing nicotine taste helps take the partisan bitterness out of the atmosphere. Barack Obama is Lauren Bacall to America's Humphrey Bogart. Lauren Barack coolly blows smoke, leans against the wall and purrs:

"You don't have to say anything and you don't have to do anything. Not a thing. Oh, maybe just whistle. You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve? You just put your lips together and blow."

Some commentators say he's a blank slate. And how long is it since we've seen one of those? They used to have 'em in the schoolhouses back when the kids still learnt stuff instead of just discussing their sexuality with the guidance counselor all week long. I'll bet in those radical madrassahs they're still using blank slates.

The madrassah stuff was supposedly leaked to Insight Magazine by some oppo-research heavies on Hillary Rodham Clinton's team. Which if true suggests that Hillary's losing her touch. It's certainly the case that a foreign education doesn't always assist in electoral politics: John Kerry didn't play up the Swiss finishing school angle. But look at it from a Democratic primary voter's point of view, the kind who drives around with those ''CO-EXIST'' bumper stickers made up of the cross and the Star of David and the Islamic crescent and the peace sign. Your whole world view is based on the belief that deep down we'd all rub along just fine and this neocon fever about Islam is just a lot of banana oil to keep the American people in a state of fear and paranoia. What would more resoundingly confirm that view than if the nicest, most non-bitter, nonpartisan guy in politics turns out to have graduated from the Sword of the Infidel Slayer grade school in Jakarta?...

I can think of only one more thing that would put him over the top with a certain type of voter: a dog named Kyoto.

 

Steyn opens his column with a reworking of The Lion King’s “Hakuna Matata”—“…Barak Obama, ain’t no passing craze.” Me, I see him in more Rogers and Hammersteinian terms, against the sweeping panorama of American history:

 

Oh, Obama,

When the Winfrey comes sweepin’ down the aisles

Of her TV set

She’s sure to get

Lots of folks to gaze at him with smiles.

Oh, Obama

He’s the guy that everyone adores.

He is young and slim

And an amalgam

Of ethnicities upon these shores.

You know he belongs to the O,

And the O he belongs to has a show.

Now she’s begun, yow,

To put him in the sun, pow.

She’s only sayin’

Better all vote for Obama,

B. Obama’s the one.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:49 | link | comments

Out of the loop: For months now, friends and family have been urging me to see Little Miss Sunshine, the Sundance-award-winning movie that was released last summer to near-universal acclaim. "You'll love it," people said. "It's hilarious," they added. "A real side-splitter," they averred.

Well, I finally saw it and maybe it was the build-up, and maybe it's a function of my being "out of synch with the zeitgeist," but sorry, folks, I just didn't get it. (Spoiler alert: if you're one of the handful who has yet to see it and want to retain the element of surprise if and when you do, don't read any further.) The disfunctional mishpachah; the horndog, porno-loving Granda; the horndog, porno-loving Grandpa teaching the sweet little moppet her beauty pageant routine and her mother never once asking to see a preview so she'd know that the routine--a bump 'n' grind stripper dance to Rick James's Superfreak (at least horny old Grandpa counseled her to keep most of her clothes on)--was completely inappropriate for the creepy JonBenet-type beauty pageant in which she was participating; the moppet's Dale Carnegie/Tony Robbins-wannabe father, being shocked, shocked!, to discover that moppet beauty pageants were so downright creepy (what was he doing during all the JonBenet coverage--sleeping?); the way, when Grandpa kicked off, none of them seemed too broken up about it, and didn't let it get in the way of little Olive's dream of competing in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant (their sense of priorites reminded me of those French folks who, a few summers back, didn't return from their vacances down south when Grandmere or Grandpere croaked during a Paris heat wave): all off it added up to the kind of movie experience that made it virtually impossible for me to suspend my powers of disbelief.

Years ago, back in the paleolithic age of television, there was an episode of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" in which Dick had a hard time establishing an alibi--I forget why he needed one--because he had gone to the movies and slept through the Gregory Peck thriller The Guns of Navarone (a movie which, back in the day, was considered to be the height of edge-of-your-seat excitement--"You slept through the Guns of Navarone?" people kept saying to Dick in astonishment--but which, by current standards is rather tame). Skip ahead a few decades to an episode of "Seinfeld," which revolved around Jerry and Elaine failing to watch Schindler's List--a movie Jerry's parents had been raving about and relentlessly noodjing him to see--because they were too busy making out during the screening. Then fast forward to me, watching Little Miss Sunshine in the comfort of my own home and, aside from the occasional chuckle (the suicidal uncle, played by Steve Carrell, telling everyone he was the "#1 Proust scholar" in the U.S.--and his seeing an ad in the New York Times Book Review showing his arch-rival being billed as the #1 Proust scholar; the family having to jump into the decrepit VW van while it was in motion) not getting what all the fuss was about.

Dick, Jerry, Elaine--I know where you're coming from.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:40 | link | comments

Palestinian Melodrama*: The Globe and Mail’s Middle East correspondent, Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon has always had a soft spot for a Palestinian with a good hard luck story. Today he recounts the heart-rending saga of folks who, in good faith and seeking only a bit of what they were owed, voted for—and elected—a regime of genocidal Islamists. Now, one year on, these voters are disillusioned because the regime hasn’t been able to keep them solvent—something having to do with the West’s aversion to funding terrorists bent on ending the “occupation” of Israel by the Jews.

Read it and weep (I’ve retained the bolded headline and subhead, to give you the full effect):

Hamas voters long for a do-over

A year after the Islamists were elected in a reformist wave, Palestinians face an economy so dire, many can't afford even to get married. MARK MacKINNON reports

MARK MACKINNON

RAMALLAH -- Twelve months ago, Mohammed Khaled cast his ballot in the Palestinian legislative elections for Hamas, betting a change in government would do good things for the economy. Soon his whole life began to unravel.

"I voted for them because I thought the situation would improve, that at least corruption would leave the Palestinian street," he says, watching the dangerously disorganized flow of cars around Ramallah's central al-Manar Square. "I regret it every day."

Mr. Khaled's tattered clothes -- dirty black jeans, disintegrating shoes and a greyish-blue, button-down shirt with fraying threads emerging from his cuffs and collar -- tell the story of the kind of year it has been, not only for himself but for the majority of Palestinians.

One thing Mr. Khaled is not wearing is a wedding band. He was supposed to get married this month, but when his business collapsed amid the economic crisis that followed Hamas's election victory last Jan. 26, he could no longer afford it.

"I was engaged, and because of Hamas I had to cancel it," he spits bitterly, his 42-year-old face haggard and unshaven. "This year has been the most difficult in my life. It's a struggle to put food on my table."

A year after the election shocker that brought Hamas to power, many Palestinians wish they could rewind the clock.

The downward slide began almost immediately. In March, days after the cabinet of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh was sworn in -- refusing demands to recognize Israel and to renounce violence -- Canada, the United States and the European Union suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in international aid, refusing to give money to a government headed by "terrorists."

Israel joined in by cutting off tens of millions more in tax and customs money that it was treaty-bound to pass on to the Palestinian Authority.

The damage to the Palestinian economy was as swift as the punishment was severe. Almost immediately, the Hamas-led Authority, already teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, had to announce that it was unable to pay salaries to its 170,000 civil servants. The trickle-down effect of all that lost spending power crippled businesses across the West Bank and Gaza Strip…

Cue the organ music, the raging thunderstorm and the bloodhounds snapping at their backsides.

 

Not melodramatic enough for you? There’s more:

…By June, Mr. Khaled had to close his tiny business dealing in scrap metal. Suddenly, the only money he could make was from driving his friend's taxi one day a week. Summer and fall came and went with no respite, and Mr. Khaled finally had to have the conversation he had been dreading for months.

He visited his 24-year-old fiancée, Wafa, and told her that he no longer had the money to marry her. Distraught, Wafa fled to Jordan to live with her mother.

"My heart was broken," Mr. Khaled vents. "[But] how could I take someone's daughter, and not be able to support her? You need to be able to pay the water bills, the electricity bills." His eyes were filled more with anger than sadness.

In the small crowd of grizzled men listening to this conversation on a street corner, there is a line of sympathetically nodding heads. "I'm 40, and because of Hamas, I will never get married," one says before walking away.

Just outside Ramallah, the three garishly decorated halls of the Taj Mahal wedding palace sit empty and unused. Constructed in mid-2005 as peace hopes rose after the victory of the moderate Mahmoud Abbas in separate presidential elections, the Taj Mahal tried to convert itself into a restaurant this year as the economic siege set in and people's funds for things like weddings dried up. Now, its doors are closed, possibly for good…

Not meaning to be callous or anything, but Boo frikkin’ Hoo. There are consequences to actions—or, at least, there are supposed to be—and the consequence of electing Hamas is that Westerners don’t feel obliged to pay you the jizya you have come to expect and count on.

 

Then again, there are folks far more tender-hearted than I, and the jizya seems to be starting to trickle back in, despite Hamas. So hang tight, Mr. Khaled: you could be getting married after all.

 

* obscure reference to 1930s flick Manhattan Melodrama

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:52 | link | comments (1)

 

Situation tragedy: The Ceeb is crowing about how its new sitcom, Little Mosque on the Prairie, is a big hit. Apparently, a whopping 1.2 million Canucks tuned in to see the second week of hilarity involving funny, virtuous Muslims and silly, suspicious infidels. (In the 1950s, these paranoid folks would have been looking for Commies under their beds; today they’re looking for Islamic terrorists—the maroons!)

 

A letter in the Globe and Mail helps puts the numbers in perspective:

It's interesting that the CBC is "very pleased" that the second episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie pulled in 1.2 million viewers on Wednesday (Little Mosque Follow-Up Pulls In 1.2 Million Viewers -- Review, Jan. 19). By my reckoning, 1.2 million represents about 4 per cent of the population. That means that 96 per cent of Canadians did not watch the show. Unfortunately, those 96 per cent still have to pay for it.

And I, for one, want my money back.

 

In yesterday’s National Post, Michael Coren had a piece about some real mosques in Britain that are nowhere near as funny as the fictional one in Saskatchewan:

The timing could not be more apposite. After the humorless banalities of the CBC's Little Mosque on the Prairie come the grotesque realities of Channel 4's Undercover Mosque in the U.K.

Journalists from Channel 4's Dispatches programme conducted a 10-month undercover assignment in several of Britain's leading mosques. The resulting segment, Undercover Mosque, was aired on Jan. 15.

What is particularly relevant is that Dispatches has an international reputation for excellence and, important this, for its general left-wing approach to political issues. As such, the producers decided to investigate not those Muslim centres renowned for their extremism but various large, influential and allegedly moderate Islamic holy places.

What it found has provoked waves of shock. Several preachers and imams call for holy war, tell congregations that Muslims have to brainwash people, demand that homosexuals be murdered, insist that girls who refuse to wear the hijab should be beaten, and routinely demand that Christians and Jews be killed.

At one mosque in Birmingham, Abu Usama, one of the most popular speakers, says that Muslims have to "form a state within a state, until we take over." He says that in this state any Muslim who tried to leave Islam would be killed. "If the Imam wants to crucify him he could crucify him. The person is put up on the wood and he's left there to bleed to death."

The documentary also shows a preacher joking about harming gay people secretly so as not to break the law. He laughs as he tells Muslim dentists to thrust extra- large needles into the faces of gay patients.

This is all especially embarrassing for the government because one of its main advisors on Islam, a Muslim member of the House of Lords, attends this particular mosque and speaks highly of it.

Another preacher in Birmingham, Dr. Billal Phillips, explains that as Muhammad married Aisha, a nine-year-old girl, all such marriages are condoned. "The prophet Muhammad practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty. With this practice, he clarified what is permissible."

Referring to non-Muslims, another preacher says that, "No one loves the kuffaar [i.e., non-Muslims]. We hate the kuffaar! Allah has not given those people who are kuffaar a way over the believer. They shouldn't be in authority over us. Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with anything other than a total Islamic state."

The book store of the Regents Park Mosque, the largest in London, sells popular videos of the Saudi-trained Sheikh Faiz calling Jews "pigs" who will all be slaughtered. He then makes the sound of a pig and the audience laughs. In fact, throughout the sermons and lessons there is no sign of disagreement or discomfort from anyone in the packed congregations.

The Taliban is praised for killing British soldiers, and followers are repeatedly told to despise Western society. Muslims are condemned if they send their children to kuffaar schools or allow them to play with kuffaars.

The response so far has been that the documentary is mere propaganda. Tragically, it is not. It appears to be an accurate and objective expose of common teaching within those mosques that were until now considered to be standing on the front line against extremism. We would be foolish not to listen to what these Muslims are telling us.

In Canada, the Ceeb is telling us not to worry about the extremists, that they’re a figment of our collective Islamophobic imagination. Why, just look at that cute little mosque on the Prairies, where everyone loves the “kuffaar” and the hunky imam would never try to elicit laughs with barnyard noises. Alas, that is Ceeb multiculti make-believe. In the real world, an oinking imam breaking up the congregation with porcine Jew impressions is about as “funny” as this type of fundamentalism is ever likely to get.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:56 | link | comments

 

No sale: There’s a passé phrase that used to describe an extremely persuasive salesman: “He could sell refrigerators to Eskimos.”

 

Well, Eskimos are now called Inuit, and a more modern version of the phrase might be: “He could sell the road map to Hamas.”

 

Which definitely does not describe Mahmoud Abbas’s powers of persusion. Try as he might, he can’t seem to get Hamas to sign up for his “go slower” jihad. Not that’s he’s going to stop trying. From Al Bawaba:

 

A Palestinian lawmaker has said that president Mahmud Abbas would meet with Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal this weekend in Damascus, AFP reported.

 

Independent MP Ziad Abu Amr, who is mediating between Fatah faction and its rival ruling Hamas party, said the meeting would be held on Saturday, during the president's weekend visit to Damascus. "A meeting was arranged. During our mediation, we have made progress on numerous questions, but two points remain unresolved," Abu Amr told AFP Thursday…

 

Gee, I can’t imagine what those points could be.

 

If you listen closely, you can hear Condi, Ehud and all the other Peace In Our Time Munchkins cheering Abbas on:

 

Follow the yellow brick road map.

Follow the yellow brick road map.

Follow, oh, follow, oh, follow, oh, follow,

Oh, follow the yellow brick road map…

We’re off to see the Chairman,

The Chairman named Mahmoud Abbas.

We hear he is a “moderate”

If ever a “mod’rate” there was.

If ever, oh, ever a “mod’rate” there was

Mahmoud Abbas is one because,

Because, because, because, because, because,

Simply because he is not Hamas.

(Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo)

We’re off to see the Chairman,

The Chairman named Mahmoud Abbas.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:12 | link | comments

 

Supernatural Jews: The Globe and Mail has an editorial criticizing Wajid Khan—the former Liberal, now Tory, M.P. who the Harper government, in a sop to the “honest broker” faction, sent on a “fact-finding” mission to the Middle East. Mr. Khan, one of those “moderate” Muslims, surveyed the scene and decided—quel surprise!—that Israel must retreat post haste to its ’67 borders.

 

While I concur with the gist of the editorial—i.e., that Harper seems to be backing down from support for Israel and appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth—there’s something in the editorial’s opening line that's been nagging at me all day. Here’s the line (the rest of the editorial is available by subscription):

 

Even as Ottawa gives money to the Palestinians, it has been reported that Wajid Khan, the floor-crossing MP, was prepared to give them still more by happily agreeing to push Israel back to the pre-1967 borders. Israel hasn't been an angel of late -- it's planning to intensify a settlement on occupied lands -- but it doesn't deserve Mr. Khan.

