Okay, I know, it’s just adding fuel to the fire, but y’know, they don’t call me the Master of Juvenile Scorn™ for nothing.

So that big post Dean put up about my refusing to agree with him over Rabbi Kahane’s Open Letter to the World? The one where he calls me a “Kahane apologist” and goes apeshit in the comments?

All I said was that Kahane’s letter is true. Which is, frankly, mostly what Dean said in his earlier post:

Otherwise, I must say I agree with damn near everything in that video.

So, even though he acknowledges the truth of the video, he can’t seem to get off the topic that Kahane wrote the text, and he seems to think he can browbeat me into agreeing with him that Kahane was a terrorist. Three words, Dean: Not. Gonna. Happen.

You know, the Google search engine is a wonderful thing. Why, look what I found with only a cursory search: It seems that as recently as July of this year, Dean didn’t give a damn about people expressing far more favorable opinions of Kahane than I. In fact, he let many instances of commenters and co-bloggers discussing Kahane’s good points go by without saying a thing. No rants about his being a terrorist, no calling them apologists.

This one’s from July, in the comments to a post by Ron Coleman. In fact, co-blogger Ron Coleman said much of what I said about Kahane, and yet, Dean did not go batshit on Ron.

I do know that Meir Kahane’s interest in the State of Israel was based on his love of the Torah, of God and of the Jewish people. I heard him speak in Chicago and a close relative of mine knew him and wrote a biography of him. His views were largely characatured. I was not a follower of his, however; not a topic for this thread. But Arnold, you’re just wrong: Kahane’s views were closer to mine than to yours.

Huh. Go figure. Here his co-blogger is, in Dean’s word, a Kahane apologist. And yet, no vitriol. I don’t get it.

In the very next comment, a regular commenter at Dean’s blog says that Kahane was no racist. And yet, Dean does not call him a “Kahane apologist” either.

And I can tell you for a fact that Kahane was no racist. He was in fact a jewish nationalist, whose views and practices were probably closer to the middle eastern Jews from the islamic lands than the Ashkenazim who constitute most of american Jewry. I know for certain that was one of the reasons the israeli cultural and governmental establishment hated and feared him. Because many of them have racist attitudes about their sefardi and oriental Jews.

I am SO at a loss to explain these discrepancies.

Here’s one from a few years ago where the same commenter says he would support Kahane if he lived in Israel (well, and if he hadn’t been murdered by an Islamic terrorist), and yet, no chastisement from Dean. Okay, it’s from 2003. I can accept the argument that Dean has changed his mind in the past few years. But since July 14, 2006? I’m thinking there’s something else at work here.

And look at this! Another one from Arnold Harris complimenting Kahane, and this one’s—wait for it—from August 16, 2006! Holy cow, that’s only three months ago! Why, it’s as if Dean only got his mad on for Kahane in my case, and ignored it in the others. But no, Dean wouldn’t be that disingenuous, would he?

Of course he would. That is Dean in a nutshell. He likes to throw mud in every direction, see what sticks, and then whine that he didn’t mean to get anyone mad, all the while crying that people are being mean to him. I know it, he knows it, hell, even his own regular readers know it, and say as much in his comments. You’d think he’d be at least a little embarrassed by now. You would be wrong.

For instance, that “personal favor” he talks about in the beginning of his post? The post that started the argument that led to my split from Dean’s little part of the blogosphere was a post with the phrase “To Judith Weiss, Meryl Yourish, and all the other resentful feminists I know.” I asked him to please remove it from Google’s cache, as I’ve been on job hunts and it comes up on the first search page when you Google my name. He did, and I was grateful. But I wouldn’t call that a favor. I would call that a long-overdue removal of an insult. Then again, that’s just me. (If you find that you simply must see the origin of the tiff, here’s a post that sums it all up. The rest you’ll have to find for yourselves.)

I figure by now Dean has caught on to my answers to the question he asks in his post. But just in case, one more time: No.

Let’s stop and think a moment. Why were IDF troops in Gaza? Because the palestinians were launching kassam rockets every day into Sderot, the Negev, and other points in Israel.

So we have a cease-fire that takes effect Sunday morning. What happens? In the first hour, kassams are launched at Sderot. Israel says she will “exercise restraint” and ignore the fact that Hamas—that would be the same terrorist organization that runs the PA these days—itself claimed the rocket fire.

So now it’s Monday, and what happens? More kassam rockets are launched at Sderot. So the media, of course, ignores the fact that if you’re supposed to have a cease fire, and you’re shooting rockets into Israel every day, then it’s not known as a cease-fire, in fact, it is still known as “firing rockets into Israel everyday.”

This is buried in the AP piece about Olmert’s speech:

His offer to restart long-stalled peace talks came a day after the two sides began observing a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, ending five months of widespread violence in the coastal area and raising hopes that the truce would lead to new peace efforts.

Despite the cease-fire, Palestinian militants fired two rockets at Israel on Monday, causing no injuries, Israeli authorities said.

The AP sees no cognitive dissonance in pointing out that there is a cease-fire in effect, but that firing two rockets isn’t breaching it. Yes, such is the low threshhold held for terrorists that they’re allowed to keep a cease-fire while breaching it, but if the IDF then responds to the rocket attacks—and it will—the headlines will be “Israel breaks truce with palestinians.”

Count on it.

As for Olmert’s speech: Wrong time for it. You offer concessions from a position of strength, and right now, Israel isn’t looking very strong.

(I just have to start this post the same way as the previous one on the subject) .

It is already five days since Alexander Litvinenko died - a slow and horrible death. And the vultures are circling, getting closer each day.

