It’s now a week since my bat mitzvah crunch, and I’m blowing off synagogue tonight and relaxing. I worked all week, so the relaxing has to come about now. Especially since I had company until Monday morning.

The other big thing that was going on in my life was my exploration into homeowning. I’ve been looking at condos and townhouses in the area, and found one condo complex in particular that I absolutely love. So I went the pre-qualification route, and learned that I am prequalified by two banks (four, if you count Lending Tree) for the amount of the mortgage I’d need. The problem, however, is that I’m still paying down debt accrued from four years of under-and unemployment. (I wish I could say I had all kinds of neat things to show for it, but I don’t. I used the credit cards for things like paying the rent and the bills.) I don’t have an emergency fund, also due to the unemployment and underemployment. (REALLY longtime readers will remember that I started this blog on the heels of being laid off from my second programming job in six months when the tech bubble burst in 2001.)

I have been climbing steadily upward financially since the days when I was working three jobs, seven days a week. The past two years in particular have been good for me financially and jobwise. I now have a terrific job at Company in Northern VA, where I commute on Mondays and telecommute the rest of the week. Between this job, and the jobs I had the previous year, I have paid down over half my debt, and am steadily working my way towards solvency. I figure in about another eight months, I will be completely in the black, and able to start saving for that new home. Because I decided that I can’t buy a condo just yet. If I lost my job, or something happened requiring a large influx of cash, I’d be stuck. And at this stage of the game, I can’t afford bankruptcy. It takes seven years to recover financially from defaulting on a loan. I’d never own a home if something happened. Plus, I’m starting to like actually having money again.

The good news is, I feel really good about not buying a home this year. I just paid off one of the last of my credit card debts. I owe a bunch of money on two specific cards, and since I got really good at playing revolving balances between cards, my combined interest rates are about four and a half percent between the two cards.

So now I can start enjoying the fact that I’m earning a little extra money, and treat myself once in a while. I’m planning on buying that big-screen TV this month, as a birthday present to myself. I wanted the Samsung 42-inch DLP, but it’s not available any longer. I have to go up to the 50 inch. Bummer. Well, I’ll survive. Plus, I have at least $150 in Circuit City gift cards to spend via my rewards cards.

Any suggestions on speaker system to go with the TV? I want it to be good, but it doesn’t have to be great.

I am very much looking forward to sitting in The Chair That Swallows You Whole, watching Heroes on my brand-new big-screen HDTV. It won’t be as good as it would be in my own home, but that will come. I am undergoing a Meryl Renaissance. I am becoming the woman I used to be before I lost my job, with the state of mind I used to have, and with another six years of experience and wisdom.

And you know, for someone who’s turning fifty in less than a week, I don’t look half-bad, either. Maybe I’ll put up a bat mitzvah picture. I’ll have to get everyone to email them to me, of course. I was too busy enjoying myself to take any pictures.

Life is good right now.

Ehud Barak is giving Hamas and the Palestinians advance warning that the IDF is about to retake the Philadelphi Corridor.

Israel has informed PA authorities in Ramallah of its intention to send the IDF into the Gaza Strip in order to regain control of the Philadelphi Corridor and put an end to Hamas smuggling of weapons and cash through tunnels from the Egyptian side of the border, the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported Friday morning.

According to the report, Israel has told a number of Arab states that after the November 26 Annapolis conference it intends to embark on an extensive operation in the Strip.

Of course, rather than agree that something needs to be done to stop the rocketing of Israeli towns, Mahmoud Abbas is doing all he can to prevent Israel from, gee, preventing the rocketing of Israeli towns. Because Abbas’ aims are the same as Hamas—it is only their methods that are different.

Palestinian sources received explicite information stating that during the projected first stage of the operation, Israel is determined to gain control of Rafah and areas along the Egyptian border ranging as far as Khan Yunis, the paper said. The second stage will reportedly include an incursion into the central and northern Gaza Strip.

According to Al-Quds Al-Arabi’s sources, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who rejected out of hand Israel’s plan to recapture the Philadelphi Corridor, intends to send emissaries to regional countries in an effort to convey the sense of urgency regarding the danger of an Israeli incursion.

And here’s the laugh-line:

Abbas, the paper said, will state that an Israeli incursion would destroy the Gaza Strip and its infrastructure.

