Yourish.com

07/24/2009

Racism for me, but not for thee

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, The Exception Clause — Tags: — Meryl Yourish @ 8:00 am

So, you know that theory that says you can’t blame an entire people for the actions of some of them? It’s also part of The Exception Clause, because it goes for every people on earth, except, of course, the Jews.

Britain has seen an unprecedented number of anti-Semitic “hate crimes”, with more incidents recorded so far in 2009 than in any previous entire year, a Jewish advisory body said on Friday.

Up to the end of June, there were 609 anti-Semitic incidents ranging from verbal abuse to extreme violence, compared with 276 in the same period last year.

And what, exactly, would the cause of that be?

Israel’s Gaza offensive against Hamas militants which was launched at the end of December was the main cause, it said, with many of the incidents taking place in January and including direct references to the fighting.

Right. But of course, it’s not anti-Semitism. It’s anti-Zionism. Because after all, isn’t it perfectly acceptable that if Israel invades the Gaza Strip to try to stop the flight of hundreds of rockets at her civilian areas, then British Jew-haters should be able to beat up British Jews at will? After all, it’s cause-and-effect. Why, it’s just like someone in Virginia being allowed to beat up a random black youth because his mother was mugged by some other black youth. Right? Right?

Of course that’s wrong. And yet, the world utterly accepts this behavior. What? They don’t? Really? Just go read the fever-swamps of comments on any newspaper that carries this story (evenYnet).

The CST said there had been 77 violent anti-Semitic incidents including two it classified as “extreme violence”, an attack which could cause loss of life or grievous bodily harm.

Most incidents took place in London and Manchester, the two biggest Jewish communities in Britain.

To sum up: Jews defend themselves against terrorists. World attacks other Jews. Yeah, not much has changed, except for the fact that Jews in Israel can defend themselves.

07/16/2009

The Exception Clause and Hillary’s speech

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, The Exception Clause, The One — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

There’s a principle that I call The Exception Clause. Essentially, you add the words “except for Jews” or “except for Israel” to the end of every rule, statement, etc. that the world lives by, or something that is expected of everyone. It was in full bloom in Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy speech yesterday, where, we were told, she would be asking the Palestinians and Arabs to work as hard at fulfilling their obligations toward peace as the Obama administration is demanding from Israel.

And yet, Hillary Clinton’s speech said nothing specific, and did not live up to its hype. In fact, Secretary Clinton gave me the most recent in a long line of examples of The Exception Clause. Add “except for Israel” to the end of this excerpt, and you will see what I mean.

We’ve also begun to adopt a more flexible and pragmatic posture with our partners. We won’t agree on every issue. Standing firm on our principles shouldn’t prevent us from working together where we can. So we will not tell our partners to take it or leave it, nor will we insist that they’re either with us or against us.

It’s a fabrication. Because in Cairo, Obama did exactly that:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And referring to the President’s speech, Hillary said:

With respect to settlements, the President was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point.

Both of those quotes sure look like “take it or leave it” to me.

As for the “muscular” speech that would demand action from the Palestinians, well, here’s what Hillary demanded:

Ending the conflict requires action on all sides. The Palestinians have the responsibility to improve and extend the positive actions already taken on security; to act forcefully against incitement; and to refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely.

They have to “improve and extend” actions already taken. They have to “act forcefully” against incitement. Hillary didn’t even ask them specifically to end it. She could have demanded that the Palestinians should stop publishing textbooks that paint the entire land of Israel as “Palestine.” But the administration prefers to turn a blind eye to these realities, or downplay them. Instead, Obama calls in some Jewish leaders for a charm offensive, and most of them fall for it.

I haven’t. Obama is no friend of Israel. And Hillary is a fair-weather friend. When it suits her to be pro-Israel, she will be. When it doesn’t—well. Read the speech again. And don’t believe the hype. It’s almost never true.

The only thing you can count on is that Israel will always be the exception to every world rule.

11/07/2008

Canadian Human Rights Commission missed one

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

So the Canadian Human Rights Commission, after expending much effort and taxpayer money, did not find Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant guilty of human rights crimes. But I wonder what happened to the CHRC in this case of genuine hate crimes that caused fear and actual damage, not imaginary damage, among a Canadian minority community?

A man found guilty of firebombing attacks against Jewish targets in Montreal wasn’t the brains behind the attacks and should be given a suspended sentence, his lawyer argued yesterday. Gaetan Bourassa said his client, Azim Ibragimov, 25, did not plan the firebombing of a Jewish boys’ school, a Jewish community centre or a car on Sept. 2, 2006, and should receive three years’ probation. Crown attorney Mario Dufresne argued in Quebec Court yesterday that a distinction must be made between vandalism and terrorism. “The goal was not to just damage property but to cause fear and intimidate … the Jewish community,” he said, in asking for a four-year sentence. While Ibragimov’s actions were serious, Mr. Bourassa argued, it was his co-accused who planned the attack and took advantage of his friend’s immaturity to carry it out. Omar Bulphred, 23, faces nine charges. Ibragimov pleaded guilty in April to three counts of using fire or an explosive to cause damage to property, and one of uttering threats. He is to be sentenced on Nov. 17.

