The meeting of minds

It seems they have already met.

And on the other hand...

It is highly symbolic that, unlike the moronic anti-Israeli parrot of the previous post, an Arab journalist has the integrity and the courage to be truthful.

In his weekly column, veteran journalist Abed al-Rahman Rashad, CEO of the Arab news agency Al-Arabiya, demanded: "Those that are now asking for the help of Arab governments - shouldn't they be asking themselves who asked the Arab nations for advice before they kidnapped the soldier, or carried out any other operations that would lead to a conflict which has no chance of success, and would incur enormous damages like the ones we see in Gaza?"

His is the lonely voice, true, but compare his risky and unpopular stance to the patronizing pontifical bull of Jonathan Steel and his ilk, and make up your minds.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com

Blooper of the week award

Goes to no other than Jonathan Steele for the following passage from the article Europe's response to the siege of Gaza is shameful:

Finally, Israel must renounce violence, in particular the assassinations of Palestinian leaders. The number of civilians killed in these attacks this year alone far exceeds the number of Israeli victims since Hamas declared its ceasefire last year. The facts do not support the notion that Israel is "retaliating" to provocations.

To repeat: "far exceeds the number of Israeli victims since Hamas declared its ceasefire last year". How do you like that "victims of a ceasefire"? If you know how to solve this moronic quandary, your desk in Guardian is waiting for you.

There is much more where it comes from, but this should be sufficient to show the true colors of Mr Steele.

Oh, and I liked very much that "European impotence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of course an ancient problem." Need you wonder about the reasons of the impotence, seeing that sample above?

Cross-posted on Yourish.com

The Gaza Beach Accident - An Essay in Accuracy

BagelBlogger has written an uniquely detailed compilation of information on the Gaza beach accident. It is worth reading even if you have already made up your opinion on this tragedy.

Taepodong-2 and miscellaneous

How do you call a child that ate his mother and his father? An orphan.

And how do you call a raving maniac of a dictator that starved to death hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of his loyal serfs to invest most of the available resources of his piss-poor country in weaponry he does not actually need, because nobody needs or wants to do anything with his hellhole of a country?




















You call him Our Dear Great Leader.

Update: Defiant North Korea fires seventh test missile

North Korea ignored international condemnation of its missile tests by launching a seventh missile today, insisting it was its sovereign right to do so.

More on these friendly Qassams

It appears that the lie about Qassams being at the most "an irritant" is not just a result of a specific journo's mental laziness or idiocy. It is now a spreading item of "knowledge" in the British MSM. Here is the post by shlemazl, but I just have to quote from it:

Well, rockets are pretty pathetic things. Nobody gets injured, they are homemade, and you well know they have nothing much stronger than an AK-47: no RPGs, they have no weapons and you are delivering some of the most sophisticated bombardment that has ever been subjected to a defenseless people. Is it an act of terror would you say?

Quote from Jon Snow - Channel 4. Unbelievable? I am becoming a believer...

Ramallah: Asheri killers surrender to IDF

Ynet: Palestinians sources in Ramallah say three Fatah members suspected of kidnapping, then murdering 18-year-old settler Eliyahu Asheri surrender to large IDF force following three-hour standoff at local police station.

Good.

More amazing stuff from the La-La Land

Some days are better than other, some Guardian articles are more sane than other. And some days bring some articles that leave one with a feeling that there is some collective madness in that place that churns out such extreme examples of obsessive behavior.

I have decided to use two of such examples for a potpourri: Israel's act of war is inexcusable by Will Hutton (WH) and Anything but negotiation by Patrick Seale (PS).

To start with headlines: WH is recycling the quote from his buddy Chris McGreal's article that is attributed to Ismail Haniyeh:

Gaza escalation cannot be justified, says Haniyeh

There is a slight difference in shades of Islamic green, but it is lovely to see a Guardian scribe being so in tune with the Hamas chief. And of course, the PS headline comes from an area of the world that is getting more and more used to pay a good buck for every kidnapped person, effectively causing kidnapping to become a cottage industry in some other areas of the world.

