Friday, August 11, 2006

Friday, August 11, 2006
Ari Shavit- Haaretz: Olmert must go
Olmert must go
By Ari Shavit Haaretz 11 August 2006 [front page of Hebrew edition]

Ehud Olmert may decide to accept the French proposal for a cease-fire
and unconditional surrender to Hezbollah. That is his privilege.
Olmert is a prime minister whom journalists invented, journalists
protected, and whose rule journalists preserved.
Now the journalists are saying run away. That's legitimate.
Unwise, but legitimate.

However, one thing should be clear: If Olmert runs away now
from the war he initiated, he will not be able to remain prime
minister for even one more day.
Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war
promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power.
You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis
in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war
very close, and then say - oops, I made a mistake.
That was not the intention. Pass me a cigar, please.

There is no mistake Ehud Olmert did not make this past month.
He went to war hastily, without properly gauging the outcome.
He blindly followed the military without asking the necessary questions.
He mistakenly gambled on air operations, was strangely late with the ground operation, and failed to implement the army's original plan,
much more daring and sophisticated than that which was implemented.
And after arrogantly and hastily bursting into
war, Olmert managed it hesitantly, unfocused and limp.
He neglected the home front and abandoned the residents of the north.
He also failed shamefully on the diplomatic front.

Still, if Olmert had come to his senses as Golda Meir did during
the Yom Kippur War, if he had become a leader, established a war cabinet
and called the nation to a supreme effort that would change the face
of the battle, a penetrating discussion of his failures could be postponed.
But in blinking first over the past 24 hours, he has become an
incorrigible political personality. Therefore, the day Nasrallah comes out
of his bunker and declares victory to the whole world,
Olmert must not be in the prime minister's office.
Post-war battered and bleeding Israel needs a new start
and a new leader.
It needs a real prime minister.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Tonite Self Hating Jew Mike Wallace will interview Hitler Ahmadinejad
Please consider the posts below prior to viewing the smiles and pleasentries
exchanged tonite:

Monday, July 24, 2006

The Last Normal Day; 21 Aug 2006

The Last Normal Day; 21 Aug 2006

By Patrick Godfrey

When we look back on it, we will be amazed we could be so stupid.

After all, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had given us ample warning what his intentions were. Since the day he took “office” he has been the hardest of hard liners, declaring his intention to promote his particular brand of Islamic fascism, with none of the evasive answers we had come to expect from others of his kind in the Middle East. Rather than dance around the issue of Israel, he openly declared that “Israel should be destroyed”. Neville Chamberlain would roll over in his grave; at least he got a Treaty out of the deal. The West got nothing but contempt.

Some saw it and raised the alarm. Had Bush been supported by the Democrats in a time of war, as was the tradition for the prior 200 years, he might have been able to convince our traditional Allies to actually DO something. But it was not to be. Realizing that no matter what, the talking points of the Democrats made it impossible for the US to take the lead on Iran. After listening to years of Leftist sputtering about “Cowboy Diplomacy” and the implied superiority of the Euro elites and their suave negotiating skills, Bush gladly handed the Iranian nuclear issue to them and wished them luck.

After 2 years of bargaining and negotiations, the Euros accomplished exactly….Nothing.

As most of the West long suspected, Ahmadinejad was merely biding his time, demanding and getting production of Plutonium to a point those in the West thought impossible, which they would have been if normal safety processes are ignored and needed shielding is not installed. After all, why worry about such pitiful details when the exposed worker will be dying for the return of the glory of Islam?

One might have suspected that with the apparent disgust that the Left looked upon the religious views of Bush, they would have recoiled in horror when Ahmadinejad expressed his belief in the return of the 12th Madi. This was beyond some apocalyptic fire and brimstone Preacher, this guy actually believed what he was saying. But beyond mention in a couple of news stories, it was not widely reported on.

When the Iranian President wrote to Bush in May of 2006, few realized he was offering the West a truce. If Bush were to convert to Islam, all past grievances would be forgiven. Although it was given scant notice in the news of the day, it was in retrospect a portent of things to come.

Which brings us to Aug 22, 2006.

Many theories were proposed as to what the Iranians would do on the 22nd as pundits of all stripes weighed on with their own pet ideas, and as it turns out a few of them were correct. The world has changed. A rethinking of our relationships and approaches are in order.

Now that the events of the day are behind us, what shall we do now?

The Left has always claimed the moral high ground and demonized every attempt by those who would stand up to Militant Islam. With the events of Aug 22 in mind, I demand an answer from the Left.

The choice is clear; in a fight to the death with fanatical, apocalyptic belief system, which side will they be on?

The question demands an answer.


This article is posted with authors permission above:
Below is what caused these sobering thoughts:


August 22

Does Iran have something in store?


During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.

The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.

A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Monday, August 07, 2006


Monday, August 7, 2006
Rocket hits Arab anti-war newspaper in Haifa
Haifa: Rocket hits anti-war newspaper

One of rockets which landed in Haifa Sunday evening hits historical building
of Arab daily al-Ittihad. Newspaper editor blames Israel, 'which fights in
service of Americans'
Roee Nahmias YNET 7 August 2006,7340,L-3287416,00.html

One of the rockets which landed in Haifa Sunday evening hit the old offices
of the one of the only dailies in the Arab sector.

"When I heard that our historical building was hit, I felt a lot of anger.
This is a place we all grew up, which contains real treasures," al-Ittihad
Editor, Dr. Ahmed Saad, told Ynet on Sunday.

About a year and a half ago, the newspaper decided to renovate the
historical building and the editorial staff moved to another place about 100
meters (about 328 feet) away from the old building. While it was being
renovated, the building continued to serve as an archive of the newspaper
editions and the valuable material which has accumulated since the newspaper
was first published in 1944.

The editor, Dr. Saad, spoke about the significance of the building: "It was
the historical place of al-Ittihad and we decided to renovate it in order to
go back and work there. Many great Palestinians were in it, such as authors
Emil Habibi and Samih al-Qassem and poet Mahmoud Darwish. This is not just a
house, but a place with history which we all grew up in. Therefore I felt a
lot of anger when it was hit."

Dr. Saad and his colleagues heard the blast from their current office and
immediately went out to see what caused it. When they approached the place,
they were shocked.

"I got phone calls from across the country because everyone thought we were
there," he said.

Speaking about the newspaper of the Israel Communist Party, the editor said:
"Our newspaper is the only daily in the Arabic language which has been
published for 62 years. It was published even before the State was
established and it reflects the policy of the Israel Communist Party."

'Stop this war'

When asked about his newspaper's stance in light of the fighting in Lebanon
, he answered: "We are against the war and this cruel aggression. This is a
war run by Israel in the service of the Americans."

The newspaper's editorial staff fears that many items from its valuable
historical archive were destroyed in the rocket attack and plan to start
removing the parts of the archive that were not hit on Monday morning.

"I would like to turn to Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav and ask him not to destroy
the building. There is no similar archive in the entire

Middle East. We have historical photos there and a very rich archive,
volumes of the newspaper from before the State was established, and
certificates which in fact belong to the entire nation and not only to the
Communist Party. Already this morning we will try and find a way to remove
what was preserved from the building which suffered a direct hit," Saad

Asked whether he had a message to convey to Hizbullah Secretary-General
Hassan Nasrallah , Saad replied: "I am an Israeli citizen and am interested
in conveying a message to the Israeli government to stop this war which is
not achieving a thing apart from victims."

(08.07.06, 02:43)

Tuesday, August 01, 2006


It may be that action will finally be decisive. Bravo!!