Saturday, March 03, 2007

How To Wash A Cat


Some important practical advice for all cat owner's.


If Iran Gets The Bomb


From Caroline Glick:


With the Bush administration now happily basking in the glory of positive coverage in The New York Times and enjoying the warm embrace of the James Baker/Brent Scowcroft wing of the Republican Party, it is hard to imagine that it will reconsider its decision to abandon the Bush Doctrine. That doctrine, named after President George W. Bush and most forcefully enunciated by him, eschewed appeasement of terror-supporting, weapons of mass destruction-proliferating enemies of the free world.

Today, what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refers to as a "diplomatic initiative" aimed at appeasing terror-supporting, and weapons of mass destruction-proliferating Iran, and its terror-supporting, and weapons of mass destruction-proliferating Syrian colony is about to take off in Baghdad. So too, this week, the US began normalizing its relations with the terror-supporting, weapons of mass destruction-proliferating Stalinist dictatorship in Pyongyang.
Bush's traditional opponents are beside themselves with glee.


With regard to North Korea, these opponents are quick to note that there has always been great uncertainty about the level to which Kim Jung Il has advanced in his illicit uranium enrichment program. With regard to Iran, in an interview with the Times, former congressman Lee Hamilton warned that the Bush administration had better not think that the negotiations with the mullahs will lead anywhere quickly.

As the co-chairman of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group which last November called for the president to appease Teheran and Damascus by forcing Israel to surrender the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria explained, negotiations with the mullahs have to be open-ended. In his words, "You can't expect miracles here. There has to be a sustained effort. Successful diplomacy requires very careful preparation and very extensive follow-through."
For his part, Hamilton's partner, former secretary of state James Baker, ecstatically declared on Tuesday night, "America must be prepared to talk to our enemies."


What is lacking from both the media's reportage of the Bush administration's strategic about-face, and the administration's traditional detractors' praise for that sudden turn is an analysis of the likely downside of appeasing the mullahs. For instance, on Wednesday the Times ran a report on North Korea under the heading, "US Concedes Uncertainty on North Korean Uranium Effort."

The thrust of the article, which was based on interviews with administration sources, was that while North Korea's commitment to acquire nuclear weapons has never been in doubt, at no time has the US had certain knowledge of its actual capabilities. In light of the uncertainty relating to Pyongyang's capabilities, the Bush administration was wrong - the Times's sources clucked - to have confronted it over its intentions.

By the same token, those who applaud the administration's decision to engage the nuclear weapons-seeking mullahs in Teheran argue that the administration would be wrong to confront Iran for its stated intention to "wipe Israel off the map," and to bring about "a world without America," since US intelligence services are incapable of bringing unequivocal information regarding the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Clearly there is something wrong with this analysis. If what is not in doubt is Iran's commitment to acquiring nuclear weapons, rather than base its policies on a best-case-scenario regarding Teheran's unknown capabilities, the US and its allies should be basing their policies on a calculation of the risks a nuclear armed Iran would constitute for global security.

BROADLY SPEAKING, there are three possible scenarios of how Iran would likely behave were it to become a nuclear power. In the most optimistic scenario, Iran would not attack Israel or any other country with its atomic arsenal, but would rather use it as an instrument of international and regional influence. In this scenario, Iran would reap economic advantage from its nuclear status by threatening oil shipping in the Persian Gulf and so jack up worldwide oil and gas prices. A massive economic dislocation in the oil consuming countries would no doubt ensue. In this state of affairs, all international economic sanctions against Iran would disappear and states would begin fighting with one another for the right to develop Iran's oil and gas fields and refining capabilities.

Operating under Iran's nuclear umbrella, terror groups like Hizbullah and Al-Qaida would feel free to attack at will throughout the world. The rates of terrorism - of both the organized and lone wolf variety - would increase exponentially.

Regionally, Iran would work to export its Khomeinist Shi'ite revolution. It would increase its interference in both Iraq and Afghanistan and so neutralize and defeat coalition and NATO efforts to stabilize those countries.

As to Saudi Arabia, there can be little doubt that Iran would seek to foment an uprising of Saudi Shi'ites who happen to live as a repressed minority on top of the Saudi oil fields.