 

Can you guess which part disturbs me? It’s that bit about Israel not being an angel. I don’t mean to be nitpicky, but I’m uncomfortable with anything—pro or con—that frames Israel and the Jewish people in terms of the supernatural. Call me hyper-sensitive, but it seems to me that if Israel hasn’t been acting like an angel, the inference here is that it may have been acting, well, rather devilish. And, frankly, I’m sick to death of the whole supernatural shtick being applied to Israel and the Jews. Jews are neither angels nor devils. We’re simply people. And considering the way we have been demonized over the years—and how we continue to be demonized in much of the Arab/Muslim world—it’s highly inappropriate for the Globe to use that phrase. Especially since the Globe would never use the term “angel” or “devil” to describe the actions and policies of any other nation. It also smacks of a double standard--expecting Israel and no other nation to behave angelically.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:23 | link | comments (2)

 

Deconstructing the story: Here’s how the Jerusalem Post reports on Mahmoud Abbas’s plan to call an election should talks with Hamas fail:

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said Friday he'll go for early elections if the latest round of coalition talks with Hamas fails but emphasized that early elections are not meant to oust Hamas, and that the group could win again.

Abbas also said it's time for Hamas to make up its mind whether it wants to establish a government acceptable to the West, by moderating its platform and sharing power with Abbas's Fatah Party.

Hamas has resisted demands by the international community that it recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept existing peace agreements.

However, a foreign aid boycott would continue, unless a new Palestinian Authority government agrees on a moderate platform…

And here’s how I’ve rewritten it to capture what’s really going on:

 

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, whose power has been ebbing away ever since the Palestinians elected Hamas, said Friday he’ll go for early elections (even though he has no legal authority to call them) when talks between Hamas and Fatah fail, as they are destined to do. Abbas doesn’t expect to win the election, so he’s pretending that his aim isn’t to oust the intractable Hamas regime, even though that’s what he’s really hoping for.

 

Abbas also said it’s time for Hamas to make up its mind whether it wants to establish a government acceptable to the West, knowing full well that Hamas has reiterated time after time that it has no intention of making accommodations to the infidels, and will never share power with Abbas’s Fatah Party.

 

Hamas stands by its covenant, and will never, ever, in a million, billion, zillion years, recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept existing peace agreements; why should it, when the infidels are forking over the shekels to the Palestinians without Hamas having to moderate its genocidal agenda by one whit?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:57 | link | comments

 

Score one for the good guys: Congrats to the members of the OSSTF who stood up to the Israel-bashers and voted down the motion that would have allowed teachers to bring pro-Palestinian propaganda into Ontario classrooms. At a time when the screws are tightening and Israel is becoming more besieged than ever (even Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to be retreating from his previously resolute support), such victories, local though they may be, give us hope and courage to carry on the fight.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:26 | link | comments (2)

 

Today’s Q & A: Q: What do the yeti, the Loch Ness monster, the tooth fairy and the “two-state solution” have in common? A: I think you can figure it out. Here’s what Rachel Ehrenfeld has to say on the subject. From the American Thinker:

 

Almost everyone involved in diplomacy aimed at a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict thinks that the solution is a "two-state solution" -a state of Israel and a state of Palestine, living in mutual harmony, side by side, without terror or conflict between them. President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert of Israel, the leaders of the European Community, Russia, and the United Nations-all are advocates of the "two state solution." In effect, it is a call for a "three state solution" - Jordan, Israel and a terror state in between threatening the elimination of both.

 

However, I respectfully disagree with the view of these world leaders that a "two-state solution" is viable. The Palestinian Arab leadership has violated almost every agreement that it has signed with Israel since the "peace process" began in 1993, including and especially their repeated pledges to halt terror attacks on Israelis. Instead, these attacks have multiplied greatly in the past thirteen years, and Israeli casualties, especially civilian casualties, have increased sharply. Palestinian children are systematically indoctrinated in relentless hatred of Israel, Israelis and Jews in general in the Palestinian Authority schools. The mosques indoctrinate Palestinian adults in the same hatred, and openly incite terror and murder against Jews ("martyrdom").  And all this with the support of the U.S. State Department paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. 

Plainly, Israel cannot coexist peacefully with a Palestinian state ruled by the dominant Palestinian factions in the PA-ruled territories (Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others). Even Israeli Arab leaders (such as Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara) have increasingly endorsed war and hatred against Israel. Clearly, no "two-state solution" with a leadership possessed of this kind of mindset could possibly bring peace to Israel.

 

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and some of his rapidly dwindling number of supporters say that they will accept a "two state solution" only if the 450,000 or so Israelis who live beyond the "green line" in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria are expelled, while the more than three million Palestinians who claim descent from the Palestinians who left the "green line" borders of Israel during the war of 1948 (most of them of their own volition, at the behest of Arab leaders who falsely promised them a quick return), are all allowed to "return" to Israel within its reduced frontiers. But before we take Abbas' reputation for "moderation" at face value, we should reflect on his remarks just a few days ago, at a rally commemorating his late mentor Yasser Arafat, when he openly called on Palestinians to "use their [American supplied] arms" against the "occupation" (meaning Israel)...

 

And yet, those cockeyed optimists keep plugging away, determined to install yet another failed rogue Muslim state in the area NO MATTER WHAT—as if that’ll get the seethers to lay off, already. From Monsters & Critics:

Ramallah - The government of the United States will deal with a Hamas-led Palestinian government on condition that government accepts conditions specified by the Mideast Quartet, said a US diplomatic official Thursday.

The Mideast Quartet, composed of the US, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, said the Palestinian government has to recognize Israel, accept previously signed agreements and renounce violence to end international sanctions imposed since the government took office at the end of March.

If a government dominated by the Islamist Hamas movement, which the US considers a terrorist organization, 'meets (quartet conditions) in a genuine way, we will deal with it,' said the official, speaking at a briefing with Palestinian editors in Ramallah on condition of anonymity.

The official also said the US government did not believe a meeting in Damascus between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khalid Mishaal would have a positive result.

Palestinian sources close to Abbas said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her meeting with Abbas in Ramallah on Sunday expressed opposition to the Palestinian president's proposed trip to Damascus.

The sources said Abbas insisted on the trip and on meeting Syrian officials, including Syrian President Bashar Assad, even though he might not meet with Mishaal unless the latter comes to see him.

Abbas is expected to visit Lebanon on Monday but no date was given for his visit to Damascus.

I thought I’d also include this insightful comment that followed the piece written by someone named Abdullah:

Muslims and people who truly love justice are all hopeful that HAMAS does not bow down to the demands of the Quartet of Devils. If one takes an unbiased look at the history of the region since 1900 one can see the devilish hand of the British and U.S. imperialist at work in the establishment of the Zionist state of Israel. Simply read the Balfour Declaration and look at a map of (British Mandate) Palestine before 1948. There were very few Jews settled in the area. The land was stolen from the Palestinian Arabs. It is no wonder that the Palestinians are mad. Jews cannot claim that land as theirs because God would not give the land to irreligious, secular-minded Jews. A Biblical Israel is ONLY for pious, God-fearing Jews.

Funny how Abdullah has the same complaint about Israel that Jimmy Carter does—that modern-day Israel fails to measure up to its biblical antecedent. (And the jihadists say the same of today’s Muslims—that they fail to measure up to the true believers of Mohammed’s day. Maybe the problem here isn’t a lack of piety but an over-enthusiasm for atavism.)

Hands up all those who think this “Israel is only for pious Jews” business is all a smokescreen, and that Abdullah and Jimminy would have the same gripe even if pious Jews comprised the bulk of Israel’s population.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:49 | link | comments

 

Cry babies: Two teachers, one Jewish, one Muslim (or who has a Muslim-sounding name), have been spearheading the drive that would allow Ontario High School teachers to make pro-Palestinian propaganda part of the curriculum. Not surprisingly, the move has spurred a great deal of opposition from those who support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, and who don’t believe this one-sided political agenda has any place in the classroom. These teachers, who had hoped to ease though this motion without two much of a fuss, now find themselves in the eye of their own self-created storm, and they don’t much like it. They have run for cover and have taken to calling those who oppose them—and who plan to derail their efforts at today’s OSSTF meeting—“Jewish bullies.”

 

As far as I can tell, that’s the same thing as a “Jewish Lobby,” but sounds even more menacing. From the CBC:

A decision approving a request by two Toronto high school teachers to have a union debate on whether to condemn Israel's treatment of Palestinians has come under fire by human rights groups. 

The motion, set to be debated later Thursday, was brought by English teacher and Jewish activist Jason Kunin, who has often criticized the Israeli government, and Hyssam Hulays, a computer science teacher.

It was approved by the Toronto district of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, and is being opposed by B'nai Brith and the Jewish Defence League.

"The level of discourse has been just incredibly low and vile," district union president Doug Jolliffe told the Canadian Press said about approving the debate. "But to turn and say we cannot have any kind of discussions on this…. It's not Holocaust denial, where there is no argument to be made."

It speaks of "Israel's continued violation of the human rights of Palestinians," and asks the union to create classroom materials on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to support an international boycott of Israel.

B'nai Brith members worry anti-Israeli sentiment could turn anti-Semitic and find its way into the classrooms.

They say the motion ignores human-rights abuses in other countries and there's no condemnation of Palestinian violence.

B'nai Brith executive director Frank Dimant told CBC News the resolution is about "bringing hate into the classroom.

"This is not an opportunity to discuss. This is bringing propaganda into the classroom. And I think propaganda has no place in Canadian classrooms."

The motion also calls on the union to ask Prime Minister Stephen Harper to criticize Israel's "aggression" against Gaza and Lebanon, and end sanctions against the Palestinians' Hamas government.

Neither Kunin nor Hulays returned calls to their schools on Wednesday.

I don’t know why Kunin and Hulays are so impatient. These kids are going to be exposed to a veritable flood of anti-Zionist propaganda once they get to university

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:37 | link | comments (2)

 

Royal pain: One of Jordan’s babelicious princesses (of which there seem to be an inexhaustible supply) has a piece in the Toronto Star about the desperate plight of Palestinian children in Gaza. Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein, Goodwill Ambassador for the UN World Food Program, is extremely concerned about the fate of starving Palestinian youngsters, and offers her own quirky but entirely predictable assessment of the problem. (The Star has a small headshot of comely royal, and, beside it, a much larger photo of a Palestinian dad and his two young sons caught in some Hamas-Fatah crossfire):

...What is the reality of life for a child growing up in Palestine?

First – and especially in Gaza – there is the subtle and pervasive fear. When will there be an exchange of fire? How bad will it be? Even with no military action, the fear remains.

Poverty and destitution have led to a sharp rise in crime in Gaza, including kidnappings, eroding even further what remains of commerce and depriving families of any semblance of normal life. While the situation in the West Bank is somewhat better, you will still not see Microsoft, Siemens or Alcatel rushing to invest.

Last summer, seven out of 10 families in Gaza were unable to feed themselves, a rise of 30 per cent over the year before. The ever-tightening security closures have strangled Gaza's two main sources of income – fishing and agriculture. Closing the coastal waters by Israel has meant a collapse of the fishing industry. Only one family in three has a regular income and many subsist on a single meal a day.

Small household luxuries like a working refrigerator, taken for granted in the West, are no longer available to them and high protein foods so critical for the nutrition of growing children – meat, cheese and fish – quickly go rotten, as the supply of electricity ebbs and flows without warning.

The World Food Program is now providing food aid to 600,000 non-refugee Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. It is helping olive farmers and fishermen sustain their livelihoods at a time when they would otherwise face destitution.

For the time being, this support enables tens of thousands of families to have enough to eat and live with some dignity. But it is far from being a satisfactory situation and these efforts and those of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) have never enjoyed consistent and full funding.

Only when WFP and all other aid organizations can pack up and leave, their jobs done, can we be confident about the future. And for that to happen will require tremendous will and courage from all the protagonists in the region.

Yes, for now we should fund aid efforts and fund them fully. But laudable as that would be, aid is not enough because it fails to give Palestinians what they need most – hope.

Ironically, the Middle East was the birthplace of hope for three of the world's major religions. In Arabic, we refer to the region as Mahbattal Addian, the place where the three messages from heaven descended – the cradle of Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Palestine is regarded as a Holy Land by all three, a vision that should unite, rather than divide.

Yet today, there are only images of division and those divisions extend so very far beyond Palestine. Politicians and the media in Europe and North America are seized with the image of the Islamic extremist; a modern warrior of jihad, a terrorist in their midst bent on the destruction of the West. The media in the Arab world, in turn, are replete with the rhetoric of Crusades.

Unjust stereotypes abound and there is no shortage of editorial analyses of the ongoing "clash of civilizations."

These divisions come with a price and it is being paid, first and foremost, by Palestine's children.

If we are to bring peace and dignity to Palestine, let's begin by reaching out to these children.

Oh, brother. Jordan’s answer to Angelina Jolie—only much more clueless and without the Hollywood trophy husband.

 

Here’s my letter to the Star’s editor:

 

It’s nice to see a member of a royal family making herself useful, but I’m afraid that Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein has gotten some of her facts wrong. She seems to think that the dire situation in Gaza has something to do with the way Western media have unfairly stereotyped Muslims. That is a misperception. The media report on the actions of terrorists and would-be terrorists, most of whom happen to be Muslim extremists. That’s the media’s job. Such coverage has nothing to do with the situation in Gaza. If children are going hungry there it’s because the Palestinians, of their own volition, elected a regime of extremists bent on Israel’s destruction, and, for obvious reasons, Israel and other Western nations did not see it in their interest to fund such a government. That doesn’t mean the money tap has been turned off completely. Funds in the form of humanitarian aid are still getting through—although, clearly, not enough to feed the hungry. But perhaps the Princess’s country, Jordan, and other wealthy Arab nations could step into the breech with funds to help feed the starving.

 

I’d also like to correct another error. The Princess writes that “Palestine is regarded as a Holy Land” by three religions. Really? Last time I checked the country regarded as holy by three religions was still called “Israel.” “Palestine”, consisting of Gaza and the West Bank, is a nation that has yet to be born.

 

It appears that the Princess is engaging in some wishful thinking, and has redrawn the map accordingly.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:01 | link | comments

 

Condi in Dreamland: I don’t know what kind of fairy dust they’ve been sprinking around Foggy Bottom these days, but it seems to have caused Condi Rice to take complete leave of her senses. In her latest display of wishful thinking unmoored to any discernable sense of reality, she claims that the “whole of the Middle East wants peace.”

 

True enough, Condi, but it’s the type of peace they want that’s at issue here: the type that involves getting rid of the little bit of Dar a-Harb that, for the moment at least, still squats cheekily in the middle of Dar al-Islam, thus ruining the impeccable Muslim landscape.

 

Not to worry, though. The whole world is gearing up to restore it to its pristine condition. From CNN :

BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has met German Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after the two sides announced a revival of peace talks.

"I believe that the whole region is looking for a way to accelerate progress and to drag toward the establishment of a Palestinian state and so this is a very important time," Rice said after her week-long trip to the Middle East.

Rice was in Berlin on Thursday to share the impression she received from Israeli and Palestinian leaders during meetings aimed at restarting the Mideast peace process and gaining support for U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.

She traveled to the West Bank, Jerusalem, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and six Persian Gulf countries.

"I did find the parties to be very desirous of accelerating progress on the road map, of extending the momentum that has been achieved in the meeting between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas," Rice said, referring to an ice-breaking first official meeting between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last month.

In an earlier news conference this week Rice said she and Olmert had agreed to meet Abbas in a three-way summit as a way to generate momentum for the stalled Middle East peace process. The decision came during talks Monday in Jerusalem between Rice and Olmert.

No date was set for the future three-way meeting, but a senior State Department official said it will take place within three to four weeks, sometime after the previously scheduled International Quartet meeting slated for early February.

That meeting will be attended by leaders from the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.

During Thursday's news conference Rice invited the International Quartet representatives to Washington for the upcoming talks, including Merkel, whose country now holds the European Union presidency.

"We have a common political interest in finding a solution to this conflict and the European Union would like to make a contribution within the framework of the quartet," Merkel said.