Please note how the defense is minimizing the anti-Semitic aspects of the case, even though all he did was attack Jewish institutions. And he has admitted his guilt.

He pleaded guilty earlier this year to firebombing Skver-Toldos Orthodox Jewish Boys school in Outremont in 2006, and attempting to attack a community centre the following year.

Ibragimov has admitted to throwing a Molotov cocktail at the school and trying to set one off at the Snowdon YM-YWHA.

He also admitted to writing letters that claimed the crimes were committed in the name of Islamic Jihad, a militant group that has vowed to destroy Israel and set up an Islamic Palestinian state, and hinted more incidents would come.

This must by why the CHRC didn’t get involved:

His former girlfriend, Anna Zelenko, told the court she didn’t believe Ibragimov was racist because he knew she was part Jewish and had lived in Israel for seven years.

Zelenko told the court he never made any anti-Semitic remarks while they were together. She testified she chose not to marry Ibragimov because he’s not very bright.

Oh, so it wasn’t a hate crime, because he had a part-Jewish girlfriend.

Mind you, I think I’ve come full circle about the concept of hate crimes, and I’m just about to decide that I’m against them in principle—but when a nation has an organization whose sole purpose is to seek out and destroy ideological haters, it’s funny that they didn’t have anything to do with, well, an actual hate crime trial. Well, no, not really. It’s The Exception Clause. Just add the phrase “except the Jews” to any case, such as, “The CHRC is against hate crimes against all people and groups.” Then you’ll understand.

07/16/2008

Ban Ki-Moon can’t read, can’t remember his own words

Filed under: Lebanon, The Exception Clause, World — Tags: — Meryl Yourish @ 3:30 pm

Ban Ki-Moon is hailing the exchange of live prisoners for dead Israeli soldiers as the “completion” of part of UNSC 1701.

The secretary general conveyed his heartfelt condolences and said he is deeply satisfied that the humanitarian aspects of Security Council Resolution 1701 have finally been met.

Really? Because just a few months ago, he said that any conditions on the release of Regev and Goldwasser were “outside the scope” of 1701.

“Hezbollah continues to refuse to provide any information on the release or fate of abducted soldiers, and places conditions and demands for the release that are far outside the scope of resolution 1701,” Ban wrote in the report, a copy of which was obtained by Haaretz.

The secretary-general also cites Israeli intelligence reports of Hezbollah’s rearmament drive since the end of the Second Lebanon War. The militia is said to have replenished its arsenal of rockets and missiles – including 10,000 long-range rockets and 20,000 short-range projectiles – which are now deployed on both sides of the Litani River.

“The reports of Hezbollah rearming are a cause of great concern posing serious challenges to the sovereignty, stability, and independence of Lebanon and the implementation of resolution 1701,” Ban wrote in the report.

It’s amazing, isn’t it, how the world’s memory fails at every instance of Arabs and Muslims breaking UN resolutions, and yet, they hold Israel responsible for breaking resolutions that are nonbinding, or that she never broke in the first place.

The Exception Clause, in all of its wonder.

03/17/2008

The Exception Clause, again

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Israel Derangement Syndrome, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

Imagine that two molotov cocktails were thrown at the home of a representative of a Muslim organization. Imagine the outrage, the news articles, the media notice.

Now imagine that two molotov cocktails were thrown at the home of a representative of an African-American organization. Imagine the outrage, the news articles, the media notice.

Now imagine that two molotov cocktails were thrown at the home of a representative of a Jewish organization. Imagine the outrage, the news articles, the media notice—or not.

PROVIDENCE — A Molotov cocktail was thrown into the apartment of a graduate student from Israel but did not explode and a second liquid-filled bottle landed in the yard outside the apartment building, exploded and burned itself out early Saturday, triggering an intensive investigation by several agencies including the FBI.

Targeted in the 1:15 a.m. episode was the second-floor apartment of Josef Knafo, 25, at 122 Camp St., a Brown University graduate fellow who also works at the the Brown University/Rhode Island School of Design Hillel House, on the city’s East Side. Knafo was home at the time, said Deputy Police Chief Paul J. Kennedy.

“At this point, we just don’t know whether to call this a hate crime because we don’t know the motivation,” Kennedy said yesterday.

Funny how they’re so quick to call a firebombing of any other minority a hate crime, yet they hesitate, and hem and haw and insist they have to find out the “motivation” behind the crime before they can even think about whether or not it’s a hate crime.

