web analytics

AND THEN THERE WERE TWO

By Pete Moore On January 4th, 2012 at 8:29 pm

Oy vey!

We know the script: if you don’t want war, if you don’t want to kill lots of foreigners in far off places, if you don’t want to tip all you have into defending Israel and if you don’t remove all potential limits to your violence, you’re a kook and a danger and you ought to be cast out from the kind of polite society which loves to talk about killing lots of people – because Iran will do all sorts of bad things to us and Israelis.

We all know how it goes, so it was interesting when Meir Dagan, ex-Director of Mossad, recently warned Israel about the consequences of military action against Iran. In speaking of the ‘regional war’ which would follow, he warned that “such a war would take a heavy toll in terms of loss of life and would paralyze life in Israel.” I submit, maybe it doesn’t matter if you don’t live in Israel.

It’s very interesting when you conssider that Tamir Pardo, current Director of Mossad, has just spoken in a similiar vein, saying that Iran “is not necessarily an existential threat to Israel”. Speaking to Israeli ambassadors, he also said that “Israel was using various means to foil Iran’s nuclear program and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel.”

So let’s be cool. Particularly, when some political blowhard stands on a stage and boasts of how much violence he will unleash on Israel’s behalf, it might do to remember that the last two men in control of Israel’s intelligence agency would shake their heads at such things. It might also do to remember that Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, recently told Congress that Israel can look after itself.

Mind how you go, and tell your local politician to grow up.

NO LONGER AN ALLY?

By David Vance On December 6th, 2011 at 9:46 pm

Clinton Obama Panetta.jpg

Caroline Glick in good form here…

“With vote tallies in for Egypt’s first round of parliamentary elections in it is abundantly clear that Egypt is on the fast track to becoming a totalitarian Islamic state. The first round of voting took place in Egypt’s most liberal, cosmopolitan cities. And still the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists received more than 60 percent of the vote. Run-off elections for 52 seats will by all estimates increase their representation.
And then in the months to come, Egyptian voters in the far more Islamist Nile Delta and Sinai will undoubtedly provide the forces of jihadist Islam with an even greater margin of victory.
Until the US-supported overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt served as the anchor of the US alliance system in the Arab world. The Egyptian military is US-armed, US-trained and US-financed. The Suez Canal is among the most vital waterways in the world for the US Navy and the global economy. Due to Mubarak’s commitment to stemming the tide of jihadist forces that threatened his regime, under his rule Egypt served as a major counter-terror hub in the US-led war against international jihad.
GIVEN EGYPT’S singular importance to US strategic interests in the Arab world, the Obama administration’s response to the calamitous election results has been shocking. Rather than sound the alarm bells, US President Barack Obama has celebrated the results as a victory for “democracy.”
Rather than warn Egypt that it will face severe consequences if it completes its Islamist transformation, the Obama administration has turned its guns on the first country that will pay a price for Egypt’s Islamic revolution: Israel.”
The UK has proven just as stupid, hailing the looming Rise of Islamic Egypt as a great step forward – when to any sentient being it is clearly an existential and physical threat to Israel. Yet Israel is singled out for the harsh words.  Caroline concludes;

“Under President Obama, the US government has become hostile to Israel’s national rights and strategic imperatives. Under Obama, the US is no longer Israel’s ally.”

THE ANTI-ISRAEL US AMBASSADOR

By David Vance On December 4th, 2011 at 2:51 pm

Did you read that the  Simon Wiesenthal Center has urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to “immediately and unequivocally disassociate herself from comments made by U.S. Ambassador Howard Gutman (That’s him in the middle, surprisingly) who told a Jewish group that, “A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism which should be condemned and Muslim hatred of Jews which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.”

