Did sexism defeat Fiorinna and Whitman?

Carly Fiorinna and Meg Whitman lost in their attempts to defeat Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown for senator and governor of California, respectively.  Why did they lose?  For any number of reasons which I do not want to deal with now.  Here is one reason you will not hear, neither from the mainstream media, nor from either of their campaigns, nor from conservative commentators: sexism.  And why will you not?  Well, for Fiorinna, it's quite obvious: she was running against another woman.  For Whitman, it's also obvious, but for a different reason: she's a conservative, and when conservative women, -blacks, -Hispanics, or other "minority groups" lose, they do not claim that it was due to bigotry against them.  They take their losses like mature adults, regroup, and ready themselves for the next political fight.  Are there exceptions?  There must be; I just can't think of any.  In general, though, this assertion is true.

Liberals, on the other hand, are quick to play the racism-, sexism-, or other -ism- card frequently.  Don't take my word for it; just read nearly every one of the New York Times' columnists, be it Dowd, Rich, Blow, Krugman, Kristof, or others.  Why did person X not vote for President Obama?  He's a racist.  Why did person X not support President Obama's health care legislation?  He's a racist.  Why did person Y not vote for John McCain?  It can't be that he's an age-ist; he's principled!  And why did person Y not vote for Sarah Palin?  He's not a sexist; he's principled!  Funny how the bigotry charges overwhelmingly go one way, isn't it?  Do most Democratic candidates or there supporters make these charges?  I think not.  When the charges are made, however, you can bet the farm that they will be coming from the liberal side.

Why is this?  The reason is simple.  Liberals generally try to silence the other side by throwing out labels which discredit them: sexist, racist, homophobic, et al.  Once you have labeled your opponent as such, dialogue is unnecessary; how can one speak with such a bigoted person?  And then you need never deal with the issues.  Liberals claim that they wish to engage in a spirited debate about any number of issues.  Problem is, though, they just can't seem to find any non-sexist, -racist, -homophobic, et al people to talk to.  Such a shame, it is.

So much for freedom of speech at NPR

NPR's Juan Williams says in an interview that when he gets on to an airplane and sees Muslims in "Muslim garb," he "get[s] nervous."  Then he gets fired for these comments.

Imagine if Mr. Williams had said the same thing about Jews or Christians.  Would he have been fired?  Of course not; far from being offended, people would think he was delusional.  When was the last time Jews murdered others in the name of Judaism, or Christians in the name of Christianity?  Stumped?  You're not alone.  For Muslims, however, one need only go back a few weeks (no matter when you are reading this).  Is this tragic?  Certainly.  Is it true, though?  To deny this is to deny the earth is round.   But NPR is much more concerned with being politically correct (read denying reality) than with transmitting truth.  As I have said to many friends, the issue is not whether or not Muslim terrorists are misrepresenting their faith; that is for Islamic scholars to decide.  It is an undeniable fact, however, that for the majority of Muslim terrorists, they think that they are faithfully performing their god's will.  Are they all idiots, or is there something else going on here?

So Juan Williams says what is on millions of Americans' minds.  Are millions of Americans anti-Muslim bigots?  (To the media elite, that is a rhetorical question; it is a given.)  Or, in fact, are they just not oblivious to the events unfolding before their eyes, and do they just want to protect their families?

Are the majority of Muslims terrorists?  The notion is absurd.  But even according to the most conservative estimates, 10% of the Muslim world supports violent jihad to impose shariah.  Friends, that's 130 million people.  That's nearly one-third the population of the United States, and more than four times the population of Canada.  The majority of Muslims are not Arabs.  But the majority of Arabs are Muslims.  Why is this obvious truth any less legitimate than pointing out that the majority of terrorists are Muslims?

Considering there have been exactly zero protests by American Muslims against religious violence committed in the name of their faith, cut us all some slack if we are a bit more suspicious of someone dressed in Muslim garb than we would be of a Hasid from Brooklyn, an Evangelical from San Antonio, or a nun from Seattle.

Justice is served; IDF kills Hamas terrorists

At the end of August, four Israelis were murdered in a drive-by shooting near Hebron.   Yitzhak and Talya Ames, Kochava Even-Haim, and Avishai Shindler were shot as they drove to their home in the town of Beit Haggai.  At the time, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak promised that the perpetrators would be found, and they would be made to pay for their crimes.

It did not take long for justice to be served.

A month and a half after the murders, the Israel Defense Forces eliminated the murderers, at their hideout in Hebron.

While this does not, of course, bring back their innocent victims, it does bring justice to the world.  For murderers of innocents to continue to breathe free air is an affront to the God Who created all human beings in His image.

May God grant the IDF the safety and strength to hunt down and eliminate the other murderers of innocents.  If they can bring the terrorists to justice, fine.  If justice must be brought to them, so be it.

But justice will be served.

(By the way, before beginning their assault on the hideout, the IDF called on the occupants to leave the house, thereby eliminating the element of surprise.  Another example of the high ethical standards by which Israel holds it soldiers.)

Why doesn't anyone get it? Settlements have NEVER been the issue!

• Listening to leaders around the world, one would think that if only those darn Jewish settlements would disappear once and for all, or at least stop having the nerve to expand their homes to accomodate more family members, peace would immediately descend on the Middle East.  Palestinians would no longer have an excuse to target innocent Israelis, Yemen and Saudi Arabia would end their border dispute, and Iran would change its mind about wanting to anihilate Israel with a nuclear weapon.  Only someone who is completely ignorant of the history of this region could believe such foolishness.  And foolishness it is.  Consider:

• 1920 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1929 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1936-1939 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1947 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  (They rejected the UN Partition Plan (having rejected a number of previous partition plans, which would have established a Palestinian Arab state on much more of the land than they are asking for now.)  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1948 - Arabs attack the newly-founded State of Israel, in hopes of destroying it at birth, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1948-1967 - Arabs launch terrorist attacks within the internationally-recognized borders of Israel, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1964 - PLO is founded, three years before a single settlement was built.  The Palestine (not Palestinian; a major distinction) Liberation Organization opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1967 - Arabs mass their armies on Israel's borders, openly proclaiming, "Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map" (Iraqi president Abdul Rahman Arif).  As of the start of the Six Day War, not one settlement had been built.  Yet the Arabs still wanted to destroy Israel.  Why?  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?

How many more examples need be given?  The obstacle to peace in the Middle East/Israel/Palestine has never been "the settlements."  It has always been the Arab refusal to accept any sovereign Jewish presence anywhere in the Land of Israel.

Was any attempt made to establish a Palestinian state in the lands now claimed for one, when the Arabs controlled those lands?  Did the Palestinians even clamor for a state on those lands then?  No, they did not, because they felt that eventually, they would liberate the rest of Israel, turning it into a cohesive Palestine.  Yet in attempt after attempt, they have failed.  Israel stubbornly survived.  And continues to survive.

So they changed their tactics.  We do not want all of Israel, they say.  We just want the "Occupied Territories," nothing more.  Sorry, but that ship has sailed.  You Palestinians had chance after chance to have those territories, plus much more, a number of times in history, and you rejected each offer, and squandered each opportunity.