"We know that resolving this conflict or at least making progress would also have an effect on all the other regional conflicts."…

Hmmm. Sounds like Angela’s been snorting the same fairy dust.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:37 | link | comments

 

Send in the Oil-For-food Clowns: Claudia Rosett on the farce that has followed the Oil-For-Food investigations. Sure, Benon Sevan, the guy who ran the get-Saddam-rich-quick scheme, was charged yesterday. But since he’s safely ensconced in his native Cyprus, and since Cyprus has no extradition treaty with the U.S., I’m not sure why he would ever return—even if it meant he could cut a deal with the feds by implicating others. From NRO:

 

In what surely qualifies as the single-most-promising United Nations reform effort to date, federal prosecutors in New York, jointly with the New York District Attorney, have just announced the indictment of the man who ran the U.N.’s former Oil-for-Food program: Benon Sevan. Charged with conspiring to commit fraud and taking close to $160,000 in bribes related to Oil-for-Food deals, Sevan, if convicted, could face a prison sentence of up to 50 years. The indictment is, in its way, a neat retort to attempts by Sevan’s old boss, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to downplay the landmark Oil-for-Food scam in terms of “If there was a scandal.”

Sevan, who denies any wrongdoing, was of course nowhere near the federal courtroom when the indictment was unsealed. It’s been almost two years since he slipped out of New York and returned to his native Cyprus, while Annan’s spokesman was busy telling the press that this prime Oil-for-Food suspect was under control. In Cyprus, Sevan would be safe from U.S. extradition, and it appears that’s where he is now. After the indictment was announced, on Tuesday, I called his Cyprus cell phone. Sevan answered, saying he couldn’t talk, because “I am in traffic, driving.” When I called back later, he said, “Talk to my lawyer, please” — and hung up the phone.

So begins the next chapter in this saga spawned by the U.N.’s lucrative and corrupt collaboration with one of the world’s worst tyrants, the late Saddam Hussein. Advertised as a U.N.-run relief program for Saddam’s U.N.-sanctioned Iraq, the 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food program devolved into a worldwide extravaganza of kickbacks, smuggling, and bribes, fortifying Saddam with more than $17 billion in illicit funds, according to Senate investigators.

The irony of most Oil-for-Food investigations to date has been that some of the worst offenders have never encountered any penalties at all. While authorities in democratic nations such as the U.S., Australia, India, and even France have been digging into alleged offenses by their own citizens, repressive governments in countries such as Russia, China, and Syria — all of which played big roles in Saddam’s graft-ridden Oil-for-Food business — have simply not bothered.

At the U.N. itself, which ran Oil-for-Food, and where Annan’s Secretariat collected $1.4 billion from Iraq to cover the cost of administering the program, not a single official ended up even fired. Sevan retired and has been collecting his full U.N. pension, despite allegations of bribery leveled against him in 2005 by Paul Volcker’s U.N.-authorized inquiry into Oil-for-Food. When I asked Annan’s spokesman last year if the U.N. had paid Sevan’s airfare and moving expenses back to Cyprus, the answer was not “no.” It was: “We do not usually disclose personal information on individual staff entitlements to the public.”  

Sevan’s indictment challenges what some of the U.N.’s own auditors have described as Turtle Bay’s “culture of impunity.” Over the past two years, federal investigations have led to a guilty plea and a number of indictments of U.N. officials dealing with procurement; as well as a drug bust in the U.N. mailroom. But none of these have involved figures as close to the top as Sevan. The message underscored by his indictment is that even high U.N. officials, handpicked by the secretary-general to run multibillion-dollar programs, might want to think twice before deeming themselves safely above the law.

Should Sevan end up cutting a deal with federal prosecutors, he might be able to shed more light on Oil-for-Food-related doings in the U.N. executive suite — where the performances of Annan and his top aides left much to be desired, and a lot to be explained…

 

My prediction: Sevan stays exactly where he is, and most of the oily miscreants get off Scot free.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:57 | link | comments

 

Maid abuse: A judge in New York has ruled that petulant former supermodel Naomi Campell will have to perform five days of community service because she got angry at her maid and beaned her on the head with a mobile phone.

 

Sheesh. Where did Naomi think she was? Saudi Arabia?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:21 | link | comments

 

Teachers’ pets: The Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, the union that represents High School teachers in the province, will be considering a motion tomorrow that has nothing to do with Ontario or Canada but has a lot to do with the well-orchestrated international efforts to tear down Israel and turn it into Palestine. In honour of those spearheading the OSSTF drive to join CUPE Ontario’s Israel boycott—and who are calling for the OSSTF to single out Israel for chastisement tomorrow—I’ve revised Irving Berlin’s tuneful classic, “Sisters”:

 

Teachers,

Teachers,

There were never such committed teachers.

Can’t abide the sight of that “apartheid” wall.

Hope it’s soon

Gonna fall.

Caring,

Sharing,

And at all the “settlers” we are swearing.

When a certain President composed a screed.

It’s one we stayed up late to read.

 

All kinds of weather, we stick together,

The same in the sun or rain.

Two diff’rent sides here,

But one is denied here.

We think and we act the same.

Uh huh.

 

Those who’ve heard us

Say we’re on the right track and assured us

Palestinians must get their share of rights.

That’s what’s causing all the fights.

Lord help J. Carter.

We hope that his plan is a starter.

And Lord help the Arabs

Take back all their land from the Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:55 | link | comments (2)

Straight talk about Abbas: Kudos to Naresh Rugabeer, Executive Director of the Canadian Coalition for Democracy, for this superb letter to the editor in the current issue of the Canadian Jewish News:

In “A nuclear Iran seen as ‘dangerous’ for the world” (CJN, Jan. 4), Sheldon Kirshner quotes former U.S. ambassador Dennis Ross, who says that the West should support Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as a “moderate alternative” to Israel’s Hamas government.

The Palestine Liberation Organization charter, under which Abbas and his Fatah party operate, continues to call for “the total liberation of Palestine” through “the armed Palestinian revolution.” The media that Abbas controls continues its indoctrination of hatred of Jews and its denial of any historical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. Abbas himself, as well as his media, continues to glorify the murderers of Jews by shaheeds (Muslims who die during fulfilment of a religious commandment or during a war for the religion). Moreover, Abbas has never confronted the Arab world with the truth of the PLO’s terror campaigns of the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, with which he was intimately connected, nor has he denied the links between himself and the terrorist arm of his Fatah party, the Al Asqa Martyrs Brigades.
Israeli leaders and friends of Israel should be demanding that Abbas stop the hatred, begin the process of truth-telling that alone could lead to reconciliation, stop his funding of terror groups and use the tens of thousands of his own well-armed forces to establish a lawful society rather than murdering and maiming Jews.

Peace cannot come by pretending that those who long for one’s destruction are one’s friends. Worse, by promoting Abbas and his party, Fatah, as “moderate,” we destroy the possibility of Palestinian Arab society finally developing leaders who are truly uncompromised by terror.

The only thing I would add is that this “moderate” wrote his doctoral thesis on a subject that’s near and dear to the heart of extremists like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: denying the Holocaust in a bid to delegitimize Jewish sovereignty in Israel.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:21 | link | comments

 

Sevan charged: The last time I read anything about Benon Sevan, the UN official in charge of the most lucrative scam in history was months ago in a piece by Claudia Rosett, the journalist whose doggedness kept the Oil-For-Food scam in the public eye kept it there long enough for it to be investigated by the Volker Commission. As I recall, Rosett described how, months after the scam had ended, Sevan had decamped to an apartment in his native Cypress in which his elderly aunt, a woman whose bank account was found to contain am unsually large deposit for an impoverished woman of limited means; this aunt had, not too long before her nephew’s arrival, had an unfortunate encounter with an empty elevator shaft in her building which resulted in her untimely demise.

 

As Rosett recounted in her article, a reporter knocked on Benon’s door—which still had his late aunt’s name on it—and was greeted by the former graftmeister himself, shirtless, potbellied, with a lit stogie stuck in the corner of his mouth. He chatted quite amiably with the reporter for a minute or two, and then told him he could use the elevator to get down to the main floor. “It’s been fixed,” said Benon, helpfully.

 

I don’t know where Benon is now, but if Cyprus has an extradition treaty with the U.S., he may soon be winging his way back to New York. From MSNBC:

Benon Sevan, the administrator who was in charge of overseeing the United Nation's oil-for-food programme for Iraq, was indicted on Tuesday on federal charges of bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, as part of a growing attempt by US prosecutors to hold UN employees accountable to US laws.

The charges against Mr Sevan, a Cypriot, and Ephriam Nadler, a US businessman who allegedly funnelled $160,000 in illegal commissions to Mr Sevan, bring to 14 the number of people charged in connection with recent investigations of UN corruption, FBI officials said.

 Mr Sevan is the first UN official to be charged for wrongdoing under the programme.

The case highlights a multi-pronged effort led by US attorney Michael Garcia of the southern district of New York to tackle law-breaking at the UN. "If you look at the UN as an entity, they're sitting in the middle of New York," Mr Garcia told the Financial Times. "We're the office that has the responsibility for looking at the corruption at the UN. It's here, just like Wall Street is here."

Since Mr Garcia's arrival in New York from Washington in 2005, his office has brought about 10 cases against current and former UN employees. The charges range from visa fraud and selling illegal drugs to procurement fraud and bribery charges.

Saddam Hussein's regime raised $1.8bn in contravention of sanctions, through kickbacks and surcharges on the sale of oil and purchase of goods in the programme.

"What you've got is risk. You've got opportunities. You've got lots of money changing hands," Mr Garcia said.

Mr Sevan has been a target for UN critics, who have accused the organisation of presiding over the largest corruption scandal in history. Revelations of his alleged wrongdoing in 2005 by an independent inquiry committee, headed by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, led to a major anti-corruption push.The scandal involved a wide web of government officials, major companies and people of influence. Mr Nadler is a brother-in-law of a former UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali…

Those Oil-For-Food guys sure liked to keep it in the family.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:38 | link | comments

Moo’s South American amigos: Don’t look now, but the hairy Islamic Hitler is spreading his wings. From the New York Sun:

Iran is moving aggressively to gain influence in our hemisphere, and left-wing, anti-American leaders in Latin America are rolling out the red carpet for President Ahmadinejad. As this Marxist-Islamist entente grows, it presents a clear danger to American security and makes the need for action against Iran's nuclear program even more pressing. The latest development in the alliance came this weekend, when Mr. Ahmadinejad visited Latin America for the second time in four months. In Venezuela, he was received at the airport by President Chavez. "Welcome to Venezuela, where Iran is beloved," the Caracas daily El Universal quoted Mr. Chavez as saying. "We give welcome to a distinguished leader, the leader of a heroic people and of a revolution kindred to the Venezuelan revolution: the Islamic revolution."

The two retired to the presidential palace, Miraflores, to sign off, El Universal reported, on at least 29 memorandums and letters of intent. They also reiterated that they would push for OPEC production cuts, and, the Associated Press reported, they announced plans for a $2 billion joint fund to finance projects that would thwart American domination. "This fund, my brother, will become a mechanism for liberation," Mr. Ahmadinejad said to Mr. Chavez during the announcement.

The diplomatic footsie continued the next day in Nicaragua, where, according to Iran's state-owned Islamic Republic News Agency, Mr. Ahmadinejad was awarded two state medals by Nicaragua's newly inaugurated president and America's old foe, Daniel Ortega.

Among the agreements signed was one to establish diplomatic relations and open embassies in Managua and Tehran, noted El Nuevo Diario in Managua. Later, the two visited a Nicaraguan slum together. Mr. Ahmadinejad called Mr. Ortega a "symbol of justice," and Mr. Ortega promised to "fight for … the defense of our sovereignty." Yesterday the AP reported that Mr. Ahmadinejad was present at the inauguration of Ecuador's new left-wing president, Rafael Correa, who has promised to shut down an American airbase there.

Until recently, Mr. Chavez and his fellow Latin American leftists were an annoyance for advocates of free trade and good governance. Now that they've allied themselves with Islamic extremists, however, they've become a great deal more dangerous. As we learned during the Cuban missile crisis, allowing enemies who possess nuclear weapons to set up forward operating bases within range of our cities is not an option — a point, by the way, that was understood by both Democrats, such as President Kennedy, and Republicans, such as Richard Nixon whom he defeated for the White House.

President Reagan understood all this, which is why during the 1980s he fought so hard against Mr. Ortega's Soviet-backed camarilla and raided Grenada. That the left makes common cause with the Islamists is one of the bizarre facts of modern geopolitics. The only thing Marxists like Messrs. Chavez, Ortega, and Correa have in common today with the likes of Mr. Ahmadinejad is a hatred of America. That is the foundation on which the Marxist-Islamist scheme is formed and the motivation behind any actions it carries out.

Although economic in nature, this entente will eventually become a military one. This has been underscored in the last several years by Venezuela's billions of dollars in arms purchases, which included both small arms and more serious weapons like the Sukhoi Su-30 Russian fighter jets and Russian-made attack helicopters. There is also increasing troop movement among the left-wing Latin American states. The military ambitions of Messrs. Chavez, Ortega, and Ahmadinejad spell trouble.

Blocking this Islamist maneuvering in Latin America needs to be put at the top of the priorities for American foreign policy in the coming months. The existence of the Marxist-Islamist scheme also increases the importance of putting a definitive end to Iran's nuclear program. It is no longer a strategic matter of protecting our ally Israel or heading off a Middle Eastern arms race. The threat posed by a nuclear Iran will be to our own cities — Miami, Houston, Tucson — and it will come from Iranian missiles based in the jungles of Nicaragua and on the plains of Venezuela.

Seems like a good time to revive Manifest Destiny, I’d say.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:12 | link | comments

 

The Jewish K-Fed: Ex-pop tart and current road wreck Britney Spears is making the rounds with her new flame, an actor-model who’s a dead ringer for old whatsizname, the ball and chain she just chucked. And the only reason I mention it is because of the new beau’s name: Isaac Cohen.

 

Isaac Cohen?!?

 

I bet his mother’s not too happy about it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:39 | link | comments

 

Move along: It’s a massacre! It’s another Jenin! It’s an unfair, unwarranted attack by the strong against the weak! It’s…

 

Oh, sorry. It’s just the Pakistan military taking care of some jihadis. Muslims killing Muslims. Nothing to see here…

 

You can go back to sleep until there’s another story about Israelis killing Arabs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:27 | link | comments (1)

 

Continental drift: As far as the EU elites are concerned, Eurabia is more or less a fait accompli. All that remains is to work out a few of the details—like helping the hoi polloi adjust to their new reality. From Monsters and Critics (which, come to think of it, is a good way to describe the elites):

Brussels - The European Union's newly-elected president Hans Gert Poettering on Tuesday vowed to promote stronger links between European and Muslim nations as part of a drive to forge greater inter-cultural understanding.

The German conservative, who replaces Spanish socialist Josep Borrel, was elected head of the EU assembly earlier Tuesday after winning an absolute majority of 450 votes out of 689 votes cast.

Poettering also promised to revive key elements of the crippled EU constitutional treaty which was rejected by French and Dutch voters last year, triggering a major Europe-wide constitutional crisis.

The new parliament chief called for joint EU actions to ensure energy security and to combat terrorism and illegal immigration…

And don’t be at all surprised if, at some point in the not-too-distant future, some of the joint EU actions also involve rounding up the Jews at the behest of those with whom the elites are working to forge these stronger ties.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:10 | link | comments

 

Failure to merge: Before there was Eurabia there was…Frangland?  From USA Today:

 

LONDON (AP) — Would France have been better off under Queen Elizabeth II?

The revelation that the French government proposed a union of Britain and France in 1956 — even offering to accept the sovereignty of the British queen — has left scholars on both sides of the Channel puzzled.

Newly discovered documents in Britain's National Archives show that former French Prime Minister Guy Mollet discussed the possibility of a merger between the two countries with British Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden.

"I completely fell off my seat," said Richard Vinen, an expert in French history at King's College in London. "It's such a bizarre thing to propose."

Eden rejected the idea of a union but was more favorable to a French proposal to join the Commonwealth, according to the documents. One document added that Mollet "had not thought there need be difficulty over France accepting the headship of her Majesty (Queen Elizabeth II)."

While the two nations — separated by a thin body of water — have been bitter rivals since the Middle Ages, the two EU partners now concentrate on trading tourists rather than arrows. What animosity remains has been relegated to world culinary name-calling, with the French and British reduced to froggies and rosbifs (roast beef) respectively.

Proposals for Anglo-French unity are not necessarily new. English royalty claimed the title of "King (or Queen) of France" into the 19th century.