By using vastly disproportionate force against Gaza, Israel has once again demonstrated its contempt for international law and its indifference to human suffering. (PS)

Using? As far as I know, Israel hasn't started yet. And which international law might that be? The one regarding acceptable treatment of a POW?

Israel's destruction of Gaza and illegal political detention of members of the Palestinian government and parliament were to teach Hamas a lesson. (WH)

Destruction of Gaza? Them are heavy words. Not yet, methinks. Re the Hon. MPs and Ministers: don't they belong to a group of people designated by many governments as a terrorist organization?

Arab and Muslim loathing for the Jewish state - and its US ally - will inevitably be cranked up with everything this implies for the security of Israelis and Americans everywhere. There will always be Palestinians and others who will seek revenge, in one form or another, including a resort to terrorism. (PS)

Arab and Muslim loathing for the Jewish state is doing well enough, our actions in Gaza notwithstanding, thanks all the same for the tip. And we kinda understand that there will always be "Palestinians and others" that will want to kill a few Jooz for recreation. In one form or another. But the last point - resorting to terrorism - you must be kidding! No way will I believe this!

Alarmed at US inaction, Britain and France are already working quietly on a project to define their own parameters for resolving the conflict. (PS)

The last time these two powers "worked quietly" together it all ended in this unfortunate Suez Canal war of 1956. Blamed on the Zionists, of course. So keep an eye on this "quiet work" for us, PS, would you? There is a good chap.

By bombing its main power station, Israel has deprived most of Gaza of electricity, including water-pumping stations.
...
In any other context, this would be a declaration of war(WH).

That's not a power station, dumbo - only a few transformers. Try to learn at least the first thing on the subject you are writing about with such aplomb. The Gazan rocket scientists do not have time to spare to plan for a power station, so they get their electricity from the Zionist entity they so hate. Mostly unpaid, too. Oh, and the transformers are insured by Americans. So look at it as a contribution to local trade and employment.

And re that declaration of war - where have you been lately?

The Hamas government has not yet renounced its commitment to the elimination of Israel or to the use of terrorism. Missiles from Gaza are regularly fired at Israel.(WH)

Deep. Truly deep, but maybe once in a millennium some Guardian scribe will put his head to this subject alone? Maybe then he/she will discover that this phenomena might have something to do with the "declaration of war"?

But disproportionality on such a scale is self-defeating. It casts Israel as the rogue state and Palestinians as victims. (WH)

That's truly the case of rooting for underdog gone amok. I am starting to believe that if, instead of using IDF, every Israeli family were to start a metal workshop in the yard, producing and launching rockets at will, it would have satisfied the proportionality-hungry well-wishers. Sorry, WH, we have no intention to become a tribe of professional victims. I know that many would dearly wish so, but no thanks.

And now to the real stinkeroo. Both WH and PS are very upbeat on account of the so called "national unity" agreement that is so much talked about lately:

Hamas backed down, knowing he would win, and reached a national unity pact with Mr Abbas's Fatah. The basis for resuming negotiations was being put in place. (WH)

It [the Israeli government] abhors the recent Hamas-Fatah accord, which implicitly recognises Israel, because it threatens to produce a Palestinian partner ready to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.(PS)

No matter that this agreement is just a rehash of the same "Palestine from the river to the sea" in another packaging, the talking heads of the Guardian are unfazed. And of course, follows the regular strawman:

The dark interpretation of Israel's reaction in Gaza is that it does not want a politically viable negotiating partner in Palestine. It suits Israel to characterise Hamas as terrorist fundamentalists who are beyond the pale.(WH)

Israel will do everything to avoid a negotiation. Hence, it deliberately inflicts inhumane hardships on the Palestinians in order to radicalise them and drive the moderates from the scene. Moderates, who are prepared to talk, are Israel's real enemies.(PS)

Makes one wonder who our real enemies are, doesn't it, dear WH and PS?