Really? Because it’s not like Gaza is already the place where Palestinians ripped out all of the greenhouses and everything useful that Israel left? Or where, instead of working to grow some sort of economy, Hamas has worked only to grow the number of weapons, bombs, bullets, and explosives smuggled into or created in Gaza. The infrastructure will be destroyed? Gee. Perhaps the Gazans should stop trying to murder Israelis. Then there’d be no reason for the IDF to come in.

As I said earlier—this is going to be a big one. There are going to be casualties on both sides. And there’s a new metaphor being used by Hamas. No more “opening the gates of Hell,” I suppose. Now we have this charming symbolism:

A top Hamas leader warned Israel on Friday that its soldiers would be “cut to pieces” if the army launched a much threatened widescale offensive on the Islamist-run Gaza Strip.

“The occupiers should know that if they intend to enter the Gaza Strip they will leave cut into pieces,” Mahmud Zahar told a Hamas-organised rally in Jabaliya in the northern Gaza Strip.

Actually, I’m thinking it’s the other way ’round. But we shall see.

Cue the ISM idiots in Rafah, trying to protect Hamas. Wait for it.

Hamas isn’t even trying to hide its intentions any more. Mahmoud al-Zahar, the former Prime Minister, said straight out that Hamas will take over the West Bank as soon as Israeli forces leave. Imagine then how many rockets will rain down on Israel, and where they will land. It won’t be the Negeve and Sderot. Rockets will be raining down on Jerusalem.

Hamas Islamists, who seized control of the Gaza Strip in June, would take over the West Bank if Israel pulled out of the territory, a senior Hamas leader said on Friday.

The comments by Mahmoud al-Zahar contrasted with remarks by Ismail Haniyeh, who serves as prime minister of a Hamas-led government dismissed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

[...] “Israel says the party in Ramallah (Fatah) serves Israel, and if Israel quits the West Bank, Hamas will take it over. And we say this is true,” Zahar said at a rally for Hamas supporters in Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza.

[...] “We say to those in the West Bank take a lesson from what happened in Gaza,” Zahar said, an indirect reference to the fierce violence that led to Hamas’s takeover of the coastal strip.

The Annapolis conference is going to recommend that Israel exit the West Bank and give the Palestinian Authority the control it had over it in the years before the second intifada. Hamas is telegraphing its intentions should the IDF leave. And still, the world will insist that Israel abandon the West Bank.

The problem is, this time the intifada is going to be armed with rockets, tons of explosives, modern weaponry, anti-tank missiles, RPGs, night-vision scopes, and the terrorists will be trained soldiers. There will be a war, not an uprising. Many will die, on both sides.

Leaving the West Bank will be a major mistake. Here’s hoping Olmert can’t force it.

I know, it’s a shock. But the Economist is talking about religion, and I’ve seen several moral-equivalence raps at Israel. This is the most egregious so far:

Many of the most ardent fanatics live far away from the Holy Land. For Muslims the indignities heaped on the Palestinians are part of a systematic attack on Islam that must be fought to the bitter end. On the other side, many American Jewish groups will not tolerate the sort of criticism of Israel that is routine in the Jewish state itself. And now there are America’s Christian Zionists to deal with: some have rallied instinctively to a tiny democracy battling terrorism, but many think the creation of Biblical Israel is crucial for Armageddon and redemption.

Ignorance rules on all sides. Most Muslims seem totally unaware that Arabs can vote in Israel. Many Jews, even in Israel, are separated from the routine miseries of Palestinian life. American evangelicals are shocked to discover that some Palestinians are Christians.

There you go. It’s the Walt-Mearsheimer line of bullshit: Jewish groups don’t allow criticism of Israel. And this is equated with the Muslim world going crazy because Muslims are being “oppressed” in a Muslim waqf by “colonizers” and Jews. Yup. It’s almost just like the Muslim world freaking out every time a Palestinian child stubs his toe in front of the IDF. Except, of course, it’s not. But wait until you get the Economist’s conclusion:

Whatever the reason, when suicide-bombers strike Israeli towns, too few imams condemn the violence; and when Israeli rockets or shells fall on Palestinian civilians, not enough rabbis speak out. Until that changes, the various children of Abraham will find peace elusive.

What a load of crap. Every single time an IDF shell goes astray—every single time civilians are killed—Israelis publicly regret the action. Investigations have been launched. If soldiers are found to have mistreated Palestinians, they are stripped of their office and punished. But let us be perfectly clear: There are no imams condemning suicide attacks on Israeli civilians. None. The Economist is simply making shit up. The best thing the Muslims and Palestinians have been able to come up with is that killing Israeli civilians “harms the Palestinian cause.”