Kennedy said Knafo was in the kitchen of his apartment when he heard a bang. After looking out the window and seeing the fire on the ground, he came upon the unexploded bottle inside his bedroom, Kennedy said.

So what’s the Jewish agency?

The Jewish agency has hundreds of envoys worldwide that engage in all manner of educational, Zionist and PR endeavors. The agency furthermore organizes numerous solidarity rallies with Israel, including a recent rally following the shooting attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem.

Uh-huh. No idea if it was a hate crime. Because it’s so normal to throw molotov cocktails into apartments in Rhode Island. Happens every week or two, right? To everyone. Really. Nothing to see here. Move along.

11/08/2007

The changing Road Map narrative

Filed under: Israel, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 11:00 am

The Road Map has been awakened from its moribund state and bandied about a lot lately, particularly in the wire service reports about the upcoming mideast peace conference in Annapolis. For instance, the AP writes:

Israel continues to expand many of the 122 settlements in the West Bank, where 267,500 Israelis lived as of last month, according to government statistics.

Peace Now, an Israeli settlement-watchdog group, issued a report Wednesday saying building is going on in 88 of the settlements, though most of the work is in the areas Israel hopes to retain in a peace deal.

The Palestinians said Monday that they received assurances from Washington that Israel would meet its short-term obligations under the “road map,” a U.S.-backed peace plan being revived in hopes of boosting confidence between the two sides ahead of a peace conference later this month.

The plan’s initial stage called for Israel to freeze West Bank settlement construction and dismantle dozens of settlement outposts scattered across the territory. But the road map foundered after its introduction four years ago, with each side accusing the other of not meeting obligations.

And that is all you get about Palestinian obligations until you get to this paragraph:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said this week that Israel is willing to meet its road map obligations. He also urged the Palestinians to fulfill their commitment under the plan to crack down on militant groups that stage attacks on Israelis.

The story, mind you, is all about settlements. The headline alone is biased: “Israeli Settlements Burden Peace Push.” Funny how rockets are falling on Sderot nearly every day, and that’s not burdening the “peace push.” Terrorists are trying to kill Israelis every day, but that’s not burderning the “peace push.”

And it’s interesting also how the Road Map is being applied only to Israel, not to the Palestinians. Because the Road Map was absolutely explicit about the Palestinians’ responsibility to end violence, incitement, and terrorism.

Phase I: Ending Terror And Violence, Normalizing Palestinian Life, and Building Palestinian Institutions — Present to May 2003

In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below; such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel. Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures. Israel takes all necessary steps to help normalize Palestinian life. Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed at that time, as security performance and cooperation progress. Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.

At the outset of Phase I:

  • Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.
  • Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians.

Note that there is nothing ambiguous about the Road Map. The Palestinians must end violence and incitement. There is no exception clause for “resistance.” Done. Finis. End. The thing is, while you hear constant reproaches towards Israel for not freezing settlement construction, you hear not a word about ending Palestinian violence, terrorism, and incitement. Why is that, exactly? When did the Palestinian obligations cease to be obligations? If Condi Rice is being honest, why is she not demanding a cessation of all Palestinian violence and incitement? Why does she not demand the Palestinians stop teaching their children to hate the Jews? Why is she only demanding that Israel meet the obligations of the Road Map, while insisting only on “confidence-building measures” by the Palestinians?

I have no real answer for that, other than the standard answer: Apparently, the Palestinians have no obligations to do anything but demand a homeland, a “Palestine” that never existed on the land that was the Jewish homeland for thousands of years—except, according to Palestinians, that never happened, either.

You have to wonder why it is that only Israel is held up to any kind of Road Map standard, and only Israel is criticized for violations of a document that was never approved by the Israeli government, and is, quite frankly, about as non-binding as a document can get—because it was perfectly clear that in order for the Road Map to work, both sides had to implement responsibilities simultaneously.

A quick look around Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI show that the Palestinians have never ceased teaching their children to hate Jews. Incitement has never ended. Nor has terrorism, nor have the rockets.

Why, exactly, is only Israel expected to fulfill her obligations? The only answer I can see is the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. Or perhaps that other reason, the one that makes the world so much more difficult for Jews: The Exception Clause.

04/09/2007

Fifth Columns

Filed under: Israel, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 9:30 am

Let’s say you are a member of parliament of a nation with many enemies. Let’s say you regularly make trips to those enemy nations. Let’s also say that you call on the enemies of the nation whose parliament you are a member to bring down destruction on that nation. And finally, let’s say you advise the internal enemies of your nation never to make peace with the nation for whom you serve.

Would that make you guilty of treason?

Would that give the world a reason to think that perhaps you are working against the nation that elected you and sent you to parliament?