Before there were settlements, you attacked us.  When there are settlements, you attack us.  We will be damned if we will give you another chance to attack us, after there are no more settlements.  Because we both know, dear Palestinian, that if there would be no settlements, you'd just come up with a new excuse to attack us.  So we'll keep those "peace-process-impeding" settlements, thank you very much.

We have come home.  And we are staying.

PA cannot bring itself to condemn terrorism, sans caveats.

They just can't do it; it's almost like they are physically incapable of doing so.  Yasser Arafat could not do it, and Mahmoud Abbas serves as a worthy heir to this tradition.  Which tradition, you ask?  The Palestinian tradition of, when they actually do condemn a terrorist act, adding a caveat.  Why do they condemn the act?  Because it is "contrary to Palestinian interests," or it is "harmful to the peace process."  What these "condemnations" are actually saying is, of course, that if the particular terrorist act were not "contrary to Palestinian interests," or were not "harmful to the peace process," they would be acceptable (welcomed?).

Here's an idea: why does not the Palestinian leadership condemn terrorist acts because they are wrong, period?!  Is this such a difficult concept?  Well, for Mahmoud Abbas, it is too difficult.  This concept is not on his radar screen.  This man is a copy of Yasser Arafat, just better groomed, and with a more presentable appearance.  He, like Arafat, say the right things to western media, and the media dutifully fawn over him.  They declare him to be the most moderate Palestinian leader out there, a man with whom Israel can do business, and a man who truly wants to end the conflict once and for all.  Yet this man of peace consistently allows messages of hatred, violence, and antisemitism to be broadcast on official PA television, radio, and print media.  He says that he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.  He declares that should Israel not extend the freeze on building in Judea and Samaria (a requirement not mentioned in any one of the peace agreements thus far signed, as opposed to the Palestinian requirement to cease any and all incitement), he will walk away from the negotiating table.  This is a man with whom Israel must negotiate?

Why are the vast majority of those in the media, and on the left side of the political spectrum (and, sadly, too many on the right side), so eager to embrace Mahmoud Abbas, despite his obvious non-commitment to peace?  The man cannot even simply declare, "I condemn the terrorist attack near Hebron, in which four Israelis were murdered.  The deliberate murder of innocents is wrong."  I believe that those who are enthused with Abbas are willfully fooling themselves.  They have so convinced themselves that all people desire to live in peace with their neighbors, and are, deep down, good, that they cannot bring themselves to deal with the reality staring them in the face.  They come up with a myriad of excuses as to why this or that inciting statement should not be taken at face value: It's just for internal consumption, they say.  He needs to allow freedom of the press, they say.  He is the most moderate Palestinian leader there will be for many years, they say.  Well, I, for one, am not consoled by any of these notions.  Can anyone imagine similar things being said about an Israeli leader who allowed such rhetoric to be regularly expressed in official Israeli media outlets, and who "condemned" an Israeli terrorist act on the grounds that it "contradicted Israel interests"?  The man would be run out of town, and justifiably so.

But the Palestinian leadership has always gotten a pass on statements like these.  Those who issue the pass may think that they are advancing the peace process.  In truth, however, they are sending a clear message: We do not expect anything better from you, Palestinians.  We do not hold you to the same standards of civility by which we hold nearly every other people.

And the Palestinian people, and their leaders, get this message, loud and clear.

Islam seeks to dominate. Judaism & Christianity do not.

The fundamental goal of Islam is that all people submit to the rules of Islam (shari'ah), with all which that entails.  Whether your next door Muslim neighbor wants you personally to be a Muslim is irrelevant.  At its core, Islam seeks to dominate the world with its teachings and practices.  Recall that the word Islam means "submission" - submission to the will of Allah, which translates as submission to shari'ah (Muslim law).  It does not mean, as many Muslims and Muslim apologists would like us to believe, peace, shalom.  The word Islam may have etymological roots in shalom, but the word means submission.  Period.

Ah, you say, but does not Christianity want the same thing, for all people to recognize Jesus Christ as their personal savior?  Yes, it does.  But that is essentially where it ends with Christianity.  As Paul taught in the New Testament, the main law now is faith in Jesus.  Not in rituals, but in beliefs.  Christianity does not have a detailed set of rules which affect nearly every aspect of a person's life, as Islam does (and Judaism does, as well).  There was no law in Christianity on which the Medieval Inquisitors based their torture of innocents in order to have them accept Jesus.  They merely felt that it was better for the non-believer to suffer temporarily in this world than eternally in the next.  If the non-believer would have accepted Jesus and gone to church, then that would have been that.  But Christianity would not have directed the minutiae of his life  So, no, dear reader, Christianity does not demand the same of people as Islam does.

Judaism strikes a middle road between Islam and Christianity.  While Judaism does make demands of the non-Jew, these demands are not in the ritual realm, but rather in the ethical realm.  In Jewish tradition, there are seven laws which apply universally.  They are called the Seven Commandments of Noah's Children (Sheva Mitzvot B'nei No'ach):

1. Do not eat a limb torn from a living animal.  (Apparently, this was a problem in the ancient world.)
   
2. Do not curse God.
3. Do not steal.
4. Establish a court system to enforce the other six laws.
5. Do not murder.
6. Do not serve idolatry.
7. Do not commit sexual immorality.

Note, there is no desire for the non-Jew to become Jewish, to keep the Sabbath every Saturday, to refrain from eating pork or shellfish, to light Hanukkah candles, to fast on Yom Kippur, to eat matzah on Passover, etc.  The goal of Judaism is simply this: to bring the world to ethical monotheism.  Believe in one God, and treat each other respectfully.  That is all.  Judaism believes that all good people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, can earn a spot in the World to Come.  If one wishes to accept the myriad other laws which Judaism demands of its adherents, he or she is welcome to join the Jewish people.  But submitting the world to halakhah (Jewish law) is not Judaism's goal.

A microcosm of the fundamental difference between these three religions occurred in September 2006 in Minneapolis.  A group of Somali taxi drivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport refused to transport passengers who were carrying alcohol, as drinking is a violation of Islam.  (The airport's response was to accommodate the drivers, proposing that non-alcohol taxis put a different light on the tops of their cars.  A different response might have been: "You have a problem with your passengers bringing a legal substance into your taxi?  Get another job.")  Can anyone fathom a Christian driver refusing a fare because the passenger was eating a hamburger on a Friday?  How about a Jewish driver refusing a passenger wolfing down a ham and cheese sandwich?  The notion is preposterous.  But it is not preposterous at all when dealing with Islam.

I am not arguing, of course, that many Muslims would agree with the taxi drivers.  Most of them would recognize that the taxi drivers' complaint was absurd.  But this story speaks volumes about what a world dominated by Islam would look like.  And dominate the world with shari'ah, with dictating the details of life, is what fundamental Islam wishes to do.  Not fundamental Christianity.  Not fundamental Judaism.