I am tired of all this crapola, so here comes the real cherry in that malodorous cake - for desserts. Look what PS, the expert in Middle Eastern affairs has to say about Qassams:

These rockets have so far not killed anyone but they are a very considerable irritant.

12 people killed* and scores of wounded and shellshocked civilians counts as an irritant? Even if PS does not count Jews, there were two Bedouin shepherds killed, so maybe at least two could register on the pristine brain cells of the expert?

I do not have a good exit line for this. I just wonder what in the whole blue world motivates people to write such one-sided perverted crap? It cannot be the money - it cannot be good enough in that cheap establishment.

(*)Linked an outdated article, but a mandatory reading all the same.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com

"Alan Dershowitz: Should we fight terror with torture?"

Before we go into the murky business of torture, I simply must say a few words about the source of the quoted headline above. It comes from no one else but the dear good ole Indy. Yes, ladies and gentlemen: Indy and Dershowitz. And it does not stop here, now look at this:

Here, America's leading liberal lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, presents the case for radical reform.

No, I think I have understressed the point, here it goes again:

America's Leading Liberal Lawyer, Alan Dershowitz

That's better, I think. It is still unbelievable, and if you look at the recent cover page of the same Indy, it will become clear to you that Indy is living through a bad case of split personality. If that cover page belongs to a set of illustrations for the new edition of "Elders of Zion", the reference to Alan Dershowitz as LLL by Indy could be easily sung to the melody of "Hatikva".

Well, let's leave the mental state of Indy to psychiatrists and move on to the LLL's article. In this essay Dershowitz states that the law regarding the treatment of prisoners is evolving with time (a point that will be difficult to challenge) and brings forth a sufficient number of cases to support this statement. So far so good.

Now comes the first "but". Dershowitz uses the dilemma of pre-emptive action against imminent threat to show that the current state of the law may be a tad too evolved for our own good, disregarding the new dangers that expect us just around the corner.

The laws of pre-emptive and preventive self-defence are but one example of the legal sclerosis from which we are suffering in the war against terrorism.

I mulled a bit on this one. After a short period of time, I am quite sure that I have no special difficulty swallowing this pill. It leaves some aftertaste, though, but definitely swallowable. I do believe that there is some vacuum in the law regarding the possible need of pre-emptive action. I do suspect that a) some interested parties will never let the international law to change in the desired direction and b) that we better be careful with formulating the rules of engagement here. Otherwise every two-bit dictator with a Napoleon complex will find a lawyer good enough to justify any military adventure to the dictator heart's desire.

Then, on the subject of targeted killings:

Human-rights organisations often fail to distinguish between civilian deaths accidentally caused by democracies despite their best efforts to avoid them, and civilian deaths deliberately caused by terrorists who seek to maximise civilian casualties by constructing anti-personnel bombs, designed to kill as many innocent people as possible, and by specifically targeting crowded buses and other soft targets.

Somewhat true. In an ideal world, human rights organisations should not be the judge, rather the reporter, but in the same ideal world the democracies should not carry out targeted killings. Which they do in the existing imperfect world simply because of impossibility to act according to the law. The targets of the killings do not easily submit themselves to the arm of the law nowadays. So both the human rights organisations and the above mentioned democracies do what they can in the world which is very far from being ideal.

The law should also cast the blame for unintended civilian deaths caused by democracies on the terrorists who deliberately hide among civilians using them as "shields". The domestic law of most democratic nations does precisely that. If a bank robber takes a teller hostage and uses him as a shield against the police, and if the police, in an effort to shoot the robber who is firing from behind his shield, kills the shield, it is the robber who is guilty of murder, even though it was the policeman who fired the fatal shot. The same should be the case in international law.

Good point, terrorists hiding in the midst of civilian population are the worst scum yet invented. And then, after building up steam, Dershowitz goes full ahead into the subject of torture.

