2 more commentaries on the Fogel murder and the bombing

The Blaze blog has an op-ed by Gary Rosenblatt, the editor of the Jewish Week, where he cites an inner problem:

Is the relatively muted response due to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan that dominated the international news at the time? Or because we expect Palestinians to act in inhuman ways in expressing their hatred of Jews? Or maybe it was because the brutality element of the Israeli story was soon eclipsed by the political and diplomatic angle, with Jerusalem announcing that in response to the murders it would increase settlement building in the West Bank.

All of the above may be true, but I fear that a significant factor in the relative inattention to this shocking and heartbreaking story was that the Fogel family members who were killed were religious Israelis living in a small West Bank community. Had the victims been secular Jews living inside the Green Line, I believe the outrage would have been far greater.

The sad reality is that, as small as our people are in numbers, we are all-too guilty of thinking of certain segments as second-class Jews.

And in today’s political climate, when the West Bank settlements are seen by Washington as the central cause of the breakdown in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, “the settlers” are viewed widely – including among many Jews here and in Israel – as operating outside the norm of Israeli society, an embarrassment to those in Tel Aviv cafes, a few miles away, prepared to displace tens of thousands of their countrymen for the prospect of peace with the Palestinians.

Once admired as brave pioneers embodying the spirit of the early Zionists in working the land, those Jews living beyond the Green Line are portrayed in the media as, for the most part, radical fundamentalists whose actions and very existence are jeopardizing the future of a Jewish democratic state living peacefully alongside a Palestinian state.

The facts are more complicated, though.

Yes, they are. Even today, there is tragic hostility to the pioneers within leftists in Tel Aviv and of course, the MSM in Israel.

Then, there's Caroline Glick's op-ed, where she reveals that no one has taken credit for the bombing near the central bus station in Jerusalem:

What are we to make of the fact that no one has taken credit for Wednesday's bombing in Jerusalem?

Wednesday bombing was not a stand-alone event. It was part and parcel of the new Palestinian terror war that is just coming into view. As Israel considers how to contend with the emerging onslaught, it is important to notice how it differs from its predecessors. On a military level, the tactics the Palestinians have so far adopted are an interesting blend of state-of-the-art missile attacks with old fashioned knife and bomb-in-the- briefcase attacks. The diverse tactics demonstrate that this war is a combination of Iranian-proxy war and local terror pick-up cells. The attacks are also notable for their geographic dispersion and for the absence thus far of suicide attacks.

For the public, the new tactics are not interesting and the message they send is nothing new. With our without suicide bombers, Israelis understand that we are entering a new period of unremitting fear, where we understand that we are in danger no matter where we are. Whether we're in bed asleep, or our way to work or school, or sitting down on a park bench or at a restaurant, whether we're in Rishon Lezion, Sderot, Jerusalem, Itamar or Beersheba, we are in the Palestinians' crosshairs. All of us are "settlers." All of us are in danger.

It shouldn't be that surprising if now, no terrorist gang wants to identify themselves as the culprit, if they see that as a strategy.

Grateful Dead

New Minglewood Blues

JJ Cale
Magnolia



Traveling Light

Gay Pride In London? Not

From Bruce Bawer at PJM:

On Sunday, December 10, 1989, the direct-action group ACT-UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) mobilized several thousand people outside St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York to protest the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to AIDS education and the distribution of condoms. Of these thousands of protesters, a few dozen entered the church during Mass, and one of them crumbled a consecrated communion wafer.

ACT-UP’s incursion into St. Patrick’s became legendary, and in the minds of many Americans that one protestor’s act of desecration remained an indelible image, forever defining both gay and AIDS activism. Every gay person I knew was appalled by those protestors who’d entered the church and disrupted the service, not just because they were morally wrong, but also because their action could hardly have been more counterproductive.  The Religious Right depicted gay people as enemies of religion; the disruptive actions by those members of ACT-UP only seemed to confirm that image. (In fact many of the people who acted most outrageously that day later turned out to have been devout gay Catholics motivated not by hatred of religion but — quite the opposite — by a frustration with Church officials’ views that was intense precisely because their love for the Church was so intense.)

In the wake of the assault on St. Patrick’s, gay people sat together shaking their heads in disbelief, calling the organizers of this idiotic stunt every name in the book — even some ACT-UP leaders were appalled. But I don’t remember hearing any gay person call the invaders of the cathedral anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. Indeed, if you went through the annals of the modern gay-rights movement dating back to the Stonewall riots in 1969, I suspect you’d be hard put to find any account of a movement leader accusing another movement leader of being anti-Christian.