Winston Churchill, in a last-ditch attempt to keep France on the side of the Allies in World War II, appealed for a full union of the two nations in June of 1940.

After the war, Ernest Bevin, Britain's foreign secretary, also toyed with the idea of a "Western Union," a European and African bloc led by Britain and France.

The proposals all shared an element of desperation, said Kevin Ruane, a historian at Canterbury Christ Church University, England. "It's so impracticable an idea that it has only been raised in extreme situations," he said.

Threatened by an Arab revolt in French Algeria and hobbled by instability at home, France was desperate to maintain its independence from both the Soviet Union and the United States, Ruane said. Eden, who fought in France during World War I and spoke the language fluently, might have seemed particularly approachable to Mollet, a former English teacher.

But even under the circumstances, the suggestion that France accept the British queen struck historians as bizarre...

No more bizarre than, say, ceding bits of La Belle France—751 “no go” zones, and counting—to cranky “immigrants”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:51 | link | comments

 

Listen up, Condi: Just when you think the world has gone completely loco, along comes former U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, with some refreshing words of sanity. From the Times Online:

Bolton believes that Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is wasting her time trying to restart the Middle East peace process. The Arab-Israeli conflict was “not a priority”, he added. “I don’t see linkage to Iraq, and Hamas and Fatah are in a state of civil war.”

Couldn’t have said it better—or more succinctly—myself.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:23 | link | comments

 

Glen and Glenda: Thought this one was amusing. From Aftenposten:

The Norwegian, a 63-year-old crime fiction writer, applied to state officials in charge of enforcing sexual equality and anti-discrimination measures. The writer's current passport only shows him as a man, which isn't always how he appears as he undergoes treatment.

Both the Ministry of Justice and the state police agency, which issues passports in Norway, contended, though, that current regulations don't allow issuance of two passports to the same person.

"A basic assumption in the issuance of a passport is that it shall apply to one identity, and that this shall be simple to control," Magnar Aukrust of the justice ministry told Aftenposten.no.

The 63-year-old, however, claims it's a "practical problem... which has meant that I have decided against making some trips."

A letter from Norway’s National Hospital that confirms the Norwegian is under treatment for transsexuality has made it easier for him to travel in Europe. He hesitates, though, to travel outside Europe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:48 | link | comments

 

“Back channel” dealings:

 

Abbas and Olmert and Rice

Are about to sit down and make nice.

They’ll partake in a farce

As some matters they’ll parse.

But it must be asked: at what price?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:33 | link | comments

 

Apocalypse on hold: Looks like the Big Kaboom is waaay behind schedule. The Keystone Kops who are running the mullahs’ nuclear enterprise are still trying to get their enriching act together. From the Jerusalem Post:

Iran said Monday it is currently installing 3,000 centrifuges, effectively confirming that its nuclear program is running behind schedule, since these devices for uranium enrichment were to have been in place by the end of last year.

"We are moving toward the production of nuclear fuel, which requires 3,000 centrifuges and more than this figure," government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham told a news conference. "This program is being carried out and moving toward completion."

On the weekend, Iran dismissed reports from Europe that its uranium enrichment program had been stalled.

But last year, Iran said the installation of the 3,000 centrifuges would be completed by the end of 2006.

Iran's failure to install the 3,000 centrifuges by Dec. 31 has provoked reports that it is encountering technical difficulties in mastering large-scale enrichment.

Further, earlier this month, Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, told reporters that about 50 centrifuges had exploded during a test.

"We had installed 50 centrifuges. One night, I was informed that all the 50 centrifuges had exploded ... [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad called me and said, 'Build these machines even if they explode 10 times more,'" Aghazadeh was quoted as saying by Iranian media…

Sounds like a brilliant suggestion to me. (On the other hand, could this all be just a big scam meant to lull the Jews into thinking there’s no immediate crisis?)

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:19 | link | comments

 

“Moderate” thugs apply pressure: There are times when the comic and tragic converge. Times like now, when one reads that America, which invaded Iraq with the best of intentions—to transform despotry into democracy—now finds itself sorely tempted to throw Israel, its friend, ally, and the only true democracy in the region, to the slavering Arab wolves in a desperate bid to salvage its Iraq mission.

 

I don’t think that’s what Natan Sharansky had in mind when he wrote The Case for Democracy, the book that helped inspire the invasion.  From the Herald Sun:

MODERATE Arab regimes will tell US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today they will help Washington stabilise Iraq if America takes more action to revive the Mideast peace process, diplomats said yesterday.

An "Iraq for Land" deal is expected to be proposed during a meeting between Dr Rice and her counterparts from eight Arab countries in Kuwait.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, told Dr Rice he opposed an Israeli plan to set up a provisional Palestinian state with temporary borders.

Dr Rice responded by vowing to deepen US involvement in peace efforts, reiterating a commitment to the stalled "road map".

But just as her meeting with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert began yesterday, it was reported that Israel was planning to build 44 residential units in its largest settlement, on the outskirts of Jerusalem. The "road map" calls for a halt to such construction.

One Arab diplomat said: "She (Dr Rice) will listen to one voice that if the US wants Arabs' help in Iraq, they should help them in Palestine."

The Arab League's Secretary-General Amr Moussa said: "Those countries which have vested interests in Iraq should make their views heard, so that we can solve the Iraqi crisis."…

Unfrikkinbelievable. This isn’t a peace process. This is outright blackmail. And shame on Condi for even considering it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:01 | link | comments

 

Post squashes Cricket: Jimminy “Cricket” Carter is a man of peace; a humanitarian; a man who with his own two gnarled, bare hands constructs homes for poor people; a man who longs only to see justice for the Palestine people. Right?

 

Well, that’s certainly one way to look at it—the Patrick “Sid” Ryan/Harpoon Siddiqui way, that is.

 

An editorial in the New York Post offers an opposing viewpoint, and “harpoons” Jimminy for being the wretched, terror-endorsing sanctimonious old fart that he is:

 

January 15, 2007 -- Has a former president of the United States - a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less - given his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel?

 

Sure looks that way.

 

How else to read that astonishing statement on page 213 of Jimmy Carter's new anti-Israel screed, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid"?

 

To wit: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Emphasis added.)

 

You don't have to read between the lines here.

 

Carter isn't calling on the Palestinians to give up terror and murder now as a way to convince Israel they are serious about peace. Rather, he says they can wait until they've achieved their goals at the bargaining table. No need, says Carter, to give up terrorism until then.

 

Certainly, that's how 14 members of the Carter Center's advisory board read that paragraph. Indeed, it's why they angrily submitted their resignations last week.

 

That's also how Melvin Konner read it. He's a respected anthropology professor at Emory University and had been asked to be part of an academic group meant to advise the former president and the Carter Center on how to respond to criticism of the book.

 

As Konner wrote to John Hardman, the center's executive director, in declining the invitation: "I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace. The sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger."

 

Konner, by the way, is no Carter-basher; he describes the former president as "one of my greatest heroes."

 

But he is troubled by what he calls Carter's "rigid and inflexible views" that render him "no longer capable of dialogue" on the issue. He is deeply bothered by Carter's "complete failure to engage criticism from much greater experts than me about his numerous and serious errors" of fact in the book.

 

And he's understandably offended by Carter's "repeated public insinuations that the Jews control the media and the Congress - well-worn anti-Semitic slurs that, especially coming from President Carter, present a clear and present danger to American Jews."

 

How did this man ever become president of the United States?...

 

I think I can answer that question. If I’m not mistaken, he became president because the nation was suffering from Watergate fatigue, and because during a televised debate the sitting president vehemently insisted that the nations behind the Iron Curtain were not dominated by the Soviet Union.

 

A better question might be: why is anyone still listening to someone who is so beholden to the Saudis?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:22 | link | comments

 

In and out: Mahmoud Jaballa. Muhammad Mahjoub. Mohamed Cherfi. Don’t recognize those names? They’re just a few of the lads being held in prison on a CSIS security certificate for suspected terrorist activities.

 

Now, we don’t know as yet if these guys have really been up to no good: CSIS won’t tell us. What we do know is that they’ve been locked up for a while, and that there are ongoing efforts to get them released. (If it turns out that they have indeed been involved in jihadist antics, they’re still likely to stay in Canada, because shipping them back from whence they came would surely result in their deaths.)

 

We also know that there is a certain former jihadist who’s not in jail, but who lots of the faithful would like to deport, even if it means he will face certain death—and these folks have the backing of their local M.P. From the National Post:

 

WINDSOR - An Ontario MP will be asking Canadian immigration officials to investigate how professed former terrorist Zachariah Anani got into the country and how he obtained his Canadian citizenship. "Mr. Anani claims he was a terrorist. That's his background. He also became a Canadian citizen, so we'll be investigating to find out whether or not that information was provided at the time," Windsor West MP Brian Masse said after a news conference held by members of the Windsor Muslim community. Mr. Anani angered Muslims last Thursday night at a lecture he gave entitled "The Deadly Threat of Islam," in which he used passages from the Koran to support his view that Islam preaches violence. Mr. Anani, now a Christian convert, claims to have killed 223 people while a militant Islamic militia leader in Lebanon. Mr. Masse is going to ask for a ministerial review of Mr. Anani's citizenship and claims for refugee status.

 

He used actual passages from the Koran. The nerve!

 

Some clarification is in order here. Brian Masse is an N.D.P. M.P. for a riding that has a significant Muslim population in a city that is just over the border from an American city that has a significant Muslim population. Zachariah Anani is—what’s that word the faithful like to use?—oh, yeah, an “apostate” who, like Walid Shoebat, another former terrorist and apostate, is trying to enlighten people about the true nature of the jihad imperative.

 

Here’s part of Anani’s bio that appears on Shoebat’s website:

Zachariah Anani was a teenage militia fighter. Born into a family of Muslim clergy in Beirut, Lebanon, he began Islamic school at age three. His grandfather and great grandfather had been imams (religious authorities), and his family expected him to carry the torch.

At 13 he joined one of the many military groups that existed in the early '70s. "All the religious fragments had their own secret militia," he says. "I was trained to fight and kill Jews, and to hate Christians and Americans."

His family was pleased with his decision because according to Islamic teaching, those who die in battle against "unbelievers" are assured of reaching heaven. Ironically, Anani faced the Israelis only once. Most of the time, though, the Muslim groups fought among themselves.

Soon after enlisting, he made his first kill. By the time he turned 16, "life meant nothing," he says. "Every time I killed someone and two or three fighters witnessed it, they would give me a point on my chart. I carried 223 points."

Even his comrades feared him. "Although we had a sense of loyalty to each other," he says, "we were ready to take out enemies or friends." When a fanatical Muslim joined his regiment and began knocking on doors to wake the others for prayer at 3 A.M., Anani warned him: "I don't want to pray. Don't come and wake me." When he heard the knock early the next morning, Anani picked up his gun, shot him, and went back to sleep.

Anani was soon promoted to troop leader and then formed his own regiment. But "life seemed painful and empty," he says.

Anani met a Christian missionary and had a spiritual journey and converted to Christainity which became a turning point in Zak’s life.

Zak initially tried to keep secret his new faith, apart from one professor, no one at his univerisity suspected he was a Christian. But in the Muslim neighborhood where he grew up, everyone knew it. He moved to the city's Christian sector, but the persecution continued. Even his father hired assassins to kill him…

Sounds like a good guy to me (Zak, not his murderous father). Further, I'd say the more “apostates” and fewer jihadists we have here in Canada, the better off we’ll all be.

 

And if Brian Masse had half a clue, I’m sure he’d think so, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments (1)

 

By a nose: If I had my druthers, I would be like Samantha in Bewitched. I would twitch my adorable nose and in an instant, tuh duh, Israel and the Palestinians would be living side-by-side in two separate states. (Also, my basement would be spotless and an invisible dog-walker would take my dog to do his business early in the morning whenever it’s snowing or raining.)

 

Alas, my nose has about as much chance as effecting a lasting peace between those two sides as, well, as an American President does.

 

As Clifford May writes in this piece on the NRO site, there’s a very good reason why Presidents have so far been able to come with the recipe for peace: it doesn’t exist:

 

Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict would be a wonderful thing. But the reality is that for more than a half century, every American president has attempted to find a magic formula that would bring peace to the tiny territories between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. And every American president has seen his efforts come a cropper.

 

No one tried harder than Bill Clinton who, in the end, failed for this simple reason: Then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat could not accept the idea of coexistence with Israel. And, to be fair, had Arafat made peace with the Jewish state, he almost certainly would have suffered the same fate as Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president who reconciled with Israel and, soon after, was murdered by militant Islamists.

Almost five years ago, George Bush announced he would help establish a Palestinian state as quickly as possible. His one demand: It must not be a terrorist state. Subsequently, Palestinians chose Hamas, a terrorist organization, to lead them.

Despite this history, during meetings of the “expert” advisory group of the Baker/Hamilton Commission on Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict was a frequent topic of debate. Many of the retired diplomats, ex-CIA operatives and other assorted members of the Foreign Policy Establishment were adamant: Bush must do whatever it takes to persuade Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences, once and for all. As a member of that advisory group, I would ask: Even were such efforts to succeed, by what wizardry would that impel Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites to stop killing each other over power and petroleum?

I received no adequate answer and the final Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report asserts: “The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.” Until now has the United States been dealing indirectly with the conflict?..

 

Here’s the scoop. There is no magic, no recipe,  no policy, no plan, no map, no idea, no formula, nothing that can bridge the chasm, the abyss, between Israelis—who want to continue living in a sovereign Jewish state—and Palestinians—for whom the very concept, never mind the reality, of such an entity is inconceivable.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:40 | link | comments (1)

 

Oath of office: Leslie Scrivener, a Toronto Star scribe, thinks it’s swell that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, used Thomas Jefferson’s Koran for his swearing in. Scrivener says that only a few, ahem, churlish right wingers would think otherwise:

The hand on the right belongs to Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress. His wife, Kim, holds an edition of the Qur'an, a book that once belonged to Thomas Jefferson.

This simple and moving act of the laying of hands on a holy book as Ellison took his oath of office the first week of January led to ugly words from a few conservative law makers and commentators in the U.S.

One radio talk show host, Dennis Prager, said if Ellison was incapable of taking an oath on the Bible, he shouldn't serve in Congress. Muslim extremists would only be emboldened by this precedent, he added, and would see use of the Qur'an as the first step toward the Islamicization of America.

In Virginia, in the very county where Thomas Jefferson was raised, Republican Congressman Virgil Goode called Ellison "the Muslim Representative from Minnesota" and warned that with this kind of thing going on, many more Muslims would be coming to the United States, getting themselves elected, and demanding to use the Qur'an.

But these types of inflammatory and bigoted remarks were few. Most people were touched that the new congressman chose a book that not only held meaning for him, but also was once owned by Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom. The latter document asserted that all men should be free to profess their opinion on matters of religion, and that would not diminish or affect their "civil capacities." Of the many accomplishments in a life rich in achievement, Jefferson took particular pride in that piece of legislation.

So Jefferson's Qur'an, in the hands of a Muslim congressman, becomes a book that links the principle of freedom of religion and two free-thinking legislators, even though both are separated by the passage of time and long history…

Scrivener goes on to detail how America’s third president came to amass the library in which the Koran has been lurking lo, these many years, and claims that the reason it’s there is because Jefferson, who purchased the volume when he was a 22-year-old law student, “was interested in all religions and philosophy, and his mind was as open as the vast lands his agents Lewis and Clarke had explored in the West.”

 

His mind was undoubtedly open, but I have a feeling he looked askance at those passages commanding the faithful to kill the infidel, and doubt he looked favourably on the system of laws derived from the Koran that are predicated on the inherent superiority of Muslims over non-believer and are the antithesis of, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal...”

 

Scrivener concludes with these fatuous observations:

…The swearing-in ceremony in which The Qur'an was used was unofficial. The official swearing-in ceremonies use no books, but this second, private ceremony is for the benefit of friends and family, and Bibles or Torahs have been used traditionally (though sometimes it uses no books at all).

But it was good that Ellison learned of the existence of Jefferson's Qur'an and showed that America is inclusive and welcoming – aside from those few ranters – to those of many religious beliefs. Others sworn in that day included Buddhists, Jews, Mormons and Christian Scientists.