“The Simon Wiesenthal Center calls on Secretary of State Clinton to immediately rebuke Gutman for excusing Muslim hatred of Jews,” said Rabbis Marvin Hier, Dean and Founder and Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean in a statement on behalf of the 400,000 constituent families of the leading Jewish Human Rights NGO.”America has always taken the lead in condemning hate in all its manifestations, not providing a moral free pass to extremists whose hate of Jews besmirches the Muslim religion and has spawned violent hatred against Jews across the Middle East and beyond.”

Gutman is either a fool or a knave but either way he is clearly unfit to hold such an important office. I do understand that ingratiating the US with Arab sentiment is central to Obama’s way of thinking but this man who essentially bought himself the Ambassadorship thanks to his fundraising for Obama in 2008 really does need rebuked. Will Clinton listen to SWC? I doubt it…

ENVIOUS?

By David Vance On November 12th, 2011 at 10:36 am

You will recall Obama’s snide comments about Israeli PM Netanyanhu. Read on…

 President Obama’s hot-miked conversation with French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested that he is frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — but Americans might be more frustrated with Obama than they are irritated by Netanyahu. “A poll conducted by the group Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that 52.3 percent of Americans rate Netanyahu positively, compared to 51.5 percent for Obama,” reports Israel Today Magazine. “The results of the poll were enthusiastically discussed on Israel’s Channel 10 News on Thursday.”

So, Netanyahu – more popular with Americans than President Haughty!

GAFFE

By David Vance On November 8th, 2011 at 3:56 pm

Cross-posted from Biased BBC. Sue examines “the gaffe”…

“The open mic blunder has been reported variously as:

“I cannot stand him. He’s a liar,” Sarkozy told Obama. The US president responded by saying: “You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day.” (Guardian)
****
“I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar,” Sarkozy told Obama (Haaretz)
****
“I can’t stand him any more, he’s a liar,” Mr Sarkozy said in French.
“You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day,” Mr Obama replied.” (BBC)
( It doesn’t state the language in which Obama’s retort was uttered)
****
Whether it’s ‘can’t stand’, or ‘can’t bear’, or whether the conversation began with:
“Mr Obama was taking Mr Sarkozy to task for voting in favour of the Palestinian bid….” (BBC)
or:
“for not warning the US that France would vote in favour of the Palestinians’”(Guardian)
is fairly immaterial, as is the extraneous “but me,” in the BBC’s report, (they probably stuck it in there just in case readers were too stupid to grasp Obama’s ironic self pity) it’s the exposure of the childish and trivial nature of these gossipy disrespectful playground-level remarks by supposedly two of the most important intellectual pigmies in the world that’s so painful.

Memories of Daniel Bernard, the French Ambassador’s infamous remark made in 2001:”All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel.”

The BBC will be feeling a warm glow of satisfaction that Obama agrees with them about Netanyahu, something that also implicitly confirms their assumption that Obama’s apparent support of Israel can be purely put down to electioneering.
Now they can get on with picking away at the scab of Iran’s nuclear threat, and hoping Israel will act alone so that after heaving a surreptitious sigh of relief (which I hope hope some mics inadvertently catch) the rest of the world can blame Israel for unnecessary aggression and for not waiting patiently for some non-existent diplomatic effort by the West to take effect”

SUFFER MORE LITTLE CHILDREN…

By David Vance On October 19th, 2011 at 7:34 pm

Gilad Shalit release: freed Palestinian prisoner vows to 'sacrifice' her life

So, the first wave of terrorists have been released by Israel in exchange for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. I am pleased that so many of my Jewish friends share my view that  this is a (well-intentioned) but FOOLISH deal.  Here’s an update

“As she returned to her family home in northern Gaza, Wafa al-Bis said she would seize any opportunity to mount another suicide mission – and encouraged dozens of cheering schoolchildren to follow her example. (This is the Palestinian maternal instinct in action…)

Bis was one of hundreds of Palestinian militants freed by Israel on Tuesday in the first phase of a prisoner swap agreed with Hamas, Gaza’s Islamist overlords, to win the freedom of Sgt Maj Shalit after five years in solitary confinement.