Now the scumbags are trying to start another line of slander. In a big way too, take a look:

Litvinenko: police probe claims he may have killed himself

No matter that the contents of the article do not confirm in any way the stink bomb dropped in the headline:

Detectives investigating the death of Alexander Litvinenko were last night examining the possibility that the former spy killed himself to discredit Vladimir Putin.

Detectives were examining a possibility. Quite sure going by the book written a heck of a long time ago. And this means that police probe claims suicide? I guess even the police could sue the wretched scum now. Most probably wouldn’t.

There are all the necessary telltale signs of intractable stupidity in this article:

Traces of the material - powerful enough to trigger a nuclear warhead - were found on tables…

How does the Indys’ troika (Sophie Goodchild, Francis Elliott and Sonia Elks) think polonium 210 triggers that nuclear warhead, I am too afraid to imagine. One thing is clear: not only aren’t they nuclear scientists, all three taken together hardly amount to a person literate enough to open a Wiki site and do themselves a favor, instead of disgracing themselves. Or take this one:

Detectives are still no nearer to establishing just how Mr Litvinenko, a fierce critic of President Alexander Putin’s regime, came to ingest such high doses of polonium.

How high is “such high” in the opinion of the troika? Do they imagine the late colonel greedily stuffing himself from a heap of polonium on his plate? You know, it is highly probable they do - but do not ask how high, please…

Still, there is a distance between mere stupidity and malignancy. And that headline is nothing but sheer malignancy. And the source powerful enough to trigger this mix of malignancy and stupidity is, apparently, an unattributed Russian one:

Some reports in the Russian press have suggested that Mr Litvinenko’s death could have been a “martyrdom operation”, on the grounds that no state would want to attract the attention of a radioactive poison plot.

Some reports… Now you can see it - a hack from Indy repeating some slander from a Russian rag, undoubtedly close to the powers that be. Merde.

But the malignancy does not stop at the headline. Here is the shining pinnacle:

One source close to the investigation said: “He was a guy with a colourful past. It’s not straightforward.”

Now, I can easily agree that a senior KGB/FSB officer collects some colors during his career. And he may have not necessarily been always straightforward. But could he imagine that a liberal and progressive Independent will descend that gutter-low?

Nah - not while alive…

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

The CNN article Rockets hit Israel after Gaza cease-fire deadline illustrates exceedingly well the chances of reaching a meaningful agreement with our neighbors:

Palestinian militants in Gaza launched rocket attacks into Israel Sunday, Israeli police and army officials said, hours after a cease-fire in Gaza was agreed upon by the Israeli government and Palestinian factions.

Well, it was expected. One of the long list of the splinter groups - PRC (Popular Resistance Committee - one of the useful and deniable tentacles of Hamas, in fact the biggest tentacle of all) has immediately declared its non-participation in the cease-fire. But PRC is only for starters:

Nabil Abu Rdaina, a spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said before the Sunday attacks that all Palestinian factions had agreed to stop firing rockets into Israel.

Which is clearly a lie - see the above mention of PRC. But again, it’s small change compared to:

The militant group Islamic Jihad and Hamas’ military wing both claimed responsibility for the attacks.

So Hamas’ own military wing is defying its leaders (yeah, well, if you want to believe it)? And if you want to see hypocrisy, here it comes:

Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad told Israeli Army Radio that an investigation into who fired the rockets and violated the cease-fire will be launched.

And now to the figureheads (or head figures, whatever suits).

Abbas also organized a meeting of Palestinian factions to discuss extending the cease-fire to the West Bank, according to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Pardon me: extending what?

The meeting will be part of the beginning of “a serious, real, honest and direct negotiation between myself and [Abbas] so we could make a progress towards a full settlement between Israel and the Palestinians,” Olmert added.

Yep. Where did we all hear it already? Mmm…

Meanwhile, the Israeli government agreed to withdraw troops from Gaza and cease military operations, said Miri Eisin, a government spokeswoman. “We think that there’s the possibility of hope here,” she said.

That’s really quaint: first we had hope, now it is a possibility of hope. I wonder what is the formula for the next stage: a glimpse of a possibility of hope?

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Carnival of the Cats celebrates its 140th episode over at Scribblings, but things were running just a tad late, but it’s all up now!

And let’s not forget the Catmodel of the Week…

Why, it’s Mr. Jones of Allan Thinks.

Folks who want a shot at being a Catmodel of the Week need to be a part of the banner at Carnival of the Cats. Just send me a 4 by 3 photo of your cat and your weblog link and I’ll add your cat to the banner.

Who knows… you may just see them here as a Catmodel of the Week!

Via Solomonia, an interview on Terrorist TV with the leader of PIJ, who says the fence is stopping suicide bombings in Israel.

On November 11, PIJ leader Abdallah Ramadan Shalah granted a long interview to Al-Manar TV, Hezbollah’s television channel. During the interview, for the first time he admitted that Israel ’s security fence was an important obstacle to the terrorist organizations (the “resistance”).

He noted that the suicide bombing attacks (istishhad) were the Palestinian people’s “strategic choice,” and were meant to “create a balance of force and deterrence” in the campaign against a superior enemy. Ramadan Shalah noted that the terrorist organizations had every intention of continuing suicide bombing attacks , but that their timing and the possibility of implementing them from the West Bank depended on other factors. “For example,” he said, “there is the separation fence, which is an obstacle to the resistance, and if it were not there the situation would be entirely different .”

Two things about this: Number one, how did I miss this report? And number two, this puts paid the theory that the fence is nothing but a “land grab.” It’s working. It isn’t just the IDF and special forces keeping the terrorists in check. The fence is achieving its objective.