Jefferson, who inscribed his initial J, on his Qur'an, also wrote this: "Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship ..."

Uh, correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s a qualitative difference between what Buddhists, Jews, Mormons and Christian Scientists believe and what Muslims believe. It is this: Muslims believe that the world is bisected along fault lines of faith, and that the Koran commands them to heed the jihad imperative and vanquish the non-believer. Now, it's true that Mormons, say, are also looking to persuade more people to join their faith, but at the most that’s going to entail an unwanted visit from some clean-cut young men who look like they might have a promising future in the Secret Service, and is unlikely to involve explosives, flames, or anything with sharp edges.

 

And that last bit about how Jefferson that that religion was a matter between an individual and his God, well, that’s the way it works in tolerant Western democracies like America. However, it’s most definitely not the way it works in countries where the Koran is everyone’s favourite holy book and sharia is the law of the land.

 

The question is: what kind of country would Keith Ellison really like America to be?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:02 | link | comments (1)

 

Rotten egg: The Toronto Star, clueless as ever, has an article that expresses admiration for one of the most repugnant human beings on the planet: Hellzbollocks chief, Hassam Nasrallah. According to the article by Andrew Mills, a Canadian freelancer based in Lebanon, Nasrallah is a heroic, charismatic figure, a “winner” whose “rag-tag guerrilla group” has stood up to the mighty IDF (an effort which goes over really well in these parts), but who risks forfeiting his aura of invincibility if he fails to make good on his promise to take over Lebanon:

Hassan Nasrallah, the charismatic leader of Hezbollah, is not accustomed to declaring defeat.

During 15 years at the helm of the Lebanese political and military group, Nasrallah's Shiite Muslim supporters have come to know him only as a winner, a man who always delivers on his promises.

But six weeks ago, Nasrallah, 46, made a promise that has put his winning track record and his status as one of the Middle East's most popular – and menacing – leaders on the line.

Riding a wave of popularity following last summer's war with Israel, Nasrallah led his supporters into the streets of the Lebanese capital. He told them that, if they refused to leave, they could topple Lebanon's Western-backed government and carve out a more powerful role for Hezbollah and its allies.

"I used to always promise you victory and I promise victory again," Nasrallah told the crowds by video-link from his secret hideout.

In the first weeks, nearly a million people showed up. The city was paralyzed. The government, holed up in its fortified headquarters, appeared powerless.

But six weeks on, the protestors' effect seems to be flagging.

Life outside Beirut's downtown core, where the demonstrators remain camped out, is going on as usual. Prime Minister Fouad Sinoria is determined to survive.

His cabinet has no intention of giving into Nasrallah and continues to go about its business, preparing for a major donors' conference in Paris on Jan. 25.

And when Hezbollah and its allies attempted to raise the stakes last week by scattering protests across the capital, their first march, on offices that house civil servants, the relatively thin turnout of 2,000 dashed hopes of a massive escalation.

Writing in the daily newspaper As-Saffir on Wednesday, editor and columnist Sateh Noureddin declared: "If the opposition believes similar protests to what we saw yesterday will exert more pressure on the government, then the opposition groups are in serious trouble."

Indeed, if it doesn't change tactics, and change soon, Nasrallah might stand to lose the most.

That's because his popularity doesn't stem simply from his pan-Islamic message of fighting Israel until "the liberation of Jerusalem."

That appeals to his followers, but it's hardly a unique battle cry in this region.

What's key is Nasrallah's ability to back up his blustery rhetoric by winning political and military battles – something Arab leaders have rarely pulled off…

Yeah, they’re always really good at the blustery rhetoric part. It’s the wiping the Jews off the map part that always seems to give them trouble.

 

Here’s the letter I sent the Star.

 

Reality check: Sheik Hassan Nasrallah is neither heroic, nor admirable, nor a ‘winner’. He’s a genocidal Islamist whose fanaticism precludes him from allowing Jews to be sovereign in Israel and Christians to share power in Lebanon. His aim is to vanquish these uppity “people of the book” (or dhimmis, as Jews and Christians are also described in Islamic doctrine) who dare to defy Islamic doctrine by demanding the same right to govern that Muslims do.

 

As for Hezbollah being a “rag-tag” guerrilla group, that’s patent nonsense. Hezbollah is a well-armed, well-trained militia, lavishly funded by its wealthy sponsor, Iran, on whose behalf it is labouring to expunge the dhimmi presence in the Middle East; the removal of Christians and Jews is seen as a pre-requisite for the return of their Messiah, the Mahdi. This “rag-tag” militia, using some of the thousands of Iranian missiles that had been smuggled into Lebanon through Syria under the noses of UN “observers”, wrought severe damage on northern Israel, killing and wounding many Israelis. It also caused hundreds of needless deaths in southern Lebanon by cynically and cruelly inserting itself into the civilian population and using the Lebanese people as human shields.

 

There are those who see such efforts as heroic and who cheer on the implacable Nasrallah in what he calls “the battle of the wills.” These people are delusional. In fact, Nasrallah is a very bad egg who is actively working to bring about the downfall not just of Israel and Christian Lebanon, but of Western civilization as a whole. Those who cherish democracy—both here and in Lebanon—can only hope that at some point in the coming weeks or months he’s going to make like Humpty Dumpty, and have a great fall. 

 

Sheik Nasrallah had a great flaw.

Sheik Nasrallah staged a limp coup d’etat.

All the dhumb dhimmis and the media spinners

Couldn’t make Hellzbollocks out to be winners.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:12 | link | comments

 

Noam Chomsky in a skirt: I have long been fascinated by the conundrum of Hannah Arendt, the brilliant academic/writer/historian/philosopher who escaped from Nazi Germany, worked for Zionist causes, but who ended up being so vehemently opposed to the establishment of Israel, and whose ideas—especially those articulated in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem—continue to be embraced by Israel’s enemies in academe. Among them you could number St. Francis Xavier political science professor Dr. Shiraz Dossa, who delivered an anti-Zionist diatribe (couched in academe-speak) at Moo’s Denialpalooza, who incorporates Arendt’s writings in his syllabus, and who has written a book about Arendt’s ideas.

 

Want to know why Dr. Dossa and his confreres hold Arendt in high esteem? This review in the current London Review of Books says it all:

…Of all the co-optations of Arendt for contemporary political purposes, none is more outrageous than the parallel, drawn by Power and others, between Palestinian militants and the Nazis. Arendt firmly rejected that analogy (in a 1948 letter to the Jewish Frontier), and few of the protagonists in the struggle over Palestine so reminded her of the Nazis as the Zionists themselves, particularly those of the Revisionist tendency, whose influence Arendt was among the first to notice.

From its inception, Arendt argued, Zionism had exhibited some of the nastier features of European nationalism. Drawing ‘from German sources’, she wrote in 1946, Herzl presumed that the Jews constituted neither a religion nor a people but an ‘organic national body’ or race that could one day be housed ‘inside the closed walls of a biological entity’ or state. With its insistence on the eternal struggle between the Jews and their enemies, she wrote in the 1930s, the Zionist worldview seemed ‘to conform perfectly’ to that of ‘the National Socialists’. Both ideas, she added in 1944, ‘had a definite tendency towards what later were known as Revisionist attitudes’.

Initially a minor current, according to Arendt, Revisionism poured into the Zionist mainstream in the 1940s. The Revisionists knew what they wanted and used guns to get it. Far from denying them legitimacy, their violent audacity provoked only token disapproval from mainstream Zionists, who secretly or unwittingly supported their initiative. Revisionist violence spoke to a new dispensation among the Jews, which Arendt described in ‘The Jewish State’. After centuries of settling for ‘survival at any price’, the Jews now insisted on ‘dignity at any price’. Though Arendt appreciated the shift, she also detected a secret death wish in the spirit of machismo: ‘Behind this spurious optimism lurks a despair of everything and a genuine readiness for suicide.’ Many Zionists, she claimed two years later, would rather go down with the ship than compromise, fearing that compromise would send them back to the humiliating days of silent suffering in Europe.

In 1948, the leader of Herut, Israel’s Revisionist party, travelled to America. Arendt drafted a letter of protest to the New York Times, which was signed by Einstein, Sidney Hook and others. Herut was ‘no ordinary political party’, she wrote. It was ‘closely akin in its organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties’. It used ‘terrorism’, and its goal was a ‘Führer state’ based on ‘ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism and racial superiority’. The letter also decried those ‘Americans of national repute’ who ‘have lent their names to welcome’ the Herut leader, giving ‘the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel’. The leader of Herut was Menachem Begin.

The second failing of Zionism, according to Arendt, was that its leaders looked to the ‘great powers’ for support rather than to their future neighbours. Her disagreement here was both moral – ‘by taking advantage of imperialistic interests’, she wrote in 1944, the Zionists had collaborated ‘with the most evil forces of our time’ – and strategic. At the very moment that imperialism was being challenged throughout the world, Zionism had attached itself to a universally maligned form. ‘Only folly could dictate a policy that trusts distant imperial power for protection, while alienating the goodwill of neighbours,’ she wrote. In a 1950 essay, she declared that Zionists simply ignored or failed to understand ‘the awakening of colonial peoples and the new nationalist solidarity in the Arab world from Iraq to French Morocco’. Self-styled realists, they were profoundly unrealistic. They ‘mistook decisions of great powers for the ultimate realities’, she wrote in 1948, when ‘the only permanent reality in the whole constellation was the presence of Arabs in Palestine.’

Arendt did allow for one imperial future, however. ‘The significance of the Near East for Britain and America,’ Arendt wrote in a 1944 article entitled ‘USA – Oil – Palestine’, ‘can be expressed nowadays in a single word: oil.’ With America’s reserves dwindling, control over the world’s oil supply would ‘become one of the most important factors in postwar politics’. After the war, America would control roughly half the world’s shipping, and ‘that fact alone will force American foreign policy to secure its own oil hubs.’ Because of Europe’s reliance on Arab oil, she added, ‘America’s future influence on intra-European matters will depend to a large extent’ on its control over an intended pipeline in the Middle East. Though she hoped that America would not pursue an imperial policy, she had no doubt that oil would be a key factor in its deliberations. And with Israel responsible for the ‘caretaking of American interests’ in the Middle East, she wrote in ‘Zionism Reconsidered’, ‘the famous dictum of Justice Brandeis would indeed come true: you would have to be a Zionist in order to be a perfect American patriot.’

While Arendt had worried about Zionism’s darker tendencies and imperial dalliances from the beginning, her awareness of the Arab question came slowly. By 1944, however, she had come to see it as the ‘most important’ challenge. Without ‘Arab-Jewish co-operation,’ she wrote in 1948, ‘the whole Jewish venture in Palestine is doomed.’ Zionism left the Palestinians with no options other than emigration or ‘transfer’, which could be accomplished only using Fascist methods, or second-class status in the land of their birth. This last option, she remarked in 1943, assumed ‘that tomorrow’s majority will concede minority rights to today’s majority, which indeed would be something brand new in the history of nation-states’. In the mid-1940s, she warned that the Arabs would soon ‘turn against the Jews as the Slovaks turned against the Czechs in Czechoslovakia, and the Croats against the Serbs in Yugoslavia’. ‘In the long run,’ she added, ‘there is hardly any course imaginable that would be more dangerous.’…

Recently, I re-read Eichmann in Jerusalem, and Arendt’s animus toward Israel comes through loud and clear. Her most disgusting charge—one which no doubt must find favour with Dr. Dossa and other Denialpalooza attendees, is that the Jews and Nazis are equally responsible for the Holocaust (which, when she wrote the book in 1961 had not yet come to be known by that name).

 

Yes, that’s right. She held the victims and their murderers equally culpable. Her “reasoning,” if that’s what you can call it: Jewish councils drew up lists and made it easier for the Nazis to send Jews to their deaths. Thus, they facilitated the Final Solution.  Had they resisted, the Nazis would not have been able to murder six million Jews.

 

If this charge had been made today by an acknowledged Jew-hater—a David Irving or David Duke, say—it would be described as both repugnant and ridiculous, and, in its immoral moral equivalence, a true example of judenhass.  But because it was levelled by a Jew, and, moreover, by Hannah “Banality of Evil” Arendt, it is rarely if ever mentioned. You certainly won’t read about it in the LRB review. Why would you, when the reviewer is so busy applauding Arendt for being so prescient about the iniquity of Zionism and the inevitability of Israel’s moral lapses?

 

In casting about for the source of Arendt’s antipathy, I have come up with the following:

 

• Her love for philosopher Martin Heidegger. Heidegger was her professor, mentor, and the love of her life. When Hitler came to power, he embraced Nazism, though perhaps more out of expediency—he wanted to continue living and working in Germany—than out of genuine conviction. Then again, there were others, for example, novelist Thomas Mann, who could not abide the Nazis, and who left Germany because they weren’t willing to debase themselves by embracing Nazism (the only way they could have stayed). After the war, when Heidegger was shunned because of his Nazism, Arendt became his champion, and her tireless efforts helped restore his reputation. Might her desire to accord equal culpability to the Nazis and the Jews have something to do with her desire to downplay Heidegger’s Naziism?
• Her disdain for the nation state.  After WW2, it became common in academe to ascribe the upheaval in Europe to the rise of the nation state. If only there were no nations (or, as John Lennon sang, “Imagine”) there would be no more wars. Thus, the rise of intra-national bodies like the UN, the EEC, and later, the EU, and the concomitant loathing for the U.S. and Israel, two nation states that have stubbornly refused to get with the internationalist program (although the Democrats are doing their darndest to change all that).
• Her admiration for Bernard Lazare and his ideas about Zionism. Lazare, a French journalist and one of the first Dreyfusards, was a friend and colleague of Theodore Herzl’s, but broke with him over their different conceptions of Zionism. Lazare wanted to see what Muamar Khadaffy (my preferred spelling of the addlepated potentate’s name) would have described as an “Isratine”—that is, a state in which Jews were not sovereign but in which they shared sovereignty with Arabs. In other words, no Israel at all. Arendt never forgave Israel’s founders (in Eichmann in Jerusalem, she was especially contemptuous of Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion) for going the Herzl route and opting for full-fledged Jewish sovereignty (and Israel’s other enemies have never forgiven it either).

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:22 | link | comments (3)

Ignoring the hairy Islamic Hitler in the parlour: Cox & Forkum nail it--again:

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:27 | link | comments

 

Open wide and say Allahu Akbar: And speaking of making accommodations (see post two below), Islam Online reports that the U.K. is being urged to offer Muslims “proper health care.”

 

As opposed to that improper, infidel care they’ve been getting up till now, I suppose:

 

LONDON — A British doctor called on Friday, January 11, for "faith-specific" heath care for British Muslim patients that takes account of the requirements of their faith and improvement in the services provided for them all in all.

"There are few faith-centered initiatives aiming to improve health outcomes for our largest minority faith community," Aziz Sheikh, primary care professor of Edingurgh University, wrote in the British Medical Journal, Reuters reported. 

Sheikh said that many Muslim patients would prefer to see a same-sex doctor for reason of modesty.

But this is often not possible despite the increasing number of female doctors in the National Health Service (NHS), he added.

Sheikh called for providing more information about drug ingredients to allow Muslim patients to avoid porcine and alcohol-derived drugs.

Male infant circumcision should also be available throughout the NHS, the British doctor maintained.

"Although a handful of NHS trusts provide it, most parents are forced into the poorly regulated private sector."

Sheikh also urged better access to Muslim patients and staff to prayer facilities in hospitals as well as providing Muslim chaplaincy services.

"In many Western societies, animosity towards Islam dates back many centuries but prejudice has risen since the bombing of New York's twin towers," he said, referring to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"What is needed is an appreciation that many Muslims will experience racial and religious discrimination and that both need to be tackled."…

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:22 | link | comments

Bend it like Saddam: To show their esteem for the late despot who used to pay “shahid bonus cheques” to families of successful suicide bombers, the Palestinians have named an annual soccer tournament in his honour.