But as Israel celebrated the return of its captive soldier, her words will chill critics of the deal who argue that many of the 1,027 Palestinians who are to be released from prison will rededicate themselves to violence once they have been freed.”

If this “lady” succeeds, she will bring death to some Israeli family. Bibi – is it worth it?

I am amazed how much of the MSM casually reports this blood lust from Palestinians and then goes on to tell us how AWFUL life is for these people. The likes of Ms Bis is a savage and the sooner the IDF grant her the expressed wish to be ” a martyr” the better.

IS IT WORTH IT?

By David Vance On October 18th, 2011 at 8:14 am

I had to laugh at the BBC’s suggestion that Israeli soldier Gilat Shalit has been “detained” by Hamas for the past five years. No he hasn’t. He was kidnapped, saw several of his colleagues killed in the same terror attack, and then incarcerated by Hamas.

Today see the choreography of the phased release. 1000 Palestinian terrorists for one Israeli soldier. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Here’s what Khaled Mashal, Chairman of Hamas Political Bureau in Damascus, Syria (sic) had to say about it.

“Those released will return to armed struggle. It is a great national achievement.”

Got that? A clear proclamation that MORE terrorism will result from the release of these terrorists. No ifs or buts, this is an insight into what lies in store. It also tells you all you need to know about the scum that are Hamas.

This is the blood sacrifice that Netanyahu has concluded is the right deal. I say it is the wrong deal and I wonder what the Israeli PM will say to the next of kin of the next Israeli family that lose a loved one to these killers being set free. Is it worth it?

SIGNED IN BLOOD…

By David Vance On October 16th, 2011 at 10:38 am

But not at any price.

I know that I have a reputation as an implacable supporter of Israel. I am proud to be associated with this beacon of liberty and freedom but contrary to what some allege, I am prepared to criticise Israel when it does wrong. And releasing hundreds of terrorists in exchange for the liberty of Gilad Shalit is WRONG.

Israel has published the names of 477 Palestinian prisoners who are to be released in exchange for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Israel’s President Shimon Peres has begun the process of pardoning them, his office said. They are set to be freed on Tuesday in the first phase of the deal. A further 550 prisoners are to be released after Sgt Shalit returns home. Sgt Shalit was seized by Palestinian militants in 2006, aged 19.

I can fully sympathise with the family of the kidnapped Israeli soldier but rewarding Hamas is always wrong. I’m not the only one who thinks like this – here is Caroline Glick who worked in Netanyahu’s office at one time…

“The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts.
IT IS a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.
Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable. This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.”

And so the Israeli government, and Bibi in particular, is WRONG. As I said at the beginning, I am prepared to criticise Israel.

NO SUCH THING AS A FRENCH STATE….

By David Vance On October 7th, 2011 at 9:59 am

Nicolas Sarkozy

So, according to Le Canard Enchaîne, President Nicolas Sarkozy thinks the idea of a Jewish state is “silly.”

“It is silly to talk about a Jewish state,” Sarkozy said in reference to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s assertion no true peace could be made until officials in Ramallah accepted Israel’s essential Jewish identity. “It would be like saying that this table is Catholic,” he added. “There are two million Arabs in Israel.” Sarkozy also placed sole blame for failed negotiations between Israel and PA officials on Netanyahu’s shoulders.

Steven Plaut has taken this logic somewhere quite interesting;

“These French politicians may be on to something important. Never one to back down from a challenge, I have prepared a set of proposals for consideration by the French people, so they too can achieve a full, lasting, and just peace with their historic opponents.

First, we all agree that territory must not be annexed by force.

Therefore, we can also agree that Germany has a moral right to demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine, for the French aggression in 1945 and its consequent occupation must not be rewarded. “A full withdrawal for full peace” should operate here. Further, France must agree to the return and rehabilitation of all ethnic Germans expelled from Alsace-Lorraine after World Wars I and II, as well as all those they define as their descendents.

But this, of course, is just the first step toward a solution, as no aggression can be rewarded—and France has much other stolen territory to return. It took Corsica from Genoa, Nice and Savoy from Piedmont; as the successor state, Italy must get back all these lands. By similar token, territories grabbed from the Habsburgs go back to Austria, including Franche-Comté, Artois, and historic Burgundy. The Roussillon area (along the Pyrenées) must be returned to Spain, its rightful owner. And Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, and Gascony must be returned to their rightful owners, the British royal family.

Not even this not enough for the sake of peace. Brittany and Languedoc must be granted autonomy at once, recognizing the Breton and Occitan Liberation organizations as their legal rulers. This leaves the French government in control over the Île de France (the area around Paris).

That, however, still does not solve the problem of the Holy City of Paris, sacred to artists, gourmets, and adulterers. The Corsicans obviously have a historic claim to the Tomb of the Emperor Napoleon, their famed son, as well as the Invalides complex and beyond. For the sake of peace, is it not too much to ask that Paris be the capital for two peoples? The French authorities must agree to prevent French Parisians from even entering the sacred tomb area, lest this upset the Corsicans. The Saint Chapelle and the Church of Notre Dame of course will be internationalized, under joint Vatican-art historical auspices.

Indeed, the French should consider it a compliment of the highest order that so many people see Paris as an international city. The French have nothing to complain of. They will enjoy the benefits of peace and retain control of the Champs Elysées.

Actually, come to think of it, even the Champs Elysées may be too much. Recalling the French position that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, perhaps the true French capital is not Paris at all, but Vichy.”

Exactly.

THE AUSCHWITZ BORDERS

By David Vance On October 2nd, 2011 at 8:51 am

Here are a few home truths of the “Palestinians”;

Serving his sixth year of a four-year term that expired on January 9, 2009, the unelected president of a people who first came into existence in 1964 appeared before the United Nations and demanded a homeland.  Mahmoud Abbas, once again calling himself the President of the Palestinian Authority (PA), invoked a sense of legitimacy that could have made sense only in an organization that gave the world the biggest swindle in the history of humanity — oil for food.

In an organization where Gaddafi’s Libya chairedthe Commission on Human Rights, where Saddam Hussein’s Iraq headed the Commissionon Disarmament, and where Hezbollah’s Lebanon sits on the Security Council, Abbas’s presence as the voice of the Palestinian people was in keeping with the farce the U.N. has become.  As Abbas’s grandfatherly image flashed across the TV screen in a Gaza restaurant, the Hamas-run General Investigative Services were busy showing Gaza’s inhabitants how much Abbas spoke for them by forcing them to turn off the TV.  The restaurant’s owner was arrested.

Is it any wonder that Abbas got such a cheer in this crucible of hatred of Israel?

“Abbas has torn up Oslo.  Israel should follow his example.

It is far better to face an intractable enemy from the vantage point of strategic depth and the high ground of the Judean hills than it is from a narrow isthmus of strategic vulnerability.  Israel’s original boundaries — the Auschwitz borders — were conceived by the British to enable them to withdraw and make the Jews vulnerable to the Arabs, who intended to push them into the sea.  Remember, on the vote for partition, Britain abstained and did not even recognize the Jewish state until it had beaten back the Arab armies.

Abbas, like Arafat before him, has revealed his true intentions — though they have long been well-known in the Arab world.  As the PA Representative to Lebanon Abbas Zaki noted two  years ago, the peace process is simply a different route to destroy the Jewish state.  Jewish-American progressives and the Israeli left will still adhere to their mantra of  making concessions to murderers as the way to peace.  But those who understand that Abbas  has no intention of creating a viable and lasting peace will see that as Arafat said immediately after Oslo, the only peace Israel will get is the Hudaibia with the Meccans: the faux peace Mohammed created to build up his forces to enable him to ultimately triumph over his enemies. “

Hear Hear. Excellent summation of the intentions of Abbas, and one the MSM will studiously ignore.