If these words offend you, I am frightened for you.  One should not be offended by the truth.  Troubled, angered - yes.  But not offended.  If my analysis is wrong, please let me know.  But if my analysis is right, please let your friends and family know.  We are engaged in a life and death struggle against those who seek to impose the will of Allah, either peacefully or through force of arms, upon all of us.

Remember the Minneapolis taxi drivers.  Do not say you did not know what was coming.

The 6'8" height of arrogance - LeBron James

Does LeBron James think he is God's gift to basketball?  In seven years in the NBA, he has won a grand total of zero NBA championships.  Most recently, Michael Jordan won six; Kobe Bryant has five.  LeBron wants to be mentioned in the same breath as them.  The Cleveland Cavaliers, perennial laughingstocks of the league, did all they could to obtain the right players around him to build a championship-winning team.

But it didn't work.  And now, at a much-publicized press conference which smacked of tremendous self-glorification, King James has left Cleveland for Miami, where he says he feels he will have a better chance at winning a title.  Crazy question here: Perhaps it was not the Cavaliers' fault, but rather LeBron's?  Maybe he did not play well enough in the playoffs, and it had nothing to do with the team Cleveland built?  I doubt this thought has even crossed LeBron's mind, because in his head, he is owed an NBA championship, he has earned it.

The city of Cleveland embraced him, a native Ohioan, as its favorite son.  They made him who he is.  And now, he has unceremoniously dumped them, on the grounds that Miami has the tools to win him a championship.  He has shown his true colors.  He never wanted the Cavs to win; he wanted to win.  Plenty of great NBA players never won a championship, and they did not jump ship after their team, and they, put in years of effort to win one (see Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Karl Malone, and others).

Let us say that James wins this coming season, or next, in Miami.  Will it be exciting for him?  Of course.  But will it be as sweet as if he had stayed in Cleveland, put in more effort, and won with the Cavs?  Of course not.  Since we live in an age of instant gratification, James feels he is entitled to win an NBA title.  Since he knows he is great, he believes that this is coming to him.  And if he has not won already, it must be due to his team, not due to him.  He sees his arch-rival, Kobe Bryant, filling up his fingers with rings, and he feels that should be him.

I used to respect LeBron James.  He struck me as one of the good guys, a guy you could not help but root for.  He turned around the mindset of a city that has virtually only known sports losers.  He was Cleveland, and Cleveland was him.  He could have made true the Drew Carrey Show's theme song: Cleveland Rocks!  Instead, he showed himself much more concerned for his own achievements than his team's.

I'm a Knicks and Spurs fan.  I did not want LeBron to sign with the Knicks; the team is well beneath him., and I knew the Spurs were not a possibility.  This season, I will be very happy if the Cavs win the championship.  They deserve it much more than the ungrateful King James.

More risks for peace?

We constantly hear how "both sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must take "risks for peace."  Prime Minister Netanyahu just announced at a press conference with President Obama that he was willing to do so.  The President said it was vital for Israel to do so.

Nonsense.  How many more "risks for peace" does Israel need to take?

1. Israel transferred thousands of weapons to the Palestinian Authority security forces, only to have those weapons turned against it during the Second Intifada.
2. Israel turned over territory in Judea and Samaria to full Palestinian civil and security control, only to have a number of these cities turn into terrorist hotbeds, from which originated many suicide bombers (e.g. Jenin, Qalqilya, Nablus et al).
3. Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, destroying Jewish communities and forcibly expelling their residents, only to have it become a launching pad of thousands of Qassam rockets into Israel.
4. Israel forcibly expelled four Jewish communities in northern Samaria.

Even if one believes that Israel is (much) more in the wrong in this conflict, one cannot seriously claim that Israel has not taken enough risks for peace.  By contrast, the Palestinians have taken virtually no tangible "risks for peace."

1. Have they taught their children that they should live in peace with their Israeli neighbors?  No, they teach them to hate all Jews (not just Israelis, highlighting the religious, not only political, element to this conflict), using language not seen since Nazi Germany.
2. Have they announced that suicide bombings are morally reprehensible?  No, they merely state that such attacks are counterproductive to achieving Palestinian nationalist goals.
3. Have they amended their various charters calling for Israel's destruction?  No (the 1998 Palestinian parliament vote in the presence of President Clinton was invalid, even according to the PLO's Covenant's own rules).  Hamas certainly maintains its open opposition to Israel's existence.
4. Have they ended incitement through their official media outlets (not from a fringe group)?  No, they constantly broadcast hate-filled, antisemitic sermons by PA-sanctioned imams.  (See MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch.)
   

So I ask those who call on Israel to take risks for peace, what more would you ask of Israel?  Which other risks would you like Israel to take?  For the risks it has already taken, thousands of Israelis have paid with their blood.  Yet Israel is called upon to give more and more, with nary a peep about the Palestinians' constant violations of their accepted obligations.

The bottom line is this: Israel has accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in its midst (though I completely reject this).  The Palestinians in particular, and the Arab/Muslim world in general, do not accept the existence of a tiny Jewish state in the middle of their world.  That is all one needs to know about the current conflict.  If the Palestinians genuinely wanted a state, they could have had one many times in the past.  But anything short of all of Israel, they rejected each and every overture.  But it is not a state they want; it is the destruction of Israel.

If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace tomorrow.  If Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be no Israel tomorrow.  No more Israeli "risks for peace," please.

More moral equivalency from J Street

Poor J Street.  They just can't help themselves.  As much as they would like to call themselves "pro-Israel," the simple fact is that any group which regards the Israelis and Palestinians as equally culpable for the lack of a peace agreement cannot reasonably call itself "pro-Israel."  Even if one hates the State of Israel (which I do NOT believe J Street does, by the way), one cannot seriously claim that the two sides share equal blame for there not being a Palestinian state yet.  I would much rather debate with someone who claims Israel is more at fault then with one who claims both sides are equally guilty.  The former might be persuaded by evidence; the latter is obviously more interested in political correctness than in discovering truth.

J Street falls into the latter category.  See this ad which they produced recently.  Here are my comments, with citations from the ad in bold:

• We feel deeply the sense of pain and anguish over the violence and insecurity wrought on Israel by Hamas through rockets and terror - Kudos to J Street for stating this.  Too many liberal/Left groups cannot bring themselves to condemn Hamas' actions as terror; J Street did.  The problem is, though, despite their claim to "feel deeply" the pain of Israel, they do not support actions which would go a long way to minimizing the terror emanating from Gaza, such as bombing strategic targets as many times as it takes until the threat is neutralized.
• We are steadfast in remaining true to the vision of Israel's founders in creating a democratic, Jewish state—a nation that upholds the highest human and Jewish values - I hope J Street is not suggesting that Israel has strayed from this vision.  Israel is a model of how to protect the rights of all its citizens, even those citizens who openly call for the dismantling of the Jewish state (see a number of Arab Members of Knesset).  Israel's actions consistently demonstrate its commitment to the dignity of all people (certainly with exceptions, but one should compare Israel to other democracies, not to a Utopian country), and its army is among the most moral in the entire world.  How many armies call in air strikes to its targets to warn them to leave the battlefield (Gaza War)?  How many armies fight in house to house, hand to hand, combat instead of just bombing the (heck) out of its enemies (Jenin)?
• The international controversy surrounding the attack on the Gaza flotilla........concern[s] us deeply - It was NOT an attack on the Gaza flotilla.  It was an action of self-defense in response to an unprovoked, merciless attack by some of the passengers on the sixth boat.  They planned to attack the IDF commandos, and had no interest in actually delivering humanitarian goods to the Gazan people.  And in the act of self-defense, nine Hamas collaborators (and that is exactly what they were; please do not fool yourself) were killed.
• ...the growing isolation of Israel concern[s] us deeply - Why?  The issue should be, was/is Israel right or wrong?  If the world supports Israel, great!  If the world opposes Israel, great!  What is important is the righteousness of Israel's cause, not whether it has "the world" 's support.  A world which condemns Israel overwhelmingly more than any other nation, including the worst human rights violators, while granting these nations spots on a human rights council or women's rights group, is not a world whose approval I wish to gain.  Period.
• ...the rhetoric and actions that feed fear and violence, emanating from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders... - This is the giveaway.  "Emanating from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders"?!  The Israeli side consistently expresses support for a Two-State Solution, however misguided it may be, in my opinion; the Palestinians refuse to speak to the Israeli side.  Israeli schoolchildren learn a curriculum of peace and reconciliation; the PA-controlled media broadcast messages of hate, violence, and rejection of Israel as a Jewish state.  How, exactly, does an unprecedented ten-month building freeze in Judea and Samaria (from an allegedly right wing Israeli government) qualify as an action which feeds fear and violence?  Why can J Street not have the intellectual honesty to recognize that one side has consistently demonstrated its commitment to peace, while the other side consistently rejects these peace overtures?  If we cannot admit this uncomfortable truth, there will never be peace in this region.
• Od lo avda tikvateinu / We have not lost our hope - What a perversion of the words of Israel's national anthem!  Was it the hope of Israel's founders to have a Jewish and Arab state west of the Jordan?  No, they accepted the 1947 Partition Plan reluctantly.  Something was better than nothing.  But the Arabs rejected it out of hand, and tried to destroy the nascent Jewish state in its infancy (and this before even one settlement was constructed in Judea, Samaria, or Gaza!).  Ever since Israel extended its hand in peace, that Arabs have either slapped it away, or shaken it with their own hand, dripping with Jewish blood.  This last line in particular is disgusting, and belies the notion that J Street is concerned with Israel's best interests.  They either do not care about reality, or are in willful denial of it. 
  

The notion that Israel needs to be encouraged to make peace, either by the American government or by concerned Diaspora Jews, is laughable.  Israel need not prove its desire for peace anymore.  Let J Street take out ads in Arab newspapers; then there will be some glimmer of hope for peace.  Let J Street stop being a part of the problem, and start being a part of the solution.

Dutch lawmaker calls for Jordan to become Palestine

Geert Wilders, leader of a right-wing Dutch political party, is calling for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to be renamed "Palestine."  (See also Melanie Philips' article from the Spectator.)  In his view, this will solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as then the Palestinians will have a homeland to go to.  Before you say, "Huh?," remember that until Winston Churchill cut off eastern Palestine from Jewish settlement and gave it to the Hashemite clan from Saudi Arabia, all of Mandate Palestine, (modern Jordan and Israel), was to be the Jewish homeland.  Today, at least 70% of the Jordanian population is Palestinian.  It is not Israel's fault that Jordan was given to the wrong people, and its security today should not be threatened because of this error.

Let me state it unequivocally: I support Geert Wilders' idea.  For those who think this is untenable, I would submit that it is no more untenable than the notion that there can reasonably be an Israeli state, and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace, west of the Jordan River.  Considering that, overall, the Palestinians have not yet accepted the notion of a Jewish state anywhere west of the Jordan (see their newspaper articles and television shows at MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch), and that a majority of Israelis (I being an exception) have accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip and in most of Judea and Samaria, the Two State Solution is no solution at all.  Only one side has accepted this.  There is no chance for this idea to be successful.  Yet politicians from all sides maintain that this can happen in our time.

So why not try Geert Wilders' idea?  We have had nearly seventeen years of trying to implement a Two State Solution west of the Jordan.  Let's try a Two State Solution using both sides of the Jordan.

Win by more than five goals? YOU LOSE!

An Ottawa soccer league has ruled that if a team wins by more than five goals, the team loses the game.

You read that correctly. They lose the game.

Why the rule change? So that the losing teams not feel bad about the fact that they got shellacked. Heaven forbid they actually learn how to deal with failure, to lose with dignity and class, and how to overcome adversity. In the minds of the league’s incredibly foolish leaders, the children’s self-esteem must come first.

But how dumb do they think the kids on the losing team are? Will they not notice that the leading team has stopped playing hard? Will this not be insulting to them? Of course they will notice, and of course it will be insulting. Children are not dumb. When I lived in San Antonio, I served as a referee in a youth basketball league in which the scoreboard would never show a deficit of more than twenty points, for fear of dispiriting the losing team. Do you think they did not realize they were getting slaughtered? In this league, too, every participant received a trophy (and the exact same trophy), whether they finished in first or last place. (It goes without saying that there were no playoffs.) They basically got the trophy for breathing. In all my years of playing sports, I have won two trophies. Just two. One for a 1986 relay race, and one for a 1993 high school softball championship. Those trophies mean so much to me, because I earned them. There were no handouts back then.

Is there anyone reading this who cannot figure out if this league’s organizers have liberal or conservative leanings? (Even if they are actually conservatives, which I doubt, the action taken is certainly a liberal action.) In the liberal mind, feelings rule. They must do everything in their power to ensure that children do not feel bad about anything. Never mind the fact that one grows much more from one’s setbacks than from one’s successes. Never mind the fact that a baseball player can fail 70% of the time at the plate and still earn a spot in the Hall of Fame. To the liberal, short-term feelings trump long-term development. I do not think for a moment that the average liberal consciously realizes that he is favoring short-term feelings over long-term development, but in the final analysis, this is what happens. Intentions do not matter, results do.

As an example of the short-term thinking which went into this decision, did the league consider any of the following real possibilities? I strongly doubt it:

• The Tigers are winning 6-1 over the Bears. In the last minutes of the game, the Tigers lazily kick the ball towards the Bears’ goal. The Bears’ goalkeeper moves aside, letting the ball in, and thereby “wins” the game for his team. This is fair? This makes sense?
• Late in the game, the Tigers are winning 11-1; they refused to lower their intensity. Their coach, however, wants to legally win the game. He tells them to let up a bit, and they do. Will the Bears not realize that the Tigers’ goalkeeper is not making an effort to stop their shots? Will this a) help the Bears’ self-esteem, and b) make them better soccer players, since they are scoring garbage goals? Why not save time and have the Tigers kick the ball into their own net?
• At halftime, the Tigers are winning 5-0. Knowing that another goal might “lose” them the game, they dramatically lower their intensity. They have plenty of opportunities to score, but choose to pass the ball around, instead of shooting. Late in the game, the Bears finally wake up, take advantage of the Tigers’ low intensity, and score six goals, winning the game. This is a legitimate win? The Tigers could have easily scored five more goals, and won 10-6. But due to the league’s tunnel vision, they lost.