I certainly know that when I and other gay writers came along in the 1990s and called similar actions against religious targets ill-advised, the whole organized gay-rights movement came down on us like a ton of bricks, calling us self-hating gays, traitors, and worse. When I gave talks in churches about homosexuality in an effort to build bridges, icons of the gay community such as the late Paul Monette savaged me for “rub[bing] shoulders with … the church supper crowd of the Christian Reich,” which, in his view, amounted to “pandering to creeps … accommodation with the enemy.”

Okay, cut from New York in 1989 to London in 2011. The stakes are higher — much higher.  The mosques in Britain’s capital aren’t just refusing to hand out condoms or instruct gay believers in how to have safe sex. (Imagine!) No; they’re preaching to their ever-growing congregations in that increasingly Muslim city what Islam’s holy books teach about homosexuality — namely, that gays deserve to be executed.

This has been going on for years, of course.  The latest twist — and it will certainly not be the last — is that in February the East End, a neighborhood where many gays live but that is fast becoming a Muslim enclave, began being papered with stickers. They depicted a rainbow flag placed within a black circle and crossed out by a diagonal black line on which were printed the words “Gay free zone.”   And they featured two quotations from the Koran. One of them read: “Arise and warn.” The other: “And fear Allah; verily Allah is severe in punishment.”

Now, this could be dismissed as a nasty prank by some isolated, harmless jerk with too much time on his hands. But to do that would be dangerous. For the sentiments expressed on those stickers are widespread among Muslims in the East End, and indeed among Muslims throughout London, Britain, and Europe generally.

It’s no coincidence that as the East End has become more Muslim, the number of gay-bashings has risen sharply and steadily. Not to respond in some way to this latest provocation, then, would be a show of weakness and of fear, and an invitation to push harder.

Here’s one way to look at it. Let’s say a heavily gay neighborhood in the U.S., like West Hollywood or the Castro in San Francisco or Washington’s Dupont Circle, had experienced a major influx of fundamentalist Christians in recent years. Let’s say the preachers at these churches were known to give rousing sermons about the hellfire awaiting sodomites. (While countless imams in the West openly remind their congregations that their religion calls for the execution of gays, not even the most extreme fundamentalist Christian — not even Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps — preaches such a message.) And let’s say that stickers declaring the neighborhood gay-free and citing anti-gay Bible quotes suddenly began appearing on lampposts and mailboxes. What would happen?

Continued on Next Page ->

Here's another view:

Muslims in Britain have zero tolerance of homosexuality, says poll ...

CNN's Fareed Zakaria: Uprisings have shown that Muslims "want modernity, jobs and democracy more than they want an Islamic caliphate"

Fareed Zakaria is a two-faced liar  

this photo ought to be in the dictionary under the definition of "two-faced"

And if you think I just picked a bad photo, look at these

Because I dislike Fareed Zakaria SO MUCH, I am going to rip this post off from Robert Spencer in it's entirety:

I am writing this in an airport lounge somewhere in the United States, and Fareed Zakaria is on CNN explaining it all for us at high volume on the TV overhead. I was doing my best not to pay attention, but I just heard him say, in a piece asserting that al-Qaeda's influence is waning in the Islamic world, that the recent uprisings all over the Middle East show that Muslims there "want modernity, jobs and democracy more than they want an Islamic caliphate."

I'm not really surprised that the mainstream media is still peddling such corrosive drivel, but Zakaria might have been kind enough to take even cursory notice of recent stories such as these:

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Muslim Brotherhood rising in Libya, envisions government on "Qur'anic principles"

Muslim Brotherhood takes leading role in post-Mubarak Egypt

What Joe Sacco wrote/drew about Hebron a decade ago

While doing some more research on the awfulness of cartoonist and so-called graphic novelist Joe Sacco, I first came upon an interesting blog called Jewish Comics, where the blogmaster, Steven Bergson, provides news on comics related items involving Jews and Judaism. And I also found he had an extra blog called Israel & Israelis in Comix, that may just be a simpler blog not meant to be updated on a regular basis, but still has some info worth noting. And one of the items I found on the latter was about 2 of Sacco's cunningly crafted anti-Israel smears that he drew nearly a decade ago for 2 propaganda papers. I'm going to first post the panel provided coming from Time in March 12, 2001:
Though he mentions the 1929 bloodbath that the Mufti in Jerusalem incited with British cooperation and Muslims in Hebron perpetrated against the Jewish community, and which the British forces in the area allowed, he does not actually present any pictures here alluding to that, and seems more intent on alluding to the supposed cruelty the Israelis foist upon the "poor palestinians". The way he refers to the Tomb of Patriarchs being "underneath" the supposed Haram al-Khalil, obfuscates how Abraham originally bought the land as a burial site for his wife Sarah, and King Herod was the one who had the main structure built centuries later.