Hizbullah's aim to overthrow the Saniora government in Lebanon would receive unprecedented Iranian assistance that would likely lead to the Shi'ite takeover of the country. So too, under the Iranian nuclear umbrella, Palestinian terrorism against Israel, and Syrian adventurism against Israel would rise steeply. The regimes in Egypt and Jordan as well as Saudi Arabia would be sunk into chaos, insurgency and war as they themselves entered a nuclear arms race the likes of which the world has never seen.

In a moderate scenario, not only would all the events that would likely occur in a best-case scenario occur, Iran would also make indirect use of its nuclear arsenal. In this case, Iran would likely use one of its existing terror proxies in Sinai, Gaza or Lebanon, or invent a new terror group in one or all of these areas. Iran would transfer one or more nuclear weapons to its terror group of choice, which would then attack Israel and cause the second Holocaust in 70 years. Iran would deny any connection to the attack, although it would shower high praise on its perpetrators.

While Iran's leaders from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on down have expressed a willingness to endure an Israeli nuclear second-strike, judging from the way in which the Western policy elites are treating Iran today, the Iranians can have every expectation that they can wipe Israel off the map and pay no price for their aggression, either from a destroyed Israel or from the US.

The New York Times and its counterparts will likely note that there is no absolute certainty that Iran was behind the attack. Even the skimpiest Iranian denials or vague allegations against countries like Pakistan or Russia or "rogue" scientists from the former Soviet Union or Pakistan will likely be seized upon as a justification for not responding to the attack. Israel, it will be said, had it coming anyway, because it refused to negotiate with the "militants" from Hamas, preferring instead to maintain its "occupation" of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem.

In the worst case scenario, not only would Iran implement the best case and the moderate case scenario, it would also widen its network of allies while neutralizing its competitors in the Muslim world in order to expand its exportation of the Khomeinist revolution worldwide. All this it would do in an effort to achieve its longstanding aim of destroying America. Here the Iranians would be operating under the reasonable assumption that Europe will be neutral in the conflict, and Russia and China would likely support them against the US - at least covertly.

In this scenario, the Iranians would strengthen their alliances with America-haters in Latin America like Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro or his heirs. It could openly supply these countries with nuclear bombs or strengthen Hizbullah's foothold in South and North America. In the latter case, Iran could transfer nuclear weapons and delivery systems to its terror proxies and use these networks, which include Hizbullah cells that are already active in the US, to attack the US.

Most brazenly, Teheran could collaborate with its ally North Korea in developing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of attacking US cities with nuclear weapons launched from Iran. At the same time, given the US's large nuclear arsenal and ICBM capabilities, it is less likely that the Iranians would attack the US directly.

IN LIGHT of this analysis it seems that in spite of the praise it is reaping from the policy jet-set, the Bush administration would do well to reexamine its new policy toward Iran. It should accept their criticism and revert to basing its policy toward the nuclear-proliferating, terror-supporting rogue state on what is known rather than on what is unknown.

Since Iran not only wants nuclear weapons, but has an active nuclear weapons program, the question that should be guiding policymakers is not whether Iran should be negotiated with, but rather, whether the US is willing to accept any of the likely scenarios of what will transpire if Iran does in fact acquire nuclear weapons. If the US is not willing to accept any of those scenarios, then it should be asking itself what must be done to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

While Europe may be willing to sit on the sidelines of this fight, just as it sat on the sidelines of the Cold War, and did little to prevent the Nazi conquest of the continent in World War II, Israel has no such luxury.

In light of this, it is deeply disturbing that this week the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government reacted to the US move toward appeasement by claiming that it will have no impact on Israel.

Rather than trying to gloss over the dangers, Israel should be actively engaging the many forces in Washington and elsewhere who understand the dangers of a nuclear armed Iran. Together we should be working tirelessly to ratchet up support for a policy based on the understanding that the world cannot abide a nuclear-armed Iran.

I Must Tell Jesus


Friday, March 02, 2007


Wilt Chamberlain

The Night Of

100 Points



Today is the anniversary of the game in which Wilt Chamberlain, the greatest basketball player of all time, scored 100 points in a single game:



On March 2, 1962, a giant rolled into Hershey, Pa., and rolled up 100 points on the New York Knicks.