Next, consider the problem of what to do with captured "prisoners" who are believed to be terrorists.
...
The problem is that the current laws regulating the detention of combatants are near useless when it comes to this motley array of detainees.
...
Those who have valuable, real-time information will be interrogated, and - short of the absolute law against "torture" - there are few, if any, rules governing the nature of permissible interrogation when the object is not to elicit "incrimination confessions" for purposes of criminal prosecution, but rather to obtain "preventive intelligence" for the purpose of pre-empting future terrorist attacks.
...
There is today a vast "black hole" in the law. It is this hole that accounts for Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions and other phantom places and actions about which we know nothing. As a lifelong civil libertarian, I strongly oppose such gaps in the law.
...
The laws must be changed to permit democracies to fight fairly and effectively against those who threaten its citizens. To paraphrase Robert Jackson, who served as the United States chief prosecutor at Nuremberg - the law must not be "a suicide pact".

(A side remark for Indy: there is a world of difference between a libertarian and a liberal, look it up if you have time).

The main thrust of the article is that "I strongly oppose such gaps in the law". Mind you, Dershowitz does not say "I oppose torture in any case", he opposes the gaps in the law!

And here he comes head to head with many, for whom prohibition of torture in any circumstances is a moral imperative, the unbreakable taboo that does not bear exceptions. I can do much worse than to quote from numerous posts by Norm on the subject.

Along with the prohibitions of other core crimes against humanity - genocide amongst them - the prohibition of torture comes under the doctrine of jus cogens: it is a peremptory norm binding all states, and from which none may opt out; it protects a right from which derogation is not allowed even in war or national emergency.

Torture is morally wrong, and shouldn't be used.

Exposing people to the risk of torture is wrong because torture is wrong. It is an absolute wrong. It cannot be justified by the war on terror, or by anything.

Only in one single case - that of ticking bomb - Norm's certainty seems to be just a tiny bit short of absolute certainty.

That's always the sort of example wheeled out - torturing to avert an imminent catastrophe. But in matters of this gravity the law has to be formulated to embody, not the exceptional case, but the fundamental norm, general policy. And even in the exceptional case - when the heavens are about to fall - to torture is to commit a wrong and a crime. Those who represent and act for us, in democracies, need to know that. They are less likely to know it if they prevaricate over what the basic norms actually are.

I may be totally wrong, but the above does leave a trace of uncertainty. Norm does not say outright - no, we will not use torture even when facing the imminent catastrophe, just that the persons who issue the command and perform the deed should know that they are committing a crime.

I think that Dershowitz and Norm are approaching the issue of torture on two different planes. A person of law is less concerned with universal and absolute justice and morality, being totally absorbed by the realm of law. Norm, on the other hand, is concerned exclusively with morality of our acts. While the two realms interact (after all the change of law Dershowitz is calling for will definitely change our moral values in the long run), isn't there a solution to the ticking bomb quandary?

Tagging Norm.

Haveil Havalim # 76 is up

But first let's start with something different here. The picture above is not just a moderately good snapshot of a beautiful girl. Nor is it a representation of an Israeli view. Not even a mix of both.

This picture is a witness to a temporary presence in the Middle East of a most condensed source of energy known to the modern science. This source is known as Irina Tsukerman and it is changing the face of blogging as we know it. In a few years this source is going to revolutionize the modern jurisprudence, write several books on unrelated subjects (each of them will easily change the life of any person who reads it), break a few thousands hearts of American (and probably Israeli) males, give a new face to NYC and all this only for starters.

Now you can start to imagine what the last Haveil Havalim prepared by Irina looks like. Take a day off and get some food and drinks stocked before you start.

Thanks Irina.

P.S. In the comments to HH 76 some naive soul opined that the preparation of this humongous HH took a lot of time. He he. My guess will be about 5 minutes for this supercharged lady...

Mohammad, Alcohol and a Lightbulb

Watcher tells a heart-wrenching story about a prisoner who "says he woke up last weekend with a glass lightbulb in his anus." That is, the lightbulb was found indeed where he has said it was. There are some doubts re Mohammad's story on the reasons for that unusual location of the bulb.