This article tells something about the Goldstein case that Sacco doesn't, and wasn't revealed for a long time either:

Other elements of the picture that Rabbi Dr. Simons informs us about include that the metal detector at the East Gate, where most of the Arabs entered that Friday Purim morning, was damaged the night before. An unusually large number of Arabs came to the Machpela that Friday - some 500 men and 300 women. Only a handful of the men were searched, and not one of the women. After the Goldstein incident, three automatic weapons were found in the Machpela - other than Goldstein's weapon - including one wrapped in an Arab keffiya (headdress). All these elements point to a planned attack on the Jews at the Cave of Machpela that Purim morning.

Is it possible this was a set-up or something?

Then, there's the following panel published in the NYT magazine, July 3, 2003.
And here, he again does his smear routine against Israel as the aggressor against the Gaza strip.

As Bergson says:

Generally speaking, Sacco tends to portray Israelis (and, in particular, Israeli politicians and soldiers) as cruel, manipulative, sadist outsiders who are oppressing the indigenous, caring, freedom-fighter Palestinians.

Speaking as someone who served in the army himself when he was 19-21 years old, I figure that could include me too, even though I never served in a combat unit (I was only in a supplies job).

Sacco is a most truly reprehensible man, and this only reinforces the perception that he's not interested in objectivity. What makes me really disgusted here is how he discriminated against the Jewish residents in the most ancient Jewish city that, while it's long been surpassed by Jerusalem as the number one holy city, is still a very famous and vital landmark nevertheless.

Bill Frisell

Shenandoah

Drugged, Raped And Jailed - In "Moderate" Islamic UAE

Drugged, Raped And Jailed - In "Moderate" Islamic UAE

An Australian woman working for a resort company in the UAE was imprisoned for being drugged and then raped.

Why does this not surprise me? Maybe its because I have taken the time to learn a bit about Islam, which any person visiting an Islamic country or region should do.

Apparently, this woman did no research at all. Or, if she did, she accepted the PC mainstream media version.
Her company didn't tell her the real dangers, probably because it might offend other Muslim employees or somehow insult their own Islamic "values." So, now she wants to sue them.

Click on the title to read the whole thing at Jawa Report.

Moderate Arabs Are Now Beginning To Be Horrified At Obama ME Policy

This is particularly interesting in light of yesterday's revelation that the US is now allied with the Taliban in Libya.

From the Rubin Reports:

In this article in al-Sharq al-Awsat (translated by MEMRI), a Saudi-controlled but also relatively liberal newspaper, Tariq al-Homayed, the chief editor, expresses the combination of shock and horror at the Obama Administration. The conflict was hot over Egypt and even hotter over Bahrain, where the Saudis want the current regime to survive and U.S. officials have criticized Saudi intervention.

Indeed, he complains, the statements coming from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
sound "more like what we'd expect to hear from the Iranian foreign minister." The "contradictory statements coming out of Washington have become more than merely perplexing; they are also suspicious."

Why suspicious? Because it isn't clear whether the U.S. government is more concerned about stopping revolutionary Islamism or undermining those who oppose it ...

Go read the whole thing.

As Long As We Are Talking About The World Turning Against Israel

Source:

Report: Argentina offered to 'forget' bombings for improved ties

Argentinean daily says South American country told Islamic Republic it would suspend probe of deadly attacks on Israeli embassy, Jewish center in 1990s in order to increase trade between countries

During secret talks with Iran, the Argentinean government offered to "forget" the bombings of the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community center in the capital Buenos Aires in the 1990s in exchange for improved ties between the two countries.

The Argentine weekly Perfil reported Saturday that the negotiations were aimed at increasing the trade volume between Argentina and the Islamic Republic, which is currently estimated at $1.2 billion a year.

According to the report, Cristina Kirchner's government offered to suspend the investigation of the bombings, which are believed to have been orchestrated by Iran.