The giant, of course, was the legendary Wilt Chamberlain, the center for the Philadelphia Warriors of the NBA. The Big Dipper, as he liked to be known, was changing the game of basketball every time he stepped onto the court.


Author Gary Pomerantz says Chamberlain's performance was on par with Babe Ruth breaking the home run record. He chronicles the game in his new book, Wilt, 1962: The Night of 100 points and the Dawn of a New Era.


Read an excerpt from Wilt, 1962, setting the stage for one of the most storied nights in basketball history:


'Wilt, 1962'
At the moment of his great glory, a minute twenty-five to play, the kids in Hershey screaming, "Give it to Wilt! Give it to Wilt!" we see Wilt Chamberlain running the floor, a force of nature gathering power with each stride, and recognize him for what he is: unprecedented.


He came with a body and an ego perfectly sculpted for dominating his game. The ego was essential: For a player to score one hundred points in an NBA game, he must not only want to do it, he must, on a deeper level, need to do it -- to take an opponent, an entire sport, and bend it to his will -- to show that it could be done and only by him. In one hundred there was hubris but also a symbolic magic. In our culture the number connotes a century, a ripe old age, a perfect score on a test.


Scoring one hundred points meant infinitely more than scoring, say, ninety-seven. One hundred was a monument.


Writers and players and coaches prophesied sucha anight for the young Wilt Chamberlain. He was a one-man revolution. he entered what was still largely a white man's game, took it above the rim, and made it his. The game's traditionalists, seeing the future, blanched. He was, at the core, an individualist (Pastorius note, an American), the ultimate alpha male.


He was averaging fifty points per game during that 1961-62 season, and as his scoring numbers grew so did the prophecy. Pity the average NBA center of the day: Several inches smaller, not nearly as agile or strong or well conditioned, they became, against Chamberlain, desperate underdogs, some even sassing him by calling him "Globetrotter."


Chamberlain luxuriated in the prophecy and admitted coyly that if he kept his cool, made his shots, then, yes, one hundred points was possible.



Who Needs Jaques Bauer?


How is it that the French are tougher on terrorists than we are? From Opinion Journal, with thanks to Jason Pappas:


Twenty-nine defendants went on trial earlier this month in a Spanish courtroom for complicity in the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings that killed 191 commuters and injured another 1,800. Among the accused: Jamal Zougam, a 33-year-old Moroccan immigrant who once ran a cell-phone business. In June 2001, Spanish police raided Mr. Zougam's apartment, where they found jihadist literature and the telephone numbers of suspected terrorists. But the Spaniards judged the evidence insufficient to arrest or even wiretap him. Today, the Moroccan is believed to have furnished the cellphones through which the train bombs were detonated.

In raiding Mr. Zougam's apartment, the Spanish were acting on a request from French investigative magistrate and counterterrorism supremo Jean-Louis Bruguiere. Earlier, Mr. Bruguiere had also warned the Canadian government about a suspicious Algerian asylum-seeker named Ahmed Ressam, but the Canadians took no real action. On Dec. 14, 1999 Mr. Ressam--a k a the Millennium Bomber--was arrested by U.S. customs agents as he attempted to cross the border at Port Angeles, Wash., with nitroglycerin and timing devices concealed in his spare tire.

It would be reassuring to believe that somewhere in the ranks of the FBI or CIA America has a Jean-Louis Bruguiere of its own. But we probably don't, and not because we lack for domestic talent, investigative prowess, foreign connections, the will to fight terrorism or the forensic genius of a Gallic nose. What we lack is a system of laws that allows a man like Mr. Bruguiere to operate the way he does. Unless we're willing to trade in the Constitution for the Code Napoleon, we are not likely to get it.