Well, in every other nation, yes. But here is where the Exception Clause comes into play. Because the nation is Israel, the member of parliament is an Arab born in Israel, and the world simply closes its eyes to the treachery because, of course, his grievance is that he is an Arab born in Israel.

Arab Knesset Member Azmi Bishara (Balad) warned Hamas against making any substantial concessions to win the international community’s support.

Bishara’s comments were made during an interview with Jordanian newspaper al-Ra’i prior to the publication of his intention to resign from the Knesset.

“Fatah’s willingness to make concessions during the 1970s and in the framework of the Oslo Accords and the Madrid Conference just so it could remain in power under the (Israeli) occupation hurt the movement,” he said.

Bishara has fled to Jordan, and word has it he is set to resign from the Israeli Knesset soon. Of course, he’s now denying it. But he is going to be charged with visiting enemy states (from where he spoke against Israel, if I recall correctly).

The MK’s reported upcoming resignation could be connected to suspicions that Bishara had violated a 2001 law forbidding political officials from traveling to enemy states after he visited both Lebanon and Syria in 2006.

When Bishara is charged with working with Israel’s enemies, watch for the world to excuse it on the grounds that Israel “colonized” his family’s land or something. Because Israel can never do right by most of the world. Probably has something to do with all those damned Jews in it. You see, if it were only the state of Palestine, the world would like it so much better… because they cared so much about the nation called the Mandate of Palestine prior to Israel’s birth.

Yes, that last paragraph was simply chock-full of sarcasm. Why do you ask?

07/20/2006

Zapatero the Hypocrite

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, The Exception Clause — Laurence Simon @ 10:52 am

Zapatero is not only a coward when it comes to knuckling under to Islamist demands, but he’s also a hypocrite.

Israel’s envoy to Spain said on Thursday the two countries’ relations had been damaged after the Spanish prime minister accused Israel of using “abusive force” during an event at which he also wore a Palestinian scarf.

Spain’s ability to use its influence to help defuse the growing Middle East conflict could suffer following the speech by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to a meeting of young Socialists on Wednesday, Ambassador Victor Harel said.

His comments came as European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, himself a Spaniard, was involved in talks aimed at ending fighting between Israel, Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas and Palestinian militants.

“Each declaration which is not balanced has consequences for parties who want to use their influence,” Harel told reporters at Madrid’s Ritz Hotel where he listened to Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos at a conference.

Moratinos, Solana, and Zapatero should stop looking East and instead sould look South at Spain’s own brutal and shameful longtime occupation of another country’s lands.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Spain currently occupies sovereign Moroccan territory, the land of Arab Muslims:

Morocco protests Spain’s control over the coastal enclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, and the islands of Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Penon de Alhucemas and Islas Chafarinas, and surrounding waters…

Spain uses attack dogs that are trained to kill, armed troops with shoot-to-kill orders, double-fencing, barbed and razor wire, and electrified barriers to protect their illegal and humiliating occupation of Ceuta and Melilla.

Territory won in colonial wars on conquest, not defensive wars protecting Spain from utter destruction and its population from genocidal massacre.

And unlike Gaza, Judea, Samaria, Golan, and Southern Lebanon, if Spain were to hand over that territory now they wouldn’t be sacrificing Spanish security in the slightest or putting the existence of Spain at risk by one bit.

07/04/2006

It’s sports for me, but not for thee

Filed under: Israel Derangement Syndrome, Jew Cooties, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 11:30 am

Remember how angry the Muslim world was when John Pantsil had the nerve to wave an Israeli flag? The number one comment was that he “politicized” the World Cup. It’s a sporting event, you see. There should be no politics involved.

Well, except if you’re talking about Israel.

Indonesia, that large Muslim nation that just released the man who praised the Bali bombers and said there should be more like them in the world, just canceled a Federation Cup tennis match with Israel. Why? Because of politics, of course.

Indonesia pulled out of a planned Fed Cup tennis match in Israel to protest against Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip, an Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman said Tuesday.

“We are witnessing a military invasion by Israel and the arrest of scores of Palestinian officials,” spokesman Desra Percaya said. “It is now impossible to play there,” he said.

Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, earlier asked that the venue be changed to another country, because Jakarta has no diplomatic relations with Israel.

Gee, that kinda sounds like politics were involved from the get-go, doesn’t it?

At first, the Indonesian team was hesitant to come, citing the lack of diplomatic relations between the countries.

Two weeks ago, after an Indonesian appeal to move the tie to a neutral site was rejected by the ITF, behind-the-scenes efforts were made to host the squad in mid July.

Yep. Politics were in from the start. A “neutral” site, eh? Why would the world’s most populous Muslim nation not want to play in Israel?

Oh, that’s right. Israel Derangement Syndrome, a.k.a. Jew Cooties, a.k.a. Israel Double Standard Time, a.k.a. The Exception Clause. Why, I could name a bunch of