No doubt the first of many such posthumous honours.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:15 | link | comments (1)

 

Drawing the wrong conclusions: Way, way back in the 70s, Pierre Idiot Trudeau envisioned a Canada which would be like an empty vessel into which immigrants from all corners of the Earth could come and pour themselves, all the while retaining their own culture and perhaps even remaining in their own enclaves that would resemble “Little Portugal” or “Little Pakistan” or “Little Persia”, etc. That policy, which became the dominant dogma and inheres to this day, was called multiculturalism, and it was supposed to turn Canada, a nation of immigrants, into one, big happy multicultural Trudeaupia.

 

Looks like it hasn’t quite worked out that way.

 

In its lead story today, the Globe and Mail reports on a new study which has concluded that certain immigrants to Canada seem to be more resistant to feeling and identifying as “Canadian” than do other groups. And, of course, since both the study and the Globe look at things through the same p.c. leftoid lens, they've decided that problem here isn’t that multiculturalism is a bad, failed policy which does little to foster allegiance to Canada, or that certain pebbles in our grand multicultural mosaic (not mentioning any names) might be inclined to heed the siren call of the jihad imperative, a call that seems to be growing e'er louder these days. Nope, it’s that the white folks have failed to be colour blind to the point that would allow the non-white folks to feel welcome and equal:

Visible-minority immigrants are slower to integrate into Canadian society than their white, European counterparts, and feel less Canadian, suggesting multiculturalism doesn't work as well for non-whites, according to a landmark report.

The study, based on an analysis of 2002 Statistics Canada data, found that the children of visible-minority immigrants exhibited a more profound sense of exclusion than their parents.

Visible-minority newcomers, and their offspring, identify themselves less as Canadians, trust their fellow citizens less and are less likely to vote than white immigrants from Europe.

The findings suggest that multiculturalism, Canada's official policy on interethnic relations since 1971, is not working as well for newer immigrants or for their children, who hail largely from China, South Asia and the Caribbean, conclude co-authors Jeffrey Reitz, a University of Toronto sociologist, and Rupa Banerjee, a doctoral candidate.

It is also a warning that Canada, long considered a model of integration, won't be forever immune from the kind of social disruption that has plagued Europe, where marginalized immigrant communities have erupted in discontent, with riots in the Paris suburbs in the fall of 2005.

"We need to address the racial divide," Prof. Reitz said. "Otherwise there is a danger of social breakdown. The principle of multiculturalism was equal participation of minorities in mainstream institutions. That is no longer happening."

The sense of exclusion among visible-minority newcomers is not based on the fact that they earn less than their white counterparts. Instead, the researchers found integration is impeded by the perception of discrimination, and vulnerability -- defined as feeling uncomfortable in social situations due to racial background and a fear of suffering a racial attack…

Well, aren’t we crappy?

I agree that Canada may not be immune from the kind of social disruption that has plagued Europe. And to a certain extent that social disruption is possibly due to bigotry on the part of the nationals and a sense of alienation of on part of the immigrants. Then again, most of the social disruption is due to the fact that Western Europe let in masses of Muslim immigrants, who are reproducing at a rapid rate and who will soon be the majority in some European cities. As such, they don’t need to accommodate themselves to their new countries; the new counties are going to have to continue making accommodations to them. And, ironically, the country that has made the greatest accommodations—viz Great Britain—has ended up with a Muslim population that is the crankiest and most contemptuous one of all.

So if the report is suggesting that we here in Canada have to be more welcoming, more accepting, more accommodating, more, more, more, I say phooey on this silly ass report. Further, I say that if Canada—a nation that does its utmost to give immigrants a leg-up; that is the poster nation of diversity; that has three levels of government which go out of their way to hire members of visible minorities—can’t make a go of multiculturalism after decades of trying, it should be perfectly clear by now that nobody can.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:13 | link | comments

 

Solar perceptions: On the Glenn Beck show last night, Iranian-born pundit Amir Taheri explained how Ahmadinejad (or President Tom, as Beck likes to call him--why, I don't know) views Iran's might versus America's might. Apparently, Moo sees Iran as what he calls a “sunrise” power; America, on the other hand, is seen as a “sunset” power.

 

Hmm. Sunrise. Sunset. I think I feel a song coming on:

 

Is this the little mayor of Tehran?

Is this the Satan they all hate?

He thinks the big guy’s lost some stature—

Not so “Great”.

When did he grow to be so cocky?

When did it get to be so wee?

Maybe back when they stormed

That embassy?

Sunrise, sunset.

Sunrise, sunset.

Swifty fly the years

One power following another.

Who will prevail is still unclear.

Sunrise, sunset,

Sunrise, sunset,

Swiftly hatching schemes.

First plotting how to wipe the map clean.

Then Mahdi can fulfill their dreams.

 

Moo sends George Bush another letter.

Asks him vow to change his ways.

When will the mullahs drop the big one?

Months? Weeks? Days?

Looks like the Jews’ll have to stop him.

Pull an Osirek, if there’s time.

Putting Moo in his place

Would be sublime.

Sunrise, sunset,

Sunrise, sunset,

Listen to him boast.

Can’t let the mullah follow through here.

If we do infidels are toast.

Sunrise, sunset,

Sunrise, sunset,

Better give a damn.

Otherwise Earth is gonna be-ee

Just one great big dar al-Islam.

 

Incidentally, these are the last few weeks I’m going to be able to catch the Glenn Beck show. Early next month my cable company is going to axe Cable Network News, where Beck’s show airs weeknights, and replace it with a channel I neither want, nor need, nor have any intention of watching: BBC Canada.

I hope you won't mind if I take the opportunity to express how I feel about the impending change: "AAARRRRRGGHHH!!!"

 

To put in in actual words: Thanks, cable company, but since I have the Ceeb, TVO, and PBS, I have already exceeded my quota of clueless leftoid TV content.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:12 | link | comments

 

Rape in Norway: Aftenposten reports that one out of every three of those tried for rape in Norway is aquitted. That’s far higher than the acquittal rate for tried for other criminal charges, which hovers around one in ten.

 

Norwegian officials have been looking into the matter for the past year, and as yet cannot account for this disparity.

 

I have been looking into the matter for just over a minute, the time it took me to google the words “rape Norway” and scan this post by that invaluable window into Scandinavia, blogger/essayist fjordman. It seems to me it might have something to do with the fact that the preponderance of rapes being committed in Norway (as well as Sweden) are the work of the kind of “immigrant” who gets all worked up at the sight of an unveiled female, and that the Norwegians are too clueless, too p.c. and too afraid to do much of anything about it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:16 | link | comments

 

Whassup with Iran?: Seems that their nuclear preparations are stalled for the moment, which could mean one of the following:

 

• Iran’s most visible reactor at Nataraz—the one at which work appears to have ceased—is merely a front and the real enrichment is going on somewhere else, somewhere hidden from view; or
• the threat of the U.S. and/or Israel taking action is having the desired effect; or
• recently elected moderates are making some inroads; or
• who the hell knows?  Those mully-bullies are nuttier than a pecan pie, and will do just about anything (including nuking a certain little entity) if it will speed up the return of their Mahdi. (When last heard from many, many moons ago, he had just jumped down a well. Let’s hope Moo has the courtesy to greet him with a nice absorbent towel.)

Here’s how the AP report in the Washington Times sums up the perplexing situation:

 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran's uranium enrichment program appears stalled despite tough talk from the Tehran leadership, leaving intelligence services guessing about why it has not made good on plans to press ahead with activities that the West fears could be used to make nuclear arms, diplomats said today.

    Outside monitoring of Iran's nuclear endeavors is restricted to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of declared sites, leaving significant blind spots for both the agency and intelligence agencies of member countries trying to come up with the full picture.

    Still, Tehran's reluctance to crank up activities at its declared enrichment site at Natanz when it seems to have the technical know-how is puzzling the diplomatic and intelligence communities. Some say it is potentially worrisome.

    Diplomats accredited or otherwise linked to the Vienna-based IAEA, speaking on condition of anonymity in exchange for discussing restricted information on the Iranian program, said some intelligence services believed that the Natanz site was a front.

    While the world's attention is focused on Natanz, Iranian scientists and military personnel could be working on a secret enrichment program at one or more unknown sites that are much more advanced than what is going on at the declared site, they said.

    At the same time, they said the lack of new activity at the two pilot enrichment plants set up at Natanz could be good news.

    The diplomats said they could suggest Iranian hesitancy to provoke U.N. Security Council sanctions harsher than the relatively mild penalties agreed upon last month in response to Tehran's refusal to heed an August deadline to suspend enrichment.

    Or, they said, the hesitation is a sign of headway by relative moderates in the leadership unhappy with the confrontational nuclear antics of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Anthony Cordesman, an Iran specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggested an additional possibility linked to theories that Tehran was forging ahead with its enrichment program at undisclosed locations: fear that any major progress at Natanz could provoke military action by Israel or the United States.

    "It's a known facility and more and more of the subject of discussion as a possible Israeli or U.S. target," Mr. Cordesman said from Washington. "So, do you use this facility now or wait to see what threat  you face?"

    IAEA inspectors arrived at Natanz yesterday for a routine round of monitoring.

 

Oh, goody. The IAEA’s on the scene. We can all rest easy now.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:40 | link | comments

 

The Apple of their parents’ eye: What all the cool babies are wearing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:17 | link | comments

 

Jimmimy at Jew U: These are tough times for ex-President and self-righteous windbag, Jimminy “Cricket” Carter. He’s had to withstand the slings and arrows of outraged Jews, like Alan Dershowitz, who have accused him of gross misrepresentation in his novel, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. And now a whole bunch of folks who find his ideas repugnant have resigned from the board of the Carter Center for Peace (in Our Time). In an effort to reinflate his drooping reputation (although in certain quarters, that reputation ran out of air decades ago, and can no more be reinflated than Yasser Arafat can rise from the dead), Jimminy has decided to accept an invitation to speak at Brandeis University. And though Dershowitz won’t be able to debate him officially from the podium, he plans to do so from the audience. From an AP report in the Seattle P-I:

WALTHAM, Mass. -- Former President Carter will visit Brandeis University to discuss his book on Palestine but won't debate academic Alan Dershowitz as originally proposed, a Carter spokeswoman and university officials said.

Carter will speak for about 15 minutes and then answer questions for 45 minutes during the visit, tentatively scheduled for Jan. 23.

Some students and faculty had objected when the speaking invitation to Carter, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, suggested the debate with Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor who has desparaged the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." They said Carter should be invited to campus without conditions.

"We're pleased that this has all worked out," Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo said. "President Carter looks forward to the opportunity to having a dialogue with everyone at Brandeis."

She said Carter has set no conditions and would answer as many questions as possible.

Congileo said said the visit will be Carter's first to a university to discuss the book, which some have called one-sided and erroneous. The book was published in the fall.

Carter's use of the word "apartheid," the term for South Africa's former system of state-sanctioned racial segregation, has angered many in the American Jewish community who say it equates that system with Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

The university said the event would be private and limited to "members of the university community," but Dershowitz said he will attend and question Carter.

"I will be the first person to have my hand up to ask him a question," he said. "I guarantee that they won't stop me from attending."

Brandeis is a nonsectarian university founded by the American Jewish community. About half its students are Jewish.

I have a feeling there will be plenty of students—many of them Jewish—who will be on Jimminy's side of the debate and who will boo when Dershowitz asks his question. After all, this is the upside down world of academe, 2006, the Brandeis students have no doubt soaked up their lessons like receptive sponges. As well, we should also note that this is the same university that, not too long ago, awarded an honourary degree to one Tony “Ooo, That Belligerent Zionist State is Just Soooo Butch” Kushner, thus making it clear where its allegiances lie.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:58 | link | comments

 

Little Hogan on the Prairie: All the hype seems to have worked and Canadians tuned in to the Ceeb’s new sitcom Little Mosque on the Prairie in sufficient numbers for the show to be considered a hit. For now, at least. Time will tell as to whether Canadians will be willing to tune in to the witless antics of silly infidels and funny Muslims week after week.

 

Me? I could only bear to watch about ten minutes before the combination of banality and offensive inoffensiveness compelled me to turn the channel.

 

Still, the Ceeb has managed to garner international attention for its “bold” new venture, and Antonia Zerbesias, the Toronto Star’s media critic (and one of the paper’s several resident Israel-bashers) couldn’t be more delighted that, despite mostly tepid reviews, the show may be on the road to success. And Antonia wants you to know that, should that occur, it won’t just be because Canada’s Muslims are tuning in. It’s a sign that it must have appealed to non-Muslims, too:

…That's why, as some have, you can't attribute Little Mosque's impressive debut entirely to Canada's Muslim population, despite an email alert from the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations which endorsed the series.

And no wonder it did: after years of being portrayed onscreen as swarthy terrorists, finally Canadians of the Islamic faith could see themselves just like any other community on TV.

Which is to say, not totally intelligently, but likeably.

Besides, while their population has surely grown since the 2001 census, there were only 579,640 Muslims counted here then. Which means millions of others watched, at least for a minute.

It would be interesting to see the Nielsen minute-by-minute numbers when they are published. Did five million tune in at the top and then switch away because the show's softball comedy was a turn-off? Was it the curiosity factor? Or did some catch it long enough to praise it – or trash it?

After all, both in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, the show was hotly debated for weeks, even before it was viewed.

After it aired, hundreds of online commenters claimed not to have watched it – yet still had plenty to say about it.

"That's right, they forgot that little beheading thing that happens every so often," sneered one right-wing blogger.

But probably nothing topped the editorial cartoon in yesterday's National Post: two masked terrorists on the sofa saying "This better be good."

Not all the reaction was negative.

For example, Kathy Shaidle of Relapsed Catholic, not known for its friendly disposition towards Muslims, observed: "Little Mosque's pilot has good intentions up the wazoo, but too much of the acting hovered around `high school assembly' level – you'd think all that ham would be haram ..."

Agreeing with her was Safiyyah Ally, host of CTS's Let the Quaran Speak, who wrote on altmuslim.com, "(W)hile CBC deserves credit for airing the series, it isn't as controversial as it's been made out to be, and Canadian viewers – both Muslim and non-Muslim – can only hope that the next episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie is a tad bit edgier than the first."

But only if CBC has the confidence to believe, to borrow a line from the show, "Muslims are known for their sense of humour.”

Which, as Little Mosque makes all too clear, sadly, they're not.

Rule of thumb: If the Zerb and CAIR-CAN give it thumbs-up, it's a pretty safe bet we ain’t  talkin' “must-see” TV.

 

Without meaning to, the Zerb has honed in on the real problem: the Ceeb, in its finite wisdom and viewing events as always through a distorting rose-coloured leftoid lenses, has the confidence to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Muslims have a sense of humour. Muslims, on the other hand, know that the message of Allah and received by the Prophet in the final, perfect revelation is completely, deadly serious, and that there aren’t many yucks to be had in bisecting the world into dar-al-Islam and that part of the world that remains to be conquered for dar-al-Islam.

 

While silly infidels like the Zerb and the New York Times are kvelling over this “breakthrough” comedy, others, like the National Post’s Barbara Kay, aren’t as bowled over. Kay writes  that the show was every bit as “awful” as she expected it to be (although she is pleased there are no Jewish characters so at least we will be spared an "uplifting" plot line wherein, say, a Muslim lad and a Jewish lad can, after some heated battles and through the intervention of their sage elders, become the bestest of friends). As an example of its awfulness she cites the “surreal sequence” in which Amaar, the hunky imam, is hassled at the Toronto airport:

 

That situation is resolved handily, but exposes the cringe-inducing impulses behind the series. Look you: Amaar is of Middle Easters appearance, has spent a year in Afghanistan and several more in Egypt, is travelling alone on a one-way ticket, and has been overheard loudly using the words “bomb” and “suicide” on a cellphone (perfectly innocently, of course—who hasn’t used those words in an airport lineup?) Still, he is shocked, shocked that he should be taken aside for questioning.

 

In this surreal sequence, sorry, not comic for me, but then I would have found Hogan’s Heroes kind of a downer if it aired in 1946—the witty and confident Amaar displays insouciant contempt for the implied Islamophobia of the dumber-than-dumb cops.