Consider the powers granted to Mr. Bruguiere and his colleagues. Warrantless wiretaps? Not a problem under French law, as long as the Interior Ministry approves. Court-issued search warrants based on probable cause? Not needed to conduct a search. Hearsay evidence? Admissible in court. Habeas corpus? Suspects can be held and questioned by authorities for up to 96 hours without judicial supervision or the notification of third parties. Profiling? French officials commonly boast of having a "spy in every mosque." A wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies? France's domestic and foreign intelligence bureaus work hand-in-glove. Bail? Authorities can detain suspects in "investigative" detentions for up to a year. Mr. Bruguiere once held 138 suspects on terrorism-related charges. The courts eventually cleared 51 of the suspects--some of whom had spent four years in preventive detention--at their 1998 trial.


In the U.S., Mr. Bruguiere's activities would amount to one long and tangled violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. And that's not counting the immense legal superstructures that successive Supreme Courts have built over and around the Bill of Rights. In France, however, Mr. Bruguiere, though not without his critics, is a folk hero, equally at home with governments of the left and right. The main point in his favor is that whatever it is he's doing, it works.

"Every single attempt to bomb France since 1995 has been stopped before execution," notes a former Interior Ministry senior official. "The French policy has been [to] make sure no terrorist hits at home. We know perfectly well that foreign-policy triangulation is not sufficient for that, [even if] it helps us go down a notch or two in the order of priority [jihadist] targets. So we've complemented our anti-U.S. foreign policy with ruthless domestic measures."

That's something that U.S. civil libertarians, who frequently argue that the Bush administration should follow the "European model" of treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue instead of a military one, might usefully keep in mind. As lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey argue in the forthcoming issue of The National Interest, "the [Napoleonic] Civil Law system offers considerable advantages to the state in combating terrorism--especially in terms of investigative tools and a level of secrecy--that are simply unavailable in the ordinary Common Law criminal prosecution and trial, at least as governed by the United States Constitution."

Again, review the contrasts between American and European practices. Except in limited circumstances, the U.S. does not allow pretrial detentions. But according to figures compiled by the U.S. State Department, 38% of individuals held in Italian prisons in 2005 were awaiting trial or the outcome of an appeal, while Spanish law allows for pre-trial detentions that can last as long as four years for terrorism suspects. In the U.S., the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the military in law-enforcement work, and paramilitary units are relatively rare. By contrast, most European countries deploy huge paramilitary forces: Italy's Carabinieri; France's Gendarmerie Nationale; Spain's Guardia Civil.


Even Britain, which shares America's common law traditions, has been forced by Irish and now Islamist terrorism to resort to administrative detentions, trials without jury (the famous Diplock courts) and ubiquitous public surveillance. Wiretapping is authorized by the Home Secretary--that is, a member of the government--rather than an independent judge. In the early days of the Northern Irish "troubles," the government of Edward Heath placed some 2,000 suspects, without charge, in internment camps. Ironically, it was the decision to treat terrorists as ordinary criminals that led to the famous hunger strikes of Bobby Sands and his IRA crew.


All this calls into question the seriousness, if not the sincerity, of European complaints that under the Bush administration the U.S. has become a serial human-rights violator. Europeans have every right to be proud of civil servants like Mr. Bruguiere and a legal tradition that in many ways has been remarkably successful against terrorism. But that is not the American way, nor can it be if we intend to be true to a constitutional order of checks and balances, judicial review and a high respect for the rights of the accused. When President Bush declared a war on terror after 9/11, it was because he had no other realistic legal alternative. And when the rest of us make invidious comparisons between Europe and America, we should keep our fundamental differences in mind. There is no European 82nd Airborne, and there is no American Jean-Louis Bruguiere.


Top Terrorist
Sighting
Raises
No FBI
Interest



From WND, with thanks to Michael:




March 2, 2006: Anyone wondering what the FBI would have done if they had known ahead of time of the plot to fly planes into buildings in the U.S. by Mohamed Atta and his 18 fellow terrorists may need look no further than what they did when two Americans reported the possible sighting of the al-Qaida operative identified as "the next Mohamed Atta" – Adnan el-Shukrijumah – in California.


The eyewitnesses, a husband and wife who wished to remain anonymous for security reasons, said they encountered el-Shukrijumah and other potential al-Qaida operatives, including Aafia Siddiqui, in a small café near Lake Isabella in Kern County Sept. 7, 2005. They described him as small (approximately 5'4"), thin (about 130 pounds), and clean-shaven with a prominent nose, dark eyes and black hair. They noted that he appeared nervous and spoke English to his Middle Eastern companions without an accent.