In point of fact, you will find Palestinian imams preaching sermons that insist suicide bombing is legitimate “resistance.” You will find imams pushing Palestinians to fight Israelis. You will not find rabbis doing the same, with a few minor exceptions from the fringe. But, as always, the Economist and others like it use the fringe to tar all Israelis with the same brush. And we have the same excuse-making for the Palestinians that has been around for over forty years:

The picture is not all bleak. Most of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so out of despair over Fatah’s corruption rather than out of religious fervour.

And yet, Hamas’ support is still strong, and they are still recruiting Palestinians regularly, and building an army. But the picture isn’t all bleak, because they’re doing this out of despair, you see.

The Economist special is about religion. So you get thoughts like this:

One sad irony of this dispute in the Holy Land is how few holy people are trying to make peace. Rabbi David Rosen argues that the Oslo process collapsed in part because no religious people were involved. It was not until 2002 that a small group of leading rabbis, Muslim clerics and bishops signed the Alexandria Declaration, which condemned violence and insisted that the holy places should be kept open. There have been subsequent meetings (including some recently with Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice) but progress is beset by practical problems, such as the inability of Palestinian clerics to get through Israel’s West Bank barrier.

This, from the same magazine that slams Israeli “ultra-Orthodox settlers” for ruining the peace process. In another article, the Economist actually credits the settler movement with being partly responsible for the birth of Hamas, completely ignoring the religious aspect of Hamas’ birth. That’s a pretty big error to make in an a special devoted to religion.

But why has religion’s power seemed to keep on increasing? The first reason is a series of reactions and counter-reactions. Fundamentalist Islam, for instance, has helped spur radical Judaism and Hinduism, which in turn have reinforced the mullahs’ fervour. Hamas owes much to Israel’s settlers. Without Falwell, Messrs Hitchens and Dawkins would have smaller royalties.

So in the Economist’s eyes, it’s Israel’s fault that Hamas exists. It’s “fundamentalist Islam” that sparked “radical Judaism” (what, exactly, is radical Judaism to the Economist?), which then caused suicide bombers to explode in downtown Tel Aviv.

What crap. What utter, utter crap. Radical Islam developed before Israel existed. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’ parent organization, was started in 1928—twenty years before Israel was created. The Hebron Massacre occurred in 1929. The Economist doesn’t seem to think that these events have any relation to the problems of Israel today. The hatred was already there, chaps. You just like to pretend it all started in 1948.

The moral equivalence of the Economist is simply outrageous. But then, there’s no way the Economist would mention honestly that the problems of the Middle East are mostly due to the refusal of Muslims to treat their own people with any sort of dignity, equality, and respect (see: Number of dictatorships in Arab and Muslim world; women’s lack of rights in Islamic nations, etc., etc.). Not when they can blame it on the Jews—who were in Israel more than a millennium before Islam was created. Israel. Not “Palestine.” The nation of “Palestine” never really existed. If I had my druthers, it never would.

James Besser reports that a new Zogby poll shows increasing support for a military strike on Iran.

Last week’s poll by Zogby International came as the Bush administration ratchets up both its warlike rhetoric and its sanctions against Teheran and war opponents intensify efforts to erect obstacles to U.S. military action. According to the national survey, 52 percent of likely voters now would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from growing nuclear — and 53 percent believe such a strike is likely before next year’s presidential election. Republicans, according to the survey, are far more likely to support the military option, but still, 41 percent of Democrats indicated support. In one surprise, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) emerged as the candidate “best equipped” to deal with the Iranian threat, selected by 21 percent of respondents. Clinton was followed by former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani at 15 percent. … The Jewish numbers in the Zogby poll — with 48 percent “very supportive” of a U.S. military strike and 20 percent “somewhat supportive” — are dramatically different from last year’s American Jewish Committee survey, in which only 38 percent said they supported U.S. military action.

That first paragraph isn’t exactly accurate as war opponents are also objecting to diplomatic tools such as the boycott of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. I’m not sure that results about Hillary Clinton are that surprising. Given that much of the support for striking at Iran is coming from the Jewish community, which is strongly Democratic, it would follow that Hillary Clinton would be viewed as the candidate most likely to deal with Iran effectively. However there are other polls.

