Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Current Efforts
To Get Israel
To Give Up
More Land
Will End
In Death
And Destruction


Why would I say that? Well, tell me, when has Israel ever given up more land when it did not end in death and destruction.

Read this, by Ted Belman from Israpundit:


Make no mistake about it, Annapolis (a "peace" summit arranged by the Bush Administration) represents a mortal danger to
Israel and the Jewish people. We don t have to know how and when the
peace process train will reach its destination. Once you are on the
deportation train, it is too late. It is enough to know the
destination is Auschwitz borders and behind such borders lies
Auschwitz.

The Jewish remnant in the Warsaw Ghetto, when hearing of the death of
300,000 Jews deported from the ghetto, decided to go down fighting
rather than to go to their deaths like sheep. And fight they did.

We know where Annapolis is taking us to, namely; Auschwitz borders,
expulsion and deportation of 200,000 Jews and the division of
Jerusalem with the Holy Basin under the control of the Muslims. Need
we know more?

And for what? Certainly not recognition as a Jewish state, certainly
not an end of conflict agreement with all Muslim nations, certainly
not a more secure future.

In the words of the PA;

1. The Annapolis declaration will include Palestinian recognition of
Israel but not as a Jewish state.

2. The boundaries of the future Palestinian state will follow the
pre-1967 War lines with minor adjustments through territorial swaps.
A few hundreds of square meters may be offered on the West Bank in
return for areas in central Israel, not the Negev.

3. Palestinian sovereignty over Temple Mount, the holiest shrine of
the Jewish people, must be undivided and include the Jewish place of
worship at the Western Wall.

4. The right of return for 1948 refugees is absolute and
non-negotiable.

5. The future Palestinian state will enjoy full sovereignty,
including its air and electromagnetic space and underground
resources, such as water.

6. Negotiations after the Annapolis conference must be concluded by
Aug. 2008..

We also know that the people we are ceding our security to are
latter day Nazis who are the inheritors of the final solution. Forty
years ago they wanted to throw us into the sea. Today they want to
wipe us off the face of the map.

The state of Israel is a Jewish enterprise not an Israeli enterprise.
It was promised to the Jews not to Israelis. We must assert our rights
as a people. We cannot avoid responsibility by hiding behind the duly
elected government of Israel . It doesn t represent us Jews and it
doesn t represent the majority of Israelis. There is nothing to
debate.

The Jewish habit of arguing "on the one hand" and "on the other hand"
must stop. Even Tevia, the quintessential Jew, in Fiddler on the Roof,
knew enough to declare, in some matters, There is no other hand. .

Yeddin, draw the line and fight. Now, not later.



The "right of return" for those who don't know is the phrase the Palestinian Authority uses for the idea that all the descendents of anyone who ever lived in Palestinian, ever in history, ought to have the right to live in Israel.

According to the Palestinian Authority, these people number in the millions. Israel, as a Jewish state, would be overwhelmed if they were to accede to such a "right." Jews would become a demographic minority in their own land, and the whole reason for Israel to exist (so that Jews could govern themselves, rather than having to live at the approval or disapproval of the world's antisemites) would be lost.

It is likely, given how Hamas feels about the Jews, that there would be a genocide of the Jews.

The last time the Jews gave land to the Palestinians, every Jew was forced to leave their homes in Gaza. The Israelis even had to dig up their dead, so the Palestinians would not desecrate their graves.

These are the facts on the ground in Israel and the Palestinian territories. If you know them, they make all talk of peace sound like the barking of hyeanas. But, of course, most don't know the facts. And so, most will reach for the panacea of "peace."

And, if such a "peace" were to be achieved, the Jews would have to pay for it in blood.

Never again.

Monday, November 12, 2007


Joe Lieberman - Democrat
On The State Of
The Democratic Party



From William Kristol:


If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on "the politics of national security." The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it. So should you. To that end, we're happy to provide excerpts from the remarks of the independent Democrat from Connecticut:

Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. . . . We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.

But that was not the choice most Democrats made. . . . Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . .

I offered an amendment earlier this fall, together with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, urging the Bush administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and impose economic sanctions on them.

The reason for our amendment was clear. In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress about the proxy war that Iran--and in particular, the IRGC and its Quds Force subsidiary--has been waging against our troops in Iraq. Specifically, General Petraeus told us that the IRGC Quds Force has been training, funding, equipping, arming, and in some cases directing Shiite extremists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers. . . .

Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it--and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing.

. . . [T]here is something profoundly wrong--something that should trouble all of us--when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base--even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.

For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed. . . . That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party--but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.

I hope that Democrats will one day again rediscover and re-embrace these principles. . . . But regardless of when or if that happens, those convictions will continue to be mine. And I will continue to fight to advance them along with like-minded Democrats and like-minded Republicans.

***

Read the whole speech on Lieberman's website. As for Rudy and John and Fred and Mitt and Mike: Take a break from kissing babies to pick up the phone and congratulate Joe. Seek his endorsement after you win the nomination. What the heck--offer him the vice presidency. (Rudy, you might try State or Defense, since you'll need a pro-life running mate.) But McCain-Lieberman, Thompson-Lieberman, Romney-Lieberman, Huckabee-Lieberman--those sound like winning tickets to us. It's true, given the behavior of the congressional Democrats, the GOP nominee might well win with a more conventional running mate. But why settle for a victory if you can have a realignment?

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Jew-Hatred In Islam


It's in the Koran. It's in the culture. It's woven into the fabric of the lives of Muslims the world over, unfortunately.

Read about the history of Jew-hatred in Isalm in this article by Andrew Bostom:


Fawaz Damra, the former Imam of the Islamic Center of Cleveland was convicted in 2004 for lying to immigration officials about his links to the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and subsequently deported. Yet Damra was touted as a promoter of interfaith dialogue even after evidence of his participation in fundraising events for the PIJ, was produced, along with a videotape of the Imam telling a crowd of Muslim supporters in 1991 that they should aim "...a rifle at the first and last enemy of the Islamic nation, and that is the sons of monkeys and pigs, the Jews."

As I will demonstrate, Imam Damra's blatant Jew-hatred was fully sanctioned by -- indeed he was merely paraphrasing, and quoting directly from -- the core religious texts of Islam. And the historical treatment of Jews in Muslim societies has been consistent with this sacralized religious bigotry. Sheer ignorance of such theology and history, combined with craven denial, allowed Damra's words to go unchallenged for more than a decade. However the Damra affair is pathognomonic of a much larger and more dangerous phenomenon: the complete, often willful failure to examine and understand the living legacy of Islam's foundational anti-Jewish animus.


Read the whole thing.