Despite a $5 million reward for el-Shukrijumah – and a license plate number copied by the couple – neither the Kern County sheriff, the FBI nor Sen. Arlen Specter's office responded to the reported sighting.



Just so you understand, it is believed that this man has been charged with plotting the American Hiroshima. FBI? No Interest?


Jeez, if that's true, that is one of the most frightening things I have ever heard.


It could be, though, that the FBI knows exactly where this guy is at all times.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Evidence That Israel Is Not An Apartheid State


One of the stupidest libels commonly uttered about Israel is that it is an Apartheid State. Punditarian, from the Astute Bloggers, points out the obvious, but painfully important to acknowledge:


The acting President of the State of Israel is a Druze MK from Beit Jann, Majallie Whbee. He is a Kadima list member. The Jerusalem Post reports:

Unlike most other Arab citizens, Druse serve in the Israeli military. Whbee, 53, attained the rank of lieutenant colonel before retiring. He holds a master's degree in Middle East history from Haifa University, according to the Knesset's Web site.

Whbee hoped his temporary ascension to the presidency would symbolize a push for equality for Arab citizens. "Where there is still a lack of equality, we are fighting," he said, "but the fact is that I have all the authorities of the president of the state of Israel."

Whbee, a member of Itzik's and Prime Minster Ehud Olmert's Kadima Party, said he would carry out the normal functions of the presidency, meeting with diplomats and laying a wreath at a ceremony Thursday in honor of a pre-state Zionist fighter, Yosef Trumpeldor.

This is not "apartheid." Israel is a democratic multi-cultural State, like India and the United States, and like Lebanon could be. Quite unlike Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iran . . .

Wednesday, February 28, 2007


Present Day
Sanhedrin
Seeks
To Revive
Ancient
Temple
Rituals



From Joel Rosenberg:



It's been nearly 2,000 years since Jews celebrated Passover at the Temple in Jerusalem, but that will change soon if a growing Orthodox Jewish movement in Israel has its way.....


"The present-day Sanhedrin Court decided Tuesday to purchase a herd of sheep for ritual sacrifice at the site of the Temple on the eve of Passover, conditions on the Temple Mount permitting," the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports this morning.


"The modern Sanhedrin was established several years ago and is headed by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. It claims to be renewing the ancient Jewish high court, which existed until roughly 1600 years ago, and meets once a week. Professor Hillel Weiss, a member of the Sanhedrin, told Haaretz on Tuesday that the action, even if merely symbolic, is designed to demonstrate in a way that is obvious to all that the expectation of Temple rituals will resume is real, and not just talk.


Several years ago, a number of members of the various Temple movements performed a symbolic sacrifice on Givat Hananya, which overlooks the Temple Mount from Jerusalem's Abu Tur neighborhood. During the ceremony, participants sacrificed a young goat that was donated by a resident of Tekoa. The participants also built a special two-meter tall oven, in accordance with halakha (Jewish law).


The Passover sacrifice is considered a simple ceremony, relative to other works performed in the Temple."


.....numerous Biblical prophecies in the Old and New Testaments also indicate a new Temple will be built in the "last days," suggesting such headlines have been foretold for centuries....for more information on similar recent preparations in Israel, see Chapter 13 of Epicenter -- Future Headline: JEWS BUILD THIRD TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007


Burning Tree


A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, some friends of mine had a band called Burning Tree which, for a short time, made a splash at Epic Records. They toured the world, built a rep, and ultimately, were buried by Tommy Mottola's obsession with Mariah Carey.

The proof is in the pudding. While it is true that Burning Tree's music is hard to get, if you can get it, you will see that it kicked ass, and did so in a prescient manner. Major labels would die to have an act like this now.

Too bad they sold their soul.

Anyway, I was just listening to my Burning Tree CD, and I ran across these lyrics:


You don't cross the forbidden pathway
Swim the stormy sea
Fly on the one-way Eagle
And you sure don't want to fuck with me


While that may not be the most eloquent statement to have ever graced the tracks of a great rock n' roll record, for me, in the mood I'm in, it expresses the way I feel, perfectly well.