But critics point out that the Zogby poll is not consistent with other national surveys. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll suggested opposition to the military option is growing, with 68 percent of Americans saying they would oppose a decision to strike Iranian targets. And in a Fox news poll, only 29 percent of Americans advocated military action “before President Bush leaves office,” with 54 present preferring to “let the next president deal with Iran.”

So the question remain if the differences in the results are due to timing (like maybe the Zogby poll took place after the revelation that Interpol has issued warrants in the Argentina bombing) or possibly due to the wording.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Melanie Phillips’ disturbing Britian’s Anti-Semitic turn notes that:

And now, in Britain and elsewhere, anti-Semitism has mutated again, its target shifting from culture to creed to race to nation. What anti-Semitism once did to Jews as people, it now does to Jews as a people. First it wanted the Jewish religion, and then the Jews themselves, to disappear; now it wants the Jewish state to disappear. For the presentation of Israel in British public discourse does not consist of mere criticism. It has become a torrent of libels, distortions, and obsessional vilification, representing Israel not as a country under exterminatory attack by the Arabs for the 60 years of its existence but as a regional bully persecuting innocent Palestinians who want only a homeland.

She shows how antisemitism has infected different sectors of British society: academia, the Church and the media. And while it doesn’t seem to be as bad in the government, the government isn’t without its bad apples.

Livingstone is not the only leftist politician “crossing the line.” In 2003, Labour backbencher Tam Dalyell claimed that Tony Blair was “being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers.” Liberal Democrat Jenny Tonge, whose party honored her with a peerage after she sympathized with suicide bombers and compared Arabs in Gaza with Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, told her party conference in 2006: “The pro-Israel lobby has got its grips on the Western world. I think they’ve probably got a certain grip on our party.”

While the English weren’t always supportive of Jewish settlement in Palestine, at least one British leader was supportive of a Jewish Homeland, Winston Churchill. Arthur Herman writes

A student of history, Churchill came to feel that Judaism was the bedrock of traditional Western moral and political principles–and Churchill was of a generation that preferred to talk about principles instead of “values.” For Europeans to turn against the Jew, he argued, was for them to strike at their own roots and reject an essential part of their civilization–”that corporate strength, that personal and special driving power” that Jews had brought for hundreds of years to Europe’s arts, sciences and institutions. To deny Jews a national homeland was therefore an act of ingratitude. Churchill became a keen backer of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which broached the idea of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. As a friend to Zionist leader Chaim Weizman, and as colonial secretary after World War I, Churchill made establishing such a homeland a matter of urgency. “The hope of your race for so many centuries will be gradually realized here,” Churchill told a Jewish audience in Jerusalem during his visit in March 1921, “not only for your own good, but for the good of all the world.”

Interestingly, the one action that Churchill took that haunts the Middle East to this day, was apparently done to help the Jews.

Yet Churchill was convinced that Arab civilization would benefit from contact with an entrepreneurial and morally centered people. “Speaking entirely as a non-Jew,” he wrote, “I look on the Jews as the natural importers of western leaven so necessary for countries in the Near East.” At the same time, Churchill tried to ensure that Palestinian Arabs got their own national homeland. It was Churchill who, as colonial secretary, decided to separate Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) from the rest of Palestine, assuming that Transjordan would become the site of the Arabs’ future state and that other parts of Palestine (including the West Bank of the Jordan River) would be open to Jewish settlement.

(Keep that history in mind the next time you hear a Palesitnian spokesman saying that they’ve compromised by giving up claims to 72% of Palestine and shouldn’t be required to compromise anymore. The Palestine Mandate included what is now Jordan.)

Given Churchill’s friendship with the Jews it’s more than a little ironic that James Baker whose hostility towards Israel was well known, (along with Lee Hamilton) was recently honored with a Churchill Award.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

The mills of international law grind slowly, if they grind at all. Thirteen years after the bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires in which 85 people were killed, Interpol makes its first move.

Despite heavy diplomatic pressure from Iran, delegates at the world police body’s annual general assembly in Morocco voted by 66 percent in favor of issuing the “Red Notices” seeking the extradition of the wanted people, delegates said.

But, as it goes in politics, expediency gets the upper hand.

Argentina ordered an international warrant last year for the arrest of former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and eight other Iranians on charges of masterminding the attack.

And:

Interpol said in March that it would issue its own wanted notices against six people, leaving out Rafsanjani.

So, the “moderate” darling of Juan Cole and other sorry sycophants gets scot-free.

Too bad.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.