 

Actually, I would find Hogan’s Heroes kind of a downer at any time, especially knowing about Bob Crane’s seedy after-curricular pursuits, but I think Kay has hit on something. For the Ceeb, the Muslims of Mosque are like Hogan’s heroes—funny, insouciant, virtuous, wise—while the non-Muslims (a.k.a. the infidels) are like the Nazis—racist, stupid and inevitably the butt of the heroes’ jokes.

 

Because, Allah knows, there’s nothing funnier than the global jihad—as long as you’re willing, like the Ceeb and Hogan’s Sgt. Schultz, to “see nothing, hear nothing, and know nothing.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:24 | link | comments (1)

 

A “broad spectrum” of conflicts: The Ceeb has an interactive map showing the “15 major disputes” in the world. Notice how many of them are part and parcel of the global jihad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:47 | link | comments

 

Stop the presses: Ismail Haniyah admits that Israel is “a reality”—for now. From the Times Online:

The leader of Hamas today acknowledged the reality of the Israel state in a major shift of emphasis but stopped short of acknowledging its right to exist.

Khaled Meshaal, the overall leader of Hamas who lives in exile in Syria, said Israel was a "reality" during an interview with Reuters in Damascus. He said he would not recognise its right to exist until a meaningful Palestinian state was established.

"There will remain a state called Israel, this is a matter of fact," he said. "The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel. The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent."

Hamas's longstanding refusal to recognise Israel is one of the major obstacles impeding relations between the Islamist movement and the international community.

The so-called Quartet of the UN, EU, Russia and the US have refused to fund the Hamas Government as long as it refuses to recognise its neighbour, renounce violence and submit to previous agreements…

He must really be desperate for that jizya to start up again.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:39 | link | comments (3)

 

Nuclear spy: It appears that a nuclear spy has ventured where the IAEA has refused to tread—and has been arrested for his efforts. From Iran Mania:

LONDON, January 10 (IranMania) - Tehran said it has arrested a man on suspicion of selling nuclear secrets to an exiled Iranian opposition group, state radio reported, according to The Associated Press.

The report didn't identify the suspected spy, but said he had been working at the Iranian Parliament's Research Center, an organization that advises lawmakers on foreign and strategic issues.

"The man transferred classified information, including a bulletin on nuclear activities, to the hypocrites," state radio said, referring to the People's Mujahedeen of Iran.

The Paris-based group, regarded as a terrorist organization by the United States, has frequently made accusations about Iran's nuclear activities, reporting on what it says is secret information received from insiders in Iran.

In 2002, the group disclosed the existence of two previously secret nuclear facilities, a pilot uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a research reactor being built in the city of Arak, which turned out to house Iran's uranium enrichment program and a hard-water reactor project. Other claims by the group have not been substantiated.

Iran said in 2004 that it had arrested 10 military officers, nuclear workers and others on charges of revealing its nuclear secrets to Israeli and US intelligence agencies.

But the government said the information passed to the United States and Israel was "without value."…

Which leads me to believe it was enormously valuable, and that the U.S. and Israel know a lot more than they’re letting on.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:29 | link | comments

Dubai i-Pad: The obnoxiously wealthy Gulf state is so taken with the little music machine that pretty soon Dubaiers, er, ians, er, ists, er, whatever, are going to be able to live in one. This is what it will look like:

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:15 | link | comments

 

Dhimmis raus: Looks like the Zionists aren’t the only dhimmis whose absence is requested in the Middle East.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:05 | link | comments

 

Condi’s pointless mission: Iran’s running amuck, the Palestinians continue their violent pissing contest, and the U.S. is getting set to send a “surge” of fresh troops into Iraq at the same time that it's bombing the living daylights out of al Qaeda in Somalia. And what’s uppermost in the befogged crania of Foggy Bottom’s pettifoggers? Why, compelling Israel to take part in yet another Peace in Our Time fandango, of course.

 

Well, after all, the Jews are the alpha and the omega of all the world’s problems, aren’t they? From the Washington Times:

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will begin a weeklong trip to the Middle East and Europe on Friday to seek support for President Bush's new Iraq strategy and to push for a new Israeli-Palestinian peace effort, the State Department said yesterday.

 
    Miss Rice will visit Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany and Britain. She will return to Europe on Jan. 24 for an international donors conference in Paris to raise funds for Lebanon, whose economy is still recovering from the war with Israel in the summer.

    "I would expect that this is a trip that is more about laying the foundations for potential future actions than actually coming to closure on any particular agreements," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

    U.S. officials and diplomats from some of the countries Miss Rice will visit said that, despite the low expectations, it is important for the secretary to return to the Middle East, given the dire situation in Iraq, the tensions between the Palestinian Fatah faction and Hamas, and the new domestic political realities in the United States, where Democrats just took control of Congress.

    In addition, the Bush administration has been under pressure from its European allies to become more active in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which many in the region consider to be the most divisive issue with the West...

 

Won’t work, Condi. There’s no one to bargain with, the Arabs will settle for nothing less than a mass exodus/massacre of the Jews, and Iran’s getting set to hurl a nuke and be done with the pesky entity.

 

Other than that, it should be a piece o’ cake. (Hey, maybe you can get that hunky imam on Little Mosque on the Prairie to help you mediate. He seems like a reasonable enough chap.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:08 | link | comments

 

Samson option?: Zev Chafets writes that unless there’s regime change in Iran or something is done to derail its nuclear efforts, Israel is going to be forced to take matters into its own hands. From the Los Angeles Times:

 

LAST WEEKEND, the Sunday Times of London reported that Israel is preparing a strike on the Iranian nuclear program at several bases scattered throughout the country. The paper claimed that the attack would be carried out with tactical nuclear "bunker busters" supplied by the United States.

Israel quickly denied the Times' report. But the story, which may be wrong in its details, has a certain truthiness. Israel is certainly thinking about how to stop Tehran from getting its hands on nukes.

And why wouldn't it? Given the evident failure of American diplomacy and U.N. sanctions, Israel has two basic choices. It can sit and wait, hoping the Iranians do not drop a bomb on Tel Aviv; or it can preemptively attack, hoping to destroy, or at least retard, the Iranians' nuclear capacity.

American foreign policy "realists" tend to favor the first option. At the core of their argument is the idea that Israel has nuclear weapons and can therefore rely on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) just as the U.S. did during the Cold War. Does Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say he wants to wipe Israel off the map? It's probably just rhetoric. After all, he knows that if he tried, Israel would retaliate, turning Tehran into a parking lot.

This may seem realistic in Washington or Cambridge, but not in Tel Aviv. Israel is a small, crowded country with a very poor civil defense infrastructure and a population traumatized by its own recent history. Perhaps the Iranian government doubts that the Holocaust happened, but there are 6 million Israeli Jews (that population figure is a macabre coincidence) who don't doubt it. For Israelis, "never again" is more than a phrase over a museum gate.

It is possible, even likely, that Israel could survive an Iranian nuclear attack physically — but not psychologically. It is doubtful that Israel could carry on as a sane, not to mention democratic, society. This is the great insight of Ahmadinejad.

An Israel assaulted in this way would react, of course. But it might not react in the predictable, proportionate, tit-for-tat fashion that the realists have laid out. What, after all, is the practical value (not to mention the moral justification) for killing a million innocent civilians in Tehran?

There are other ways a brutalized Israel might respond. For example, it could decide to settle accounts with a broader group of enemies. That would mean immiserating Iran and the Arab world by destroying their oil fields. Or, if the Palestinians cheered the mass murder of Israelis in Tel Aviv, as they almost certainly would, the Israeli reaction might be to settle the territorial issue of western Palestine once and for all. And if Hezbollah or Syria attempted to intervene, well, the genie would already be out of the bottle.

In other words, if you want to think realistically about the Middle East in a first-strike environment, you had better be ready to contemplate something more dire than a few flattened neighborhoods in downtown Tehran…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:02 | link | comments (1)

 

A neck for a neck: A mainstream Egyptian newspaper is asking Americans to execute the same kind of justice on George W. Bush that Iraqis did on Saddam Hussein. From the Jerusalem Post:

On the cover of its January 6 issue, the mainstream Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Yousef features a manipulated photo of Saddam Hussein's execution, in which Saddam's head is replaced with that of US President George W. Bush, with the heading "Bush's Execution."

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, the issue carries an article by Shafiq Ahmad Ali, calling on Americans to execute their president for the murder of Iraqi civilians and "as a true measure of justice, revenge and democracy."

"Saddam Hussein was executed for the murder of 148 Iraqis," the article states, in excerpts translated by MEMRI.

"Do you know how many Iraqi citizens have been murdered, by Bush's own admission, as a result of the American invasion?... A total of 30,000, according to a report in [the Egyptian government daily] Al-Ahram on December 13, 2005. So how many times must Bush be executed for all those murders and for the ones he is still committing...?

"Moreover," the article continues, "he executed [Iraqi] President Saddam Hussein on Id Al-Adha, so he could boast that he had murdered an Arab Muslim president on a Muslim holiday. In his boastfulness, boldness and moral depravity, he also called Saddam's execution 'a step towards democracy.' We indeed need a real step in this direction. In other words, we need Bush himself executed, as a true measure of justice, revenge and democracy.

"Worthy American citizens," the writer urges, "I am not appealing to the murderers, thieves, invaders, occupiers, liars, and racists among you, or to those who have undertaken to serve as agents of Israel. I am appealing only to the honorable and conscientious [people] among you, explaining why we are asking you to execute Bush himself..."

Oh, you mean the Democrats and other leftoids? Don’t think it hasn’t crossed their mind. 

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:55 | link | comments

 

Humungous Mosque in Londonistan: The little mosque on the Prairie—that’s a teeny pile of couscous compared to the gargantuan mosque, the Allahzilla of mosques, that’s supposed to be going up in London. From CBN:

Some now call London the "Muslim capital of Europe."

No Western city has more mosques.

And now London could be home to the largest Mosque outside of the Middle East.

Today, a neglected piece of real estate on London's east end sees little more than commuter trains rumbling past it. But it's the future location of what some say will be the biggest Islamic in-road into Christendom in 400 years: a gigantic mosque complex, the likes of which the West has never seen.

The land for the proposed mega-mosque now only hosts a small building -- a make-shift mosque. But imagine a huge modern Islamic complex right in London; in effect, an Islamic village for worshippers.

A video from the Web site of the mosque architect Ali Mangera shows what will be called the London Markaz, a 17-acre Islamic worship center for as many as 70,000 Muslims. Planned to be the hub of an Islamic quarter for the 2012 London Olympics, it will dwarf many of Britain's Christian cathedrals.

Alan Craig of Christian Peoples Alliance said, "It's going to be very large. It's going to be a mosque, it's going to be an Islamic garden, there's going to be a library, there's going to be residential accommodation.

Craig is a councilman for the London borough of Newham where the mosque would be built. He's fighting it.

"I'm not anti-Muslim," Craig said. "I'm a democrat. I believe Muslims have the right to build mosques. But there's a difference between your average mosque down the road…and this monster mosque, this mega-mosque that they want to build."

But it's not just the size of the mega-mosque that's a concern. It's who's behind it -- a shadowy group called Tablighi Jamaat.

The FBI says that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to al-Qaeda. The shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was associated with Tablighi Jamaat, as were two of the 7/7 bombers who struck London's public transportation system in 2005.

The money for the project is coming from sources in the Middle East.

Even moderate British Muslims oppose the mosque, and have circulated a petition against it. One of the leaders of the Muslim opposition is Dr Irfan al-Alawi, who says the mosque will be a security threat.

Al-Alawi said, "I think, yes. Once the youth have been brainwashed, and been captured by the satanic ideology of the Tablighis, yes, it will come as a very hard-hitting movement."

But while some moderate British Muslims may think the mega-mosque is a bad idea, it has one important booster, the Mayor of London.

"The person who is really behind it is Ken Livingstone," al-Alawi said.

Far-left London Mayor Ken Livingstone, also known as "Red Ken," has what some would describe as a pro-Islamist, anti-Israel track record. He's called Ariel Sharon a "war criminal" and has said that British Muslims who go to the Middle East and kill Israelis should not be called terrorists.

The mega-mosque project might have sailed through before 9/11. But in 2007, Britain is now considered a major base for homegrown Islamic terrorism.

Newsweek reports that Britons are traveling to Pakistan where they're being trained to carry out terrorist attacks in the UK. Al-Alawi says Pakistan is also where Tablighi Jamaat sends young British-born Muslims to be brainwashed into extremism.

Al-Alawi asked , "Is the British government really going to turn a blind eye on that and say, let's go ahead and give these people a chance? I don't think so. If they want a 9/11 in England, then by all means."

But Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan, says the British left still believes that accommodating radical Muslims will somehow pacify them.

"It's taken the line of least resistance and it, very foolishly in my view, believes that if you give in to the demands being made by extremists, you kind of make the problem go away," explained Phillips.

But if anything, the "problem" in Britain is growing. Polls last year showed almost a quarter of British Muslims believe the 7/7 London bombings were justified, and one in three want to live under Sharia law.

And those kinds of headlines have helped galvanize grass-roots opposition to the mega-mosque project.

Councilor Craig, who lives in a city with 300 mosques and 500 madrassahs, suggests that Britain not allow any more mosques until Muslims allow churches in Saudi Arabia.

Craig said, "Why should the Saudis pay for a mosque in the UK when there is not one single church, temple, goodwara, synagogue in Saudi at all?"

The spokesman for Tablighi Jamaat, Abdul Khalique, refused an interview request by CBN News. But he told the British press that the mega mosque "…will be something never seen before in this country. It is a mosque for the future, as part of the British landscape."

If the mega-mosque is built, you can be sure of one thing: it will be the symbol for the incredible growth of Islam in Britain and in Western Europe.

 The Mosque That Ate London: a horror movie for our times.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:40 | link | comments

 

Unfunny fundamentalists: Here’s something you most definitely won’t be seeing on an episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie. It’s a video promoting an upcoming Australian conference being held by a tiny minority of extremists who are keen to see the restoration of the world-wide caliphate. (link via Tim Blair)

 

Hey, wouldn’t be a blast if one of these guys showed up in Saskatchewan and had some amusing interactions with the village idiot and the red-neck radio talk show host, as well as the hunky yet "moderate" imam? 

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:19 | link | comments

 

The evolution of the Ceeb sitcom: The premier of Little Mosque on the Prairie jogged my memory about another Ceeb sitcom, this one from way, way back in the 70s (as my son likes to refer to the era when the first Star Wars movie debuted). It, too, had a cast of multicultural characters, but unlike Mosque it was set in a city—Toronto—and instead of a hunky imam it centred around the adventures of a somewhat chubby, very ordinary-looking Jew—that’s right,  a Jew—named Larry King, a.k.a. King of Kensington (the name of the Toronto neighbourhood in which the show was set). Larry, played by a likeable actor named Al Waxman, came equipped with a stereotypical Jewish mama, who was always sticking her nose in where it wasn’t wanted, and an adorable and much younger “shiksa” wife. According to wikipedia, the show--which ran for five years--was “the first genuinely successful and popular Canadian sitcom.”

 

From King of Kensington to Little Mosque on the Prairie in just over three decades. I think that just about says it all.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:28 | link | comments (3)

 

Big Mosques in Eurabia: That’s the title of a new program I hope to pitch to the Ceeb. It’s all about how the elites of Europe, with France taking the lead, have sold out Western civilization, and the high price and they—and we—are going to pay for it.

 

Not too many yucks in my program—it is, after all, a terrifyingly serious reality show—and I’m sure no one at the Ceeb will even give me a toss out of fears that it’s “Islamophobic.”

 

And speaking of reality and Islamophobia, Caroline Glick, another smart cookie, has another excellent piece today, this time about Israelis who are so determined to be P.C. that they can’t help but look a gift horse in the mouth (the equus in question being a small group of Europeans who support Israel—who knew such an organization even existed?).