Memorial ceremony in Buenos Aires for bombing victims (Photo: Reuters)

It was further reported that a memo sent by Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that "Argentina is no longer interested in solving the mystery of these two attacks and would rather improve its economic relations with Iran."

Perfil said Argentinean Foreign Minister Hector Timerman asked Syrian President Bashar Assad and Foreign Minister Walid Moallem to relay the offer to Tehran. The three met at the Syrian city of Haleb on January 23, the weekly said.

In September Kirchner told the UN that Argentina would continue the investigation and demanded that Iran hand over those responsible for the attacks.

In the 1992 embassy bombing, 29 people were killed and 242 were injured. In the bombing at the AMIA Jewish community center in 1994, 85 people were killed and more than 300 were injured. No one has been indicted despite the fact that Israel and the US have been assisting in the investigation.

Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi is wanted by Interpol for the attack on the Jewish center, as are four other Iranians.

Argentinean prosecutor Alberto Nisman said Vahidi was accused of "being a key participant in the planning and of having made the decision to go ahead with the attack."

Imad Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah commander who was assassinated in Damascus in 2008, was also suspected of involvement in the attack.

Also read here how Argentina backstabbed Israel before.

Tick Tock

So there used to be a post here about the Iron Dome Israeli Defense System. When I posted it it was causing me all kinds of grief. Or so I thought. Deleted the post, still have the grief. Here's my commentary:

Do not let them take your eyes off the ball here. THIS is the story, and the big danger, to us and the world. Not Libya. As the attacks from Gaza continue, Israel will be left with no choice. And we will get sucked in, hopefully on Israel's side, but I doubt it. And you can read the story at The Blaze Grrrr

To Serve Man

NOT DAYS, NOT WEEKS -- LIBYA OP TO LAST MONTHS

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi's forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.

Ahead of President Barack Obama's national address Monday to explain his decision to act against the Libyan leader, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in appearances on the Sunday talk shows that the intervention had effectively rendered Gadhafi's forces defenseless against air attacks and created the conditions for opposition advances westward.

In interviews taped Saturday, Gates and Clinton also defended the narrowly defined U.N. mandate to prevent atrocities against Libyan civilians and said the U.S. had largely accomplished its goals.

"We have taken out his armor," Gates said, adding that the U.S. soon would relinquish its leading role in enforcing a no-fly zone and striking pro-Gadhafi ground targets intent on violence.

Gates said the no-fly zone was fully in place and could be sustained with "a lot less effort than it took to set it up." He said the Pentagon was planning how to draw down resources that will be assigned to European and other countries pledging to take on a larger role.

But asked on ABC's "This Week" if that would mean a U.S. military commitment until year's end, Gates said, "I don't think anybody knows the answer to that."

The lack of clarity on that question reflects a worry for lawmakers clamoring to hear fuller explanations from the administration on why the U.S. was embroiling itself in another Muslim conflict and what the ultimate goals of the intervention are.

Last Friday's Protest In The UK

From Bare Naked Islam, citing this source:

Sharia Law for Libya Protest Shuts Down Oxford Street, London

Dressed in black and white, supporters of Sharia law chanted claims that Sharia law is the only option, not only for Libya, but for the West as well.

A spokesman for the demonstrators - who nationality is unknown - referred to the "changing tides of the world": for the demonstrators, events in North Africa are indicative of something more than the expulsion of dictators.

Note one of the signs being carried in the protest, the sign saying "Gaddafi and all world leaders need to be removed":

UK: "Anarchists" Riot Because Government Won't Give Them More Anymore

An Anarchist is defined as "a person who advocates the abolition of government".

But you know things are strange, indeed, when Anarchists are angry because governments are cutting back.

This, from Stogie, describes the situation well:

Fight The Power

I believe it was The Other McCain who noted that the left's sense of entitlement is now so pronounced that it represents a lethal threat.  He was talking about Wisconsin, but now the massive temper tantrum over free money has reached London.  British freeloaders, suddenly cut off from the mother's milk of socialism, are rioting there at half a million strong, smashing office windows, defacing buildings and attacking police.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."   Socialism has run out of other people's money and the spending must stop.  When the spending stops, however, the temper tantrums begin.

Governments trying to restore fiscal solvency are like parents with spoiled children.  If the parents don't give in to every whimsical demand of their over aged, selfish brats, they run the risk of violence.  Their spoiled children may smash the house and even beat up the parents. 

Read the whole thing. 

More: 500,000 MARCH IN LONDON TO PROTEST BUDGET CUTS...
Turns violent