At first I thought the guy was looking for a diamond, and expressed this opinion at Watcher's place. But a few minutes later, a bulb went off in my head (so to say): Mohammad was looking for the hiding place of the Hidden Imam!

Will the world ever know the truth about the results of Mohammad's search? I doubt it.

Converting the unspeakable or the circus comes to town

Rarely does the fate conjure events of such supreme irony: the chief Russian anti-Semite crying at the grave of his Jewish father.













It looks like an everyday scene in a cemetery. A man who is no longer young stands, mute and weeping, at his father's grave. This particular scene, however, was fraught with historic irony. The son is Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the deputy speaker of the Russian State Duma (the lower house of the Russian parliament) and the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, the third largest in the country. Zhirinovsky, an anti-Semitic nationalist, who has expressed esteem for Hitler, proposed that Russia offer asylum to Yasser Arafat and supported Saddam Hussein, found his father's grave in the Holon cemetery, outside Tel Aviv. Zhirinovskys quest for his roots- in the past he had denied that he had Jewish origins- ended, of all places in the world, in Israel.

Anyone who knows even a little about the career of this politician, showman and the Russian Duma main clown, will know a few moments of quiet happiness. The unspeakable is trying to reconcile with reality that pursued it relentlessly over the years of denial.

His eyes are wet with tears, and not for the last time. Is he genuinely moved? It's hard to know. He is a superb actor. "The best entertainer among the politicians," the daily Pravda called him a few years ago. But as far as one can tell from his expression and his body language, this time he is truly moved.

Genuinely moved? Zhirinovsky? You must be kidding, fella. This character has never in his life said or done anything consistent, being consistent only in one aspect: that of advancing his political career by any means, no matter how revolting or loathsome. He forgot the meaning of the word "truth" many years ago, and any answer his mouth utters is suspect.

Now he is actually admitting for the first time that he has known for his whole life that his father was a Jew, while at the same time continuing to insist that he never tried to hide this. Zigzags and contradictions are characteristic of the behavior of the most colorful politician in Russia and one of the most controversial in the world. One who is capable of saying one thing and a few minutes later saying the opposite.

That true. And when a clown like this one compliments you, start watching your back.

You claim that you are not anti-Semitic, but that's how you are viewed in Israel.

"That is also not true. I am Pro-Israel."

"Inform the Jewish people that if I am elected president or if I am in the government, you in Israel will have no problems, not with Iran's nuclear program and not with the Hamas terrorists. I will know how to deal with them. After all, my father is buried here, in your soil."

Right. We better start watching our backs right now.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com

France 1 - 0 Brazil

Nothing to add to it. Absolutely nothing. Aside of the following:











This is the only future for the fatso - to be carried out immediately.











This is the fate of the excessive hair on Smiley - the head to be shaved for eternity from now on.








And this for a certain coach.

Now some reorganization steps for Brazil:

• Brazil to become an absolute monarchy
• All activities not related directly or indirectly to preparations for the next Mondial to be abolished
• The king will carry out full responsibilities of the coach
• The king to be sacrificed after each Mondial, whether the team brings the Cup or not, in the latter case painfully
• A full size statue of failed king/coach to be placed in his home town as a spittoon
• A committee for study and implementation of Maya sacrificial rituals to be convened to prepare the schedule of other sacrificial activities
• Aside of fitness studies and dietary medicine, the only other science to be allowed is genetic engineering, details to be kept secret
• Use of the name Ronaldo is forbidden from now on

Other public and covert measures to follow.

See you in 2010.

Portugal - England

It was a long road. It was full of pain, sorrow and mediocre fussball.

Now it is over, and the boys could get the rest they definitely deserve. The other boys will destroy (probably already are destroying) the quiet burg of Gelsenkirchen.

What can I say to console the grieving? Two things only:

1. The English fans sure do sing well.
2. Since Monty Python never really got into the subject of football, this Crouch character is definitely filling that vacant area on the map of comic content.
3. Well, it is 44 years now. And counting.

FrontPage and the Superman

A funny review of a review in FrontPage by Roland. Enjoy.