I'm a middle aged man now, but, I swear to God, in some ways, I don't think I will ever grow up. I go to work and earn millions for my business. I love my wife, and I take care of my kids. I go to the same church I have gone to for fifteen years. I deal with problems as they come, and I have learned the lesson that emotions are a passing thing, while principles are the rock upon which I must rely.

But, I have also learned that I am who I am, and I, and everyone I know, are simply going to have to accept that fact. It ain't gonna change.

There are some things, darlin', you just don't do. You don't cross the forbidden pathway, you don't climb the burning tree, and you sure don't want to fuck with me.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Olympic Champion Survives
Yet Another
Brush With Death


I'm sorry, but I just had to put this up. It is too funny. Read through to the last line:


SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Olympic wrestling champion Rulon Gardner lost a toe to frostbite after being lost in the wilderness, impaled himself with an arrow and was involved in a serious motorcycle accident.

In his latest escape from death, he survived a plane crash over the weekend into the aptly named Good Hope Bay on the Utah-Arizona border.

"I think I'm really lucky," Gardner told CNN on Monday, "after everything I have been through."

Gardner and two Utah brothers were rescued by a fisherman Sunday after swimming more than an hour in 44-degree water and spending the night without shelter.

None suffered life-threatening injuries, authorities said.

"It takes only about 30 minutes for someone swimming in 44-degree water to start suffering the effects of hypothermia, so the fact that they swam in it for an hour, not to mention surviving the plane crash and the night without fire or shelter, is pretty amazing," said Steven Luckesen, a district ranger at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

"If these guys were a cat with nine lives, they just used up three of them."

Since delivering one of the great Olympic upsets at the 2000 Sydney Games, the 35-year-old Gardner has had a history of harrowing escapes.

In 2002, he became stranded while snowmobiling in the Wyoming and lost a toe. Then in 2004, he was struck by an automobile while riding a motorcycle. Back in third grade, he punctured his abdomen with an arrow at a class show-and-tell.

The lesson, Gardner said, is "hopefully teach people to be smarter about the choices they make."


First off, dude's a real man.

But, beyond that, for God's sake, when you start making statements like, I guess the point of my life is for other people to learn from my mistakes and make smarter choices, you know, maybe, just maybe, it's time to make some of those smarter choices yourself.

But, where would we be in our world without men like this; men who have absolutely no fear.

UN: "Jews Seek Racial Domination!"


I just can't keep my mouth shut. I keep hearing about what's going on, whether I want to or not, and I feel the need to get the information out there. (Thanks to Michael):


By Anne Bayefsky
A newly released United Nations report epitomizes the foul anti-Semitism which has overtaken the U.N. human-rights machinery. In language reminiscent of Nazi Germany, John Dugard, the U.N.'s "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967," has announced that Jews seeks racial domination.


In Dugard's words: "The IDF inflicts serious bodily and mental harm on Palestinians…Palestinians throughout the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territory] are denied freedom of movement. Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them?"

Dugard's U.N. mandate is to demonize Israel. Palestinian human-rights violations were deliberately omitted from the job description, first drafted by the U.N. Human Rights Commission in 1993 and continued by the "reformed" U.N. Human Rights Council. Dugard, a lawyer, not only accepted the one-sided mandate, he relished the opportunity to become an advocate of a one-state solution in the name of human rights. What Dugard fears most is not hate and the terrorism it fuels, but "Judaization" — the idea of a Jew living in claimed Arab land. Deliberately mirroring Nazi imagery, his report refers to Israel's security fence this way: "The Wall being built in East Jerusalem is an instrument of social engineering designed to achieve the Judaization of Jerusalem…"

The "Judaization" problem stands side-by-side with this U.N. champion of the Hamas government. According to Dugard, Israel has no right to refuse to transfer funds to the Hamas government. Why? "Predictably, Israel justifies its action on security grounds, but the real reason seems to be a determination to effect a regime change." A look at the Hamas Charter might help determine the wisdom of regime change: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it…There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad…" But according to this U.N. expert the problem is not a government dedicated to killing Jews, but the Jews themselves.

CONTINUE