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:10 | link | comments

 

The Ceeb’s P.C. comedy: The first episdode of Little Mosque on the Prairie, the new Ceeb sitcom about funny fundamentalists and the Saskatchewan townspeople who come to love and understand them (eventually), airs tonight. The Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente, a pretty sharp cookie, had a preview of the show and isn’t too impressed. She says Mosque is way too saccharine and full of preachy uplift (“Here is the moral lesson: Muslims are people too! And guess what? They’re harmless!”), and that the characters range from stock (a village idiot, a goofy handyman—how very cutting edge and Green Acres) to incredible (a hunky imam “who has the ravishing looks of a soap-opera star”; Wente writes “if there’s an imam on Earth who resembles this one, I will convert to Islam, don the veil, and catch the next plane to Mecca”).

 

It all amounts to a show that is so anodyne and inoffensive that it’s laughable—but not in a good way:

 

In fact, the only possible offence in this show is to the intelligence. Its running gag is that most Canadians see terrorists under every bed. Frankly, most Canadians (even in small towns) are not so dim. And it is a slur to pretend they are.

 

Wente, cheeky as ever, says the show could have painted a much truer portrait of life in Canada, but that would entail a few changes:

 

Regrettably, the cute imam would have to go. The redneck radio host would be shut down by the CRTC, and the townsfolk, instead of reacting to the mosque with fear and loathing, would invite everyone in it to join in an interfaith group. Instead of calling the terror hotline, the village idiot would chuck a rock through the mosque’s window. A Muslim from Egypt would be tossed into jail indefinitely on secret evidence. The convert to Islam (here played by Sheila McCarthy who only wears her head scarf in the mosque) would be dressing in black from head to foot. And the Muslim versions of Archie Bunker and Meathead would have a hilarious debate over the existence of that pesky state of Israel.

 

Sounds like a hoot. Maybe al Jazeera could remake it and call it “All in the Ummah.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:43 | link | comments (4)

 

Try a little dhimmitude: Sorry, Otis. It came to me this afternoon while I was walking the dog:

 

Oh, they may get testy.

And them ‘Slamists do get testy

Viewin’ some ‘toons they think are rude.

But when they’re testy

Try a little dhimmitude.

You know they’re waitin’

Just anticipatin’

For something at which to show some ‘tude.

(Yeah, yeah, yeah)

But while they’re waitin’

Try a little dhimmitude.

That’s all you got to do.

Now, it might be humiliatin’

But they like it when we scrape and bow.

It may help assuage the hatin’

(Yeah, yeah, yeah)

And keep ‘em from venting—you know how.

Oh, you won’t regret it

(No, no)

Them seethers don’t forget it

When kafirs are acting crude.

(Yeah, yeah, yeah)

And it’s oh, so easy

To try a little dhimmitude…

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:57 | link | comments

 

Best new word: The American Dialect Society—whatever the heck that is—has declared the new word “plutoed” to be its new word of 2006. To “pluto” is defined as “to demote or devalue someone or something. It refers to the planet Pluto and what happened to when the former full-fledged planet when it was downgraded to dwarf planet status.

 

Here’s how I would use it in a sentence: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is hoping to use a nuke to pluto Israel from a Zionist entitiy to a non-entity.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:43 | link | comments

 

Some old hate?: I was reading The Holocaust and Antisemitism: A Short History by Jocelyn Hellig when I came across the following passage about the early Christian Church and its struggle to root out heresy:

 

When the church did battle against against the Gnostics, a two-fold process was involved. The “Old Testament”, the creator God and whole Jewish tradition had to be defended, and the Christian faith had to be explained as something other than, better than, the religion of the Jews. This could be achieved only by simultaneously exalting the Jews of the Hebrew Bible and berating the Jews of the present age.

 

“Hmm,” thought I, "that sounds awfully familiar. Where have I read that recently?”

 

And then it hit me. It’s the exact same charge that Jimmy Carter levels in his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, comparing the modern state of Israel unfavourably to the Jews of Biblical times.

 

Might this be evidence that Jimmy’s animosity toward Israel stems at least in part from his own understanding of Christianity? Is this really little more than ugly old Christian antisemitism tarted up in Human Rights drag?

 

Something to consider when Jimmy insists it’s all “justice” for the Palestinians.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:15 | link | comments

 

Abdullah "Clark Kent" Afrah or: how the Toronto Star fell for taqiyah: In Canada, he was a mild-mannered grocer, a purveyor of packaged food and fruit. In Somalia, he has another identity: a leader of the Union of Islamic Courts, the Taliban-like Islamist group which had been ruling Somalia, but which was kicked out by Ethiopia and the Somali government when the UIC declared jihad on Christian Ethiopia. Now Abdullah Afrah is trying to decide whether to stay in Somalia until Allah’s minions regain control, or to return to Canada.

 

But don’t worry. Michelle Sheppard, the Toronto Star scribe who contacted Afrah by cellphone in Mogadishu, assures us that he’s one of those non-threatening Islamists who decry Al Qaeda and its “martyrdom campaigns.” Why, he’s just hoping, “inshallah, the peace will come back some.”

 

Ah, yes, one of those gentle, peace-loving, John Lennon-type Islamists. The kind that exists solely in the imaginiations of tender-hearted leftoids and other Atkinson-principled multicultists.

 

Ms. Sheppard, a tender-hearted leftoid if there ever was one, allows him to make a case that there’s a qualitative difference between the UIC's brand of Islamism and Al Qaeda’s:

 

“Forget stereotypes of terrorism and Al Qaeda. We are not terrorists. We are not Al Qaeda. We are simply Muslims, nothing more nothing less,” he said.

 

“We did a good job, we saved this country from the warlords. We tried our best, we restored peace, we opened all the areas where all international forces could not.”

 

How very altruistic and selfless of you, Afrah. Too bad your organization had to go shoot of its yob about killing infidels in a “holy war”. Kinda blew your cover, don't you think?

 

The Toronto Star, being the Toronto Star, is willing to take Affrah and the UIC at their word. As Ms. Sheppard explains,

 

During a trip into Mogadishu last fall, the Star sat down with all four UIC leaders [including Afrah], who disavowed any connection to Al Qaeda and dismissed the accusation as Western propaganda.

 

And if they disavowed any connection to gullible kafirs, who are the gullible kafirs to disbelieve them? And if the clever Islamists tell the gullible kafirs that the UIC has absolutely nothing in common with Al Qaeda, the stupid, gullible kafirs, being so nice and sincere and fair-minded and un-Islamophobic and all, are obliged to believe them, right?

 

And since Afrah's organization has nothing in common with Al Qaeda and are "good" Islamists who seek only to restore order in a chaotic land, we should welcome Afrah back with open arms should conditions deteriorate to the point where he feels it's time to return to Canada. Right? 

 

Exactamundo, says the Toronto Star. (Is it my imagination, or is the Toronto Star kind of, I don't know, proud of having a Canadian Islamist in Mogadishu?)

 

I, for one, would prefer he remain where he is, and sent the Star the following letter:  

 

It comes as great comfort to know that, unlike the other Islamist leaders of Somalia’s Union of Islamic Courts, the Taliban-like organization that was pushed from power after declaring a holy war on Christian Ethiopia, Abdullah Afrah is devoted to peace. Knowing that, I can rest assured that, should he decide to return to Canada, he can resume life as a “mild-mannered co-owner of a halal grocery store” and won’t pose any risk to our national security.

 

Of course, I might be more inclined to fall for Afrah's Clark Kent routine if I hadn’t done some research about his organization and discovered that its goals are identical to Al Qaeda’s. As such, they are inimical to—and pose a threat, a grave one—to the values of our modern, tolerant, multicultural society.

 

If Afrah is willing and able to leave his UIC goals back in Mogadishu, I see no problem in his returning to Canada. However, if he can’t leave them behind, I hope he stays put because there is no place for them--or him--here.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:33 | link | comments (1)

 

The party’s over (for Jews): Gabriel Schoenfeld has an article in Commentary Magazine about the growing influence of Muslims in the Democratic Party (in keeping with their growing numbers in the population) and the declining influence of Jews. Further, Schoenfield notes that, in backing a party that continues to act against the interests of Israel and failing to back the Republicans at a time when support for Israel was strong (that, too, it seems in now in decline), American Jews have marginalized themselves to an even greater extent:

…Much has been written and spoken in recent months about the so-called “Israel lobby” in American politics, a movement allegedly made up of influential American Jewish organizations and individuals who cumulatively exercise a “stranglehold” over the U.S. Congress, skewing our foreign policy in directions inimical to the nation’s proper aims and interests. As I and others have tried to show, this notion is a pernicious slander, and a lie.⁴ The truth is that, for a variety of historical reasons, the degree of influence exercised by American Jews in the political arena has always been limited; when it comes to Israel in particular, American governments have acted in different ways at different times, but always out of their sense of the American national interest and with the backing of the American people.

At any rate, and thanks in part to the stubbornly lopsided Jewish allegiance to the Democratic party, the influence wielded by the Jewish community has not been increasing but receding, even while the numerical representation of Jews in public office has grown. Not only is the Democratic party of today farther than ever from the Democratic party of Jewish memory, but the steadfast lack of interest shown by American Jews in the Republican party has robbed them of any possibility of being courted by either party as a potentially valuable swing vote. Worst of all is that this reality continues to be denied by Jewish spokesmen who most need to recognize and confront it.

“When it comes to Israel, Democrats and Republicans are pretty much indistinguishable,” wrote the executive director of the Israel Policy Forum, a left-wing Jewish advocacy group, in the aftermath of this November’s election. “If there are members of Congress who are truly antagonistic toward Israel,” he continued, “they keep their views secret.” But this is just so much eyewash, designed to soothe political consciences and keep increasingly distasteful facts from view.

Muslim-Americans have become a group avidly sought after by both parties, a group whose numbers are growing and whose group preferences, strongly expressed, are and will continue to be taken into account. In the foreseeable future, it is highly unlikely that American Jews, whose numbers are in any case hardly increasing, can play such a role. They can certainly not do so as long as they remain unthinkingly wedded to a party that is paying them ever less heed.

Time to wake up and smell the (Turkish) coffee, folks. This ain’t your Bubby and Zaidie’s Democratic Party. (And, being Canadian, I would make the same observation about the Liberal Party.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:46 | link | comments

Dear Spammers: Just to put you on notice, I have absolutely no interest in purchasing any of the following, either today, tomorrow or at any time during the remainder of my life:

·       Cialis, Viagra, Valium or any other prescription medication intended to either A) give me an erection (a physical impossibility, since, being female, I don’t have the requisite equipment that would permit me to muster one) or to B) tranquilize me (unnecessary, since a nice glass of Shiraz seems to do the trick, and, moreover, doesn’t require a note from my doctor).

·       Pre-approved mortgages, car loans or credit cards. My house and car are paid up, and I have all the credit I need.

·       Devices and/or potions designed to increase the length and/or girth of my penis (as per the first bullet, N/A in my case).

·       Knock-offs of Rolex, Patek-Phillipe or any other variety of outrageously expensive Swiss timepiece; my comparatively low-priced ESQ watch is working just fine, thank you, and I don't feel the need to try to impress anyone by attempting to pass off a fake as the real deal.

·       “Free” cruises, “free” vacations or any other “freebie” which comes bound up with hidden strings, for example being required to submit to the blandishments of a high-pressure salesperson who is determined to sell me a stake in a time share condo in Kissimee, Fla.

Thank you for your kind attention in this matter, and I hope it persuades you to stop plaguing me with your ever-changing, ridiculous names (Montezuma Curtis? Rudyard Schwartz? Graziella Winterbottom?) and your miserable, unwanted goods and services.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:43 | link | comments

 

Rosett’s refreshing breeze: A blast of much-needed fresh air from one of the greatest journalists of our era, Claudia Rosett. Rosett notes with disdain the inappropriate hand-wringing that has accompanied the execution of Saddam Hussein, and comments that, in light of it, we’d better hope Osama bin Laden remains at large. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

In the short time since Saddam Hussein went to the gallows, we have heard almost every variation on the theme that his death was all wrong. He was killed too soon, in the wrong way, by the wrong people, on the wrong day, following a flawed trial. In the opinion of some, he shouldn't have been executed at all.

What's really wrong here is the transmogrification of Hussein into a sort of Everyman, in whose fate we are all invited to read some portion of our own humanity - and whose execution becomes a prism through which to focus on our private preoccupations with the universe. This is Oprah for tyrants. In a dangerous world, it does us no service.

It was Hussein himself who made this execution necessary. He was a totalitarian killer, a man who murdered his way to power and kept it at grotesque cost by working the levers of terror, torture and war. Along with the basic demands of justice, there was also the matter of security. The only sure protection against a Hussein comeback was to kill him.

Hussein enjoyed a degree of due process unknown under his own regime and stunningly novel for most of the Middle East. His execution sent the vital message that we are serious about vanquishing terror-wielding fascists who, like Hussein, threaten the basic fabric of any civilized world order.

Unfortunately, the debate now going on suggests we may not so readily be serious again. The likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria's Bashar Assad, and Osama bin Laden must be tuning in right now with fascination. What we might regard as noble and sensitive discussion, they will read, correctly, as weakness - a sign that the free world has no stomach for this fight…

…At the United Nations, where there has still been no reckoning for any U.N. officials or for most of the member states that helped shore up Hussein's murderous regime by colluding in his oil-for-food graft bonanza, the focus has been mainly on a lofty disdain for all capital punishment. Never mind the wars launched, suicide bombers paid, and mass graves filled by the condemned. The big concern of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, as Hussein went to the gallows, was that he be offered every possible chance of amnesty.

We are told that the Palestinians are angry and Iraq's Sunnis are upset. Of course they are (or at least some of them). Hussein was their patron; even in the world's worst totalitarian regimes, there are a few who benefit - at the awful expense of many. What actually needs questioning is why we should pander to those who wish to pose for the cameras around his grave - indifferent in their self-interest to the lives he took, and the agonies he inflicted on millions.

The strange and deadly inversion here is that we are fighting enemies - and Hussein was one of the worst - who count it an honor and a right to murder the innocent. Meanwhile, in our public debate we treat it as shameful to execute the guiltiest of the guilty. If this is the way of our future, better hope we never catch bin Laden.

Indeed. On the other hand, one judiciously aimed bullet at the right moment and the whole discussion of trial and punishment would become moot.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:03 | link | comments

 

P.A. power struggle intensifies: And in another locus of civil strife, Hamas and Fatah are amping up the rhetoric and the killing. In the latest agita between these malodorous rival, Hamas is likely behind the assassination of a mouthy cleric in Gaza who had criticized Hamas for killing some Fataheads, and Fatah head, Mahmoud Abbas, has declared the Hamas police force illegal. From the Chicago Tribune:

RAMALLAH, West Bank -- Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday outlawed the Hamas-led Interior Ministry's police force, the most powerful armed unit outside his control in the factional fighting that has left 33 people dead in the past month.

The ministry responded with defiance. It announced plans to double the size of the black-uniformed paramilitary force and vowed to resist Abbas' order that its 6,000 members be incorporated into the security apparatus loyal to the president's Fatah movement.

The dueling announcements raised the prospect of an intensified armed standoff. Abbas' only means of enforcing the order appeared to be coercive action by police and security units under his command, but they are relatively weak in the Gaza Strip, Hamas' stronghold.

In an effort to strengthen Abbas, U.S. officials have said they expect to ask Congress for nearly $100 million in aid to help train and supply his expanding Presidential Guard. The Bush administration and Israel coordinated arms shipments to Abbas' forces from Egypt.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due to meet with Abbas in the West Bank later this month to discuss efforts to weaken and isolate Hamas, the Iranian-backed Islamic movement that leads the Palestinian government. Hamas resists Abbas' efforts to start peace talks with Israel and refuses to recognize the Jewish state.

Saturday's statement by Abbas came two days after a unit of the Interior Ministry police, known as the Executive Force, besieged the Gaza home of a Fatah commander, Col. Mohammed Gharib, killing him and his bodyguards and seriously wounding his wife and brother.

Hamas officials said Gharib had been responsible for the deaths of two of their fighters.

Abbas ordered the Executive Force disbanded "in light of continued lawlessness and assassinations," the statement said, adding that its members will be treated as outlaws unless they are incorporated into forces commanded by the president.

Interior Ministry spokesman Khaled Abu Helal called Abbas' announcement "a green light to those who seek to shed the blood of the Executive Force members" and said the force would "deal firmly" with anyone who attacks it…