Jewish tradition teaches, “A wise person foresees the consequences of his actions.” As a general rule, liberals do not follow this advice. They are much more concerned with perceived (not actual, but perceived) short-term gains than with near-certain long-term losses. (Who cares if mandating [mandating!] diversity in hiring puts all those from the minority group under suspicion of not being worthy of their position? Liberals feel good because more blacks, Latinos, women et al are now being hired!) While they may bristle at this notion, it is certainly better than the alternatives – either that they are incredibly naïve about the results of their actions, or that they do understand what the long-term losses will be, yet do not care. Some intellectual honesty would be refreshing.

Once again, to the liberal, feelings trump standards. Who cares if the new rules turn the league into a joke? What matters is that their children feel good about themselves.

But as I have demonstrated, even that is not going to happen anyway.

Gaza flotilla "peace activists" vs. the IDF

It is important that those of us who truly care about peace have the tools necessary to counter the undoubtedly negative press Israel is sure to receive for the Gaza flotilla.  Follow your local media to see if they report the events fairly.  Please see this link from HonestReporting.com for information about what is really going on off our coastline in Israel right now. 

Watch the videos of an Israeli soldier being beaten by a "peace activist," and how the Israel Navy offered to let the "peace activists" themselves observe the transfer of humanitarian goods to Gaza's civilian population.  We Israelis have no desire for the innocent civilians in Gaza to suffer; what we want is to prevent supplies from being stolen by Hamas and used to prepare for another deadly offensive against us.

May God protect the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces as they deal with these "peace activists."

Why there should not be a giant mosque built near Ground Zero

From the Forward of June 4, 2010:

• Mosque's plans to expand near Ground Zero spark debate
• Editorial - Faith at Ground Zero

Interesting how the editorial board attacks critics of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of seeking to "discredit all of Islam," and then the editorial board itself sweepingly attacks conservative bloggers and Tea Party activists.  We who oppose the building of the mosque, as the Forward puts it, are "bigots," because we oppose it for "unjustifiable reasons" - though the Forward fails to mention even one of those "unjustifiable reasons."  That's the way of the Left - attack and label your opponents, usually without taking the time to debate the issue at hand.

The reason why many of us oppose the building is because it is not in good taste.  Legal?  Certainly.  But it is not the right thing to do.  It is an insult to the memory of those who were slaughtered on that infamous day.  While it is true, as some of my friends have pointed out, that Muslims were also murdered that day, it was religious Muslims who perpetrated the acts.  Until there are massive Muslim demonstrations, on par with those in the wake of the Danish cartoon scandal, in which mainstream Muslim leaders declare that anyone who intentionally murders innocents goes straight to hell, and not to Paradise, there should be nothing to discuss regarding this Ground Zero mosque.  Would we accept white supremacists building a church near the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City?  After all, it's their right, right?  Unlike many of our liberal fellow citizens, we conservatives also think in terms of what is right, not only in terms of what are my rights?

Secondly, why must we persist in trying to show Muslims how tolerant we are of other faiths?  Is it not high time for the Muslim community, whether in America or elsewhere in the world, to demonstrate some tolerance for those who believe differently than they?  Enough of this breast-beating; America has nothing to apologize for regarding its treatment of the members of any faith.  There is no country in the world as tolerant as America is, and we should not be ashamed to say so.

Finally, why does the Forward minimize the evil of 9-11 by calling it "a perverted act of religious zealotry"?  Why are we so afraid of the real possibility that the hijackers were not perverting Islam's teachings at all, but were actually acting in accordance with them?  Perhaps they were, perhaps they were not, but dismissing even the possibility out of hand does no good, and might lay the groundwork for the next violent act by a Muslim who is "perverting" Islam's teachings.  If Christians did what these nineteen Muslims did, having attended fundamentalist churches, and yelled, "Praise Jesus!" as they were crashing their planes, does anyone think the Forward and other liberals would be so quick to disassociate Christianity from their acts of terror?

Bus ads try to help those leaving Islam. Care to drive one of those buses?

Someone decided to sponsor bus ads saying things like, "Leaving Islam?," or, "Fatwa on your head?," or "Is your family threatening you?" in a few American cities.  Of course, the PC-police were out in force, trying to determine whether this would be deemed "offensive to Muslims."  (Read: "Will we receive death threats for this?")

Some simple questions: If the ads had said "Leaving Judaism?" or "Leaving Christianity" or "Leaving Liberalism?," would anyone have been troubled by the possibility that the ads were "offensive" to members of the above groups?  Would we have a UCLA professor mentioning the possibility of extremist groups bombing the buses?  Is there anyone reading this who would be surprised in the slightest if there were violence committed against any of the buses sporting these ads?  Does anyone who is considering leaving the above-mentioned groups need to fear for his life?

Of course, the answers to the above questions are: No, no, no, and no.  Why is that?  What is it about the oft-proclaimed "religion of peace" that gives many people pause whenever something happens which might inflame its adherents?  Could it be there is something in its essence which encourages its practitioners to threaten, and often carry out acts of, violence?

To be sure, there have been no acts of violence committed against any of these buses.  But if you were a New York City bus driver, and you had a choice of driving a bus with one of these ads, versus driving a bus with "I Love Tea Partiers" emblazoned in it (remember, you're in New York City), which one would you choose?

I thought so.

Highway 443: No less of a threat, but it matters not to B'Tselem

Back in 2000-2001, there was a number of deadly attacks on Israeli motorists on Highway 443, which links the Israeli city of Modi'in with Jerusalem.  In response, the Israel Defense Forces closed it to Palestinian traffic.  The deadly attacks ceased (though not for lack of trying).  Then, at the end of 2009, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the IDF to re-open 443 to Palestinian traffic.  Why?  Because of a lawsuit filed by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization.  They contended that maintaining the restriction on Palestinian traffic amounted to a violation of freedom of movement.

443 will re-open to Palestinian traffic this week (May 23).

B'Tselem, of course, was correct.  The prohibition did limit Palestinians' freedom of movement.  But so did the shooting attacks limit the freedom of movement of their victims.  Forever.  But to people like those at B'Tselem, the ramifications of their actions did not deter them.  Will they have to suffer the near-certain results of the road's opening?  Will their family members?  Highly unlikely.  Will the Supreme Court justices?  No.  But this ruling must have made both B'Tselem and the Supreme Court feel great about themselves, as they stood up for Palestinian human rights.

Here's the self-contradictory problem with the Supreme Court's ruling.  They gave the IDF five months to make security arrangements.  Does it not stand to reason that if you need to make such preparations for opening up a road to Palestinian traffic, that there is something inherently problematic?  Why is it not as simple as removing the roadblocks?  By giving the IDF much time for new security arrangements, the Court was tacitly acknowledging that there is a continued high risk for fresh attacks on the road.  Neither B'Tselem nor the Court claimed that the threat was any less from the Palestinians, just that their freedom of movement was being hindered.  Yet they proceeded with subjecting thousands of Israelis to potentially deadly attacks, all in the name of justice and human rights.

Was it unfair to the peaceful Palestinian villagers, who only want to get from Point A to B securely, that they were also prohibited from using 443?  Yes, it was.  But it is not like the road was closed after one attack.  There were four shooting attacks between December 2000 and August 2001, causing five fatalities.  In other words, the Palestinians had four chances.  That is more than enough.  How many deadly shooting attacks will take place before the IDF closes it again, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding?  Two?  Five?  Ten?  Do the Justices and B'Tselem even care?

I can only think of two possible rationalizations on B'Tselem and the Supreme Court's part:

1. They did not consider the real possibility that shooting attacks will resume on 443.  Granted, this possibility renders both parties incredibly naive at best, and criminally negligent at worst.  But this possibility makes them look much better than option #2.
2. They do not care.  It matters not to them that more Israelis are almost certainly going to die unnecessarily.  What is more important to them is to show the world how committed they are to their warped sense of justice and human rights.

Never mind that no Palestinian died due to the road being closed.  Inconvenienced?  Certainly.  But to remove this inconvenience, B'Tselem and the Supreme Court have practically sentenced an unknown number of innocent victims to an untimely death.  And when an attack inevitably does happen, if they even express regret, they will not change their position on the issue.  In their world, a fanciful notion of reality always trumps the actual facts on the ground.  They will sleep well, convinced they have done good for the world.

And due to the "good" they will have done, innocent Israelis will pay for it with their blood.

Is Kagan Jewish? Is she a lesbian? Who cares? What are her values?

I am sure that many Jews are just thrilled that President Obama has nominated a Jew, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, to the Supreme Court.  (She even had the first Bat Mitzvah at Lincoln Square Synagogue!)  For the record, that will make three Jews of nine justices on the Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer being the others).  The over-representation is beyond overwhelming.  Jews represent around 2% of the American population, yet are close to being 33% of the Supreme Court, an over-representation by nearly seventeen times.  (By the way, why is there no talk about this skewed diversity of the Court, from those who preach about diversity so often?  There are currently five Catholics on the Court (55%), yet Catholics represent less than 25% of the population, while Protestants, of whom there will soon be none, represent more than 50% of the population.)

For some Jews, this may be a badge of pride.  For me, however, I am ashamed that the two Jews already on the Court, and the one poised to join it, are such poor representatives of traditional Jewish values.  (I believe that modern conservatism is much closer to traditional Jewish values than modern liberalism.  I look forward to writing on this in the future.)  Admittedly, Ms. Kagan's record is far from clear.  But since we do know at the very least that she made it extremely difficult for ROTC to recruit at Harvard, in my book that's one strike against her.  Additionally, she was nominated by the most left-wing President in American history, who has made it clear he wants to leave his mark on American history.  Does anyone seriously believe he would have nominated a Center or Right person?  I realize, of course, that to most liberals, identity politics is paramount.  "Be more concerned with a person's race, gender, or class than with her values," they tell us, albeit more palatably.  "If you want someone to be concerned with what is important to you, then support someone who is of your race, gender, or class."  Or, in this case, religion.

But do Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, and Solicitor General Kagan, represent my beliefs as a traditional Jew?  No, they do not.  I find I have much more in common with the values of a number of Catholic justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) than I do with the Jewish ones.  Why?  Because I am much more concerned with someone's values than with anything else about him.  Period.  He is a Jew who shares my values?  I'll support him.  She is a Muslim who shares my values?  Ditto.  He is a Red Sox-loving transgender from Jupiter who shares my values?  Ooooh, that's a bit tougher.  I'll get over the Red Sox part.  I'll support him.

Which brings us to the lesbian issue.  Writers on both sides of the aisle are debating whether or not Kagan's purported lesbianism.  I disagree with any opinion which says she must address the issue.  Why is it anyone's business what she does in the privacy of her home?  As I wrote regarding the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor, the issues of ethnic background, gender, and, in Elena Kagan's case, sexual preferences, are completely inconsequential to me.  If Elena Kagan is a lesbian, good for her.  If she is a heterosexual, good for her.  Since I assume she is a devoted liberal (Upper West Side of Manhattan upbringing, Princeton undergraduate, Harvard Law, and Oxford have a tendency to do that to you), I say, bad for the country.

I wish we could get to the point where the only issue which mattered to a candidate's fitness for higher office was his or her record, and views on important issues.  But thanks in large part to liberals, we have to deal with a candidate's/nominee's race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. 

As if any of those things tells you what a person's view is on any given subject.  To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the values, stupid."

A vote for the Temple Mount on Jerusalem Day

Today, we celebrate the 43rd anniversary of the unification of Jerusalem, after 19 years of division at the hands of the Jordanians.  During that time, despite assurances, no Jews were permitted to access the Western Wall, to say nothing of visiting the Temple Mount.  Since 1967, Jerusalem has been an open city, where all faiths can visit their holy places, worshiping as they see fit.

Except for the Jewish faith.

Only Jews are forbidden from praying at their holiest site, and even visiting is a complicated effort.  Can one imagine the outcry if Christians could not pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, or Muslims from al-Aqsa?  The cries would be deafening.  But it is taken for granted that Jews may not even utter the smallest prayer, let alone read from the Torah, on the Temple Mount.

It is time for this outrage to end.  למען ציון לא אחשה, ולמען ירושלים לא אשקוט.  For Zion's sake, I will not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake, I will not be silent.  Now is the time to make these words a reality.  Let us all stand up for Jerusalem, and sign this petition asking that the Netanyahu government designate the Temple Mount a National Heritage Site.  If Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs deserve such recognition, does the Temple Mount deserve any less?  It should not matter where one's political leanings are.  This is an issue of simple fairness, for Jews to have equal access to their holy sites, just as Christians and Muslims have to theirs.

Will this action anger the United Nations?  Will the Obama Administration express its concern, even outrage?  Undoubtedly yes, on both accounts.  But it is time for the Jewish people to stand with its head held high, ready to accept whatever criticism may be forthcoming from a world which regularly turns a blind eye to genocide and terrorist attacks, yet still finds the time to issue scathing critiques of the Jewish State's attempts to protect its citizens, and its decision to approve building apartment units.  Such a world has no credibility, and we should not care what they think anymore.

The Western Wall is special, but it is a second prize compared to the Temple Mount.  Help make the joyous shout of the paratroopers back in 1967, "The Temple Mount is in our hands!" a reality again.  We declare at every Jewish wedding that we will never forget Jerusalem.  Here is an opportunity to put those words into action.

Obama opens US coastline to drilling, wants to build nuclear reactors. Another vindication for conservatives.

If I were a liberal, I would hardly be able to control my frustration with President Obama.  Aside from his victory on health care reform, liberals have a laundry list of broken campaign promises from the President, including:

1. Withdrawing troops from Iraq - No
2. Closing down Gitmo - No
3. Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - No
4. Supporting same-sex marriage - No

Well, add at least #s 5 & 6 to the list: President Obama just approved contracts to explore and drill for oil of the East Coast of the United States.  According to the New York Times, even if contracts are handed out, the drilling will not begin "for years."  This is in addition to his announcement that new nuclear reactors would be built in Georgia, pending approval.

Is this not yet another example of conservative views winning the day?  It is easy to criticize from the outside looking in, saying that if you were king of the forest, you would do A, B, or C differently.  As usual, however, liberals look at the future in rose-colored glasses.  In their world, we will get the vast majority of our energy from wind farms, solar panels, and corn.  Never mind that liberals on Martha's Vineyard opposed putting wind turbines off their coast, claiming (correctly, but hypocritically) that it would spoil their pristine views.  Never mind that wind turbines kill thousands of migrating birds each year.  Never mind that a field of solar panels is a blight on the landscape, the benefits of which are in far disproportion to the energy generated.  Never mind that the production of ethanol for vehicles uses enough corn in one year to feed 330 million people during the same amount of time, and uses an enormous amount of water.  But the liberal continues to live in his fantasy world, where the above solutions are seen as realistic.

And the conservative?  While he recognizes the importance of developing the above alternative sources of energy (to an extent), he favors a reduction in reliance on oil produced by America-hating-, freedom-suppressing-, terror-supporting regimes by.............drilling at home!  Of course, we should develop alternative sources of energy, but conservatives have been supporting this for years.  It's called "nuclear energy."  France gets approximately 80% of its energy from nuclear power; let's ask them how they dispose of the waste.

So, hats off to President Obama for this directive.  No need to acknowledge that conservatives have been advocating this for years.  We just want to see results which will benefit America.

Religion of peace threatens yet another artist

First, it was Theo van Gogh, murdered for creating a film which depicted the stories of abused Muslim women.  (Actually, there may have been any number of people before him, but he is the first which comes to mind.)  Then, it was the Danish cartoon incident, in which nearly one hundred innocent people were murdered in rioting, after a newspaper printed a cartoon (!) of Mohammed.  Now, even the creators of South Park are not safe.  After Trey Parker and Matt Stone created an episode which depicted Mohammed, the website RevolutionMuslim.com posted a message which suggested that Parker and Stone would end up like Mr. van Gogh.  In simple terms, Parker and Stone should fear for their lives.  RevolutionMuslim.com was also kind enough to list the addresses of Comedy Central's New York headquarters, as well as of South Park's Los Angeles production studios.  In response to all of this, Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR described revolutionmuslim.com as "an extreme fringe group that has absolutely no credibility within the Muslim community."

My issue with this entire incident is not to take any Muslim organization to task for speaking up or not speaking up.  Frankly, I agree with Mr. Hooper's assessment as to the influence and popularity of RevolutionMuslim.com.  My issue is this: Is there anyone who is the slightest bit surprised that such a threat would emanate from the Muslim world?  The Virgin Mary can be depicted with elephant dung, a crucifix can be dipped in urine, and St. Peter's Basilica can be destroyed by a gigantic tidal wave, and there is nary a hint of a violent response by the Christian community.  (The closest parallel I could think of regarding the Jewish community was Leonard Nimoy's Shekhina (WARNING: Nudity), in which he depicted women in various states of nudity wearing Jewish ritual objects.  From even the furthest right Ultra-Orthodox sect, there was not a whiff of suggestion that Mr. Nimoy had reason to fear for his life.)  Can you imagine if any Christian or Jewish group would issue such a threat?  After the laughing subsided, the threatened artist would say, "No, really, who's calling?  Yeah, right."

Why is it that the only ones who ever threaten the lives of those who supposedly insult their religion are Muslims?  Christians have their faith insulted and made fun of on a regular basis on television and in films.  Yet not even Dogma or The Last Temptation of Christ could elicit anything close to what the aforementioned incidents elicited from Muslims.  One cannot merely chalk up these over-the-top reactions to coincidence, or to overly zealous practitioners of their faith.  There seems to be a disturbing characteristic of modern day Islam: When perceiving a slight to their faith or prophet, Muslims are quite likely to lash out violently. 

The simple fact today is that if any religion's adherents will react violently when they feel their religion is being attacked, it is a virtual certainty that the religion will be Islam.  Yet so many (particularly in the open, liberal, western world), are afraid of stating this obvious truth.  Why?  Surely it cannot be because they are unaware of the overwhelming statistics.  Perhaps it is because they fear for their own lives should they point this out?

Nah, that would be too deliciously ironic.  Any other ideas?

See also:

• New York Post editorial - The Cowards of Comedy Central (April 24, 2010)
• New York Times' Ross Douthat - Not Even in South Park? (April 25, 2010)
  
• Seattle cartoonist launches "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" (April 25, 2010)
  
• MSNBC - Yale draws criticism for nixing Muslim cartoons (September 8, 2009)
  
• Dennis Prager - Now Yale Embarrasses the Idea of the Western University (August 18, 2009)
  

Three cheers for President Obama. Radical American-born imam targeted for death.

So now the radical, American-born imam who may have encouraged the Ft. Hood murderer, Maj. Hassan, has his head in the cross hairs.  Anwar al-Awlaki has been targeted for death by the Obama Administration.  One wonders how long to wait for the civil liberties groups to start protesting this one.  If they keep silent, they're hypocrites, since they screamed bloody murder regarding the PATRIOT Act, legislation which caused the constitutionally-protected civil liberties of, at most, a handful of people to be violated.  (Anyone reading this know of anyone whose rights were violated?  Didn't think so.)  If they speak up in opposition, on the other hand, they are incredibly naive (as if we needed confirmation).  What would they like the US to do?  Put out a warrant for his arrest?  We are at war, and what you do with your enemies in war is............kill them.  This imam wants to incites violence against the United States?  More power to him, but let him understand that he will pay a price.

Kudos to President Obama for this one.  I hope that he will make future decisions in the war on Radical Islam with the same wisdom.

Profiling by conservatives? Bad. Profiling by Obama? Huh? Obama profiles?

In case you missed this, back in January, following the unsuccessful Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight, the Obama Administration announced that passengers coming into the United States from fourteen specific countries would be subject to extra security screening. 

While the mainstream media (MSM) did not ignore the story completely, they did manage to avoid stating the obvious: Is this not racial profiling, something they decried whenever conservatives suggested that certain groups, more likely to have terrorists among them, be given extra scrutiny before being allowed to board a plane?  For example, a search of New York Times editorials from the month after this decision finds exactly zero editorials dealing with this issue. 

On the other hand, to its credit, the ACLU criticized the announcement, "...because there is no way to predict the national origin of a terrorist...many terrorists have come from countries not on the list."  (I say "to its credit," because while I think that the ACLU, as usual, is wrongheaded in its opposition to a commonsense approach to fighting terrorism, at least I can respect them for their consistency in criticizing this decision of the Obama Administration.  They, as opposed to the MSM, are at least intellectually honest.)

By the way, what is this "list" to which the ACLU refers?  Here it is, and ask yourself, "Is there any common denominator here?"

1. Iran
2. Iraq
   
3. Syria
4. Sudan
5. Saudi Arabia
6. Algeria
7. Yemen
8. Pakistan
9. Libya
10. Lebanon
11. Somalia
12. Nigeria
13. Afghanistan
    
14. Cuba
    

Hmmm....think, think, think.  Aside from Cuba, what might the other thirteen countries have in common?  Love of cricket?  Former colonies of European powers?  Or could it be, dare I say it, they are all MUSLIM-MAJORITY COUNTRIES!!!  Yet the ACLU's Michael German, in citing Shoebomber Richard Reid, four of the London subway bombers, and a Belgian female suicide bomber says that "...there is no way to predict the national origin of a terrorist..."  Perhaps not, Mr. German, but since all of your cited exceptions were Muslims, is it fair to say that there is a fairly accurate way to predict the religion of a terrorist?  Since the answer is obvious in any honest assessment, putting nearly every Middle Eastern Muslim country on the extra screening list might be a good start.

The two points I wish to make are these:

1. The MSM has exposed itself as blatantly hypocritical in this case.  When conservatives want to give extra screening to high-risk groups, liberals charge, "Racial profiling!  Unconstitutional!"  When President Obama blatantly does the exact same thing, there is not a peep from his adoring fans at the New York Times.  So, when conservatives want to do it, it's unconstitutional.  But when liberals do it, it's OK.  Did I get that right?  I am very interested in how my liberal readers would explain this one.
2. Given that security resources are limited, focusing on high-risk groups, namely Muslims, is clearly the right thing to do.  Claiming that doing so smears all Muslims is ludicrous.  Since, as I believe, the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, those Muslims should be thrilled that their lives will also be saved by these techniques.  Would they rather get blown up instead of being inconvenienced by some extra screening?  If there were a serial killer on the loose in my neighborhood, would I be offended if the police gave extra scrutiny to me as a man, since the overwhelming majority of brutal murderers are men?  Of course not; I want to live!
   

Having visited Israel many times (I moved there last September), I see on a daily basis how well profiling works.  Israelis do not have time for ACLU-like foolishness; we need to survive.  When eighty-year-old Miami Beach grandmothers start slaughtering innocents, we can focus on them.  Until that time, however, let's go after the usual suspects, shall we?

Even if Israel is completely wrong, can one make peace with these people? Part I

A question I like to ask my liberal friends who support a two-state solution or various other concessions from Israel towards the Palestinians is this: Even if Israel is completely wrong in its conflict with the Palestinians, and should completely withdraw to the June 4, 1967 lines, can one really expect Israel to make peace with these people?  I look forward to sharing many examples of why even if one maintains this view on Israel, one cannot reasonably expect the State of Israel to sit down with those who glorify murderers of innocents.  It sends a clear message to one's people, that murdering innocents is to be praised.

Palestinian Media Watch communique of January 15, 2010: "Fatah prides itself on deadly terrorist attacks."  They salute those who fired rockets into Israel from Lebanon in the 1980s, and praise those who murdered nearly fifty innocents in a hotel takeover in 1976, and a bus hijacking in 1978.

And these are the ones with whom Israel is expected to make peace?  Kudos to the Palestinians for at least being forthright with their feelings.  They do not hide their true thoughts at all.  They could have said, "At the time, we thought that what these fighters were doing was good.  We realize now that they were despicable acts."  At least make it seem like you have changed your spots!  But they continue to heap praise on terrorists who purposely murder innocents.  Not as collateral damage in an operation against a military target, but as intentional damage.  When Israel kills innocent Palestinians, it is nearly always in the course of targeting terrorists.  It is not the Israeli army's goal.  The Palestinians' goal, however, is to attack as many innocents as possible; it is not a bi-product of an attack, but the very purpose of the attack!

So I ask you, dear reader, knowing that the Palestinians glorify murderers, and make it clear that the primary goal of attacks is to murder innocents:

Even if Israel is completely wrong, can one really expect it to make peace with these people?

Grow up, Deputy FM Ayalon! This is not how you treat people.

Having a secular government, Turkey has generally been Israel's closest Muslim ally.  In the past, the two nations have even conducted join military drills.  The relationship has been a rare bright spot in Israel's quest to forge normalized diplomatic ties with its neighbors in the broader Middle East.

And then Turkish television broadcast a series in which Israeli agents scour the world for children to kidnap and convert to Judaism, as well as Israeli soldiers purposely shooting smiling Palestinian children.  An outrageous depiction, to be sure, and Israel was justifiably angry.  In response, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon summoned the Turkish ambassador, Ahmet Oguz Celikkol, for a meeting.  At the meeting, Ayalon was seated on a higher chair than Celikkol, did not display the Turkish flag on the table between them, and refused to be photographed shaking Celikkol's hand.  Mr. Ayalon also said to the assembled media in Hebrew (which Mr. Celikkol does not understand): “The important thing is that people see that he’s low and we’re high and that there is no flag here."

While it was correct to summon the Turkish ambassador to express Israel's anger at the television series, the way Mr. Ayalon handled the situation was childish, immature, and in direct opposition to traditional Jewish values.  Jewish tradition regards the public embarrassment of another as akin to murdering him (בבלי בבא מציעא נח, ב / Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 58b), and says that one should sooner jump into a flaming furnace than embarrass his fellow publicly (בבלי כתובות סז, ב / Babylonian Talmud, Ketubbot 67b).  Additionally, by making his statement in Hebrew about the height differences, Mr. Ayalon violated the Biblical command of "לא תקלל חרש / Do not curse the deaf" (ויקרא יט:יד / Leviticus 19:14).  For all intents and purposes, Ambassador Celikkol was as a deaf person in this instance, and Mr. Ayalon took unfair advantage of his Turkish colleague.  This was completely unacceptable from an ethical perspective.

Finally, Mr. Ayalon's apology read, in part, "I had no intention to humiliate you personally..."  Rubbish!  Of course he intended to personally humiliate the ambassador!  How else to interpret the 1) chair height differences, 2) lack of Turkish flag, 3) refusal to shake hands on camera, and 4) saying what he said to media present?  If one is going to insult another, at least be mature enough to admit it.  Mr. Ayalon should have said, "I apologize for humiliating you in front of the cameras.  It was wrong and immature of me.  I assure you that in the future, I will convey concern to the Turkish government in a more professional manner.  Forgive me."  He would have emerged from the row looking much better than he does now.

This incident represents a low point in Israel-Turkish relations.  Considering that Turkey has shown an interest in strengthening its military ties to Syria recently, Israel should not purposely engage in actions which would push the Turks away.  It need not pander to them, but it also should not engage in immature, unprofessional acts, which may feel cathartic when performing them, but serve no long-term purpose, and violate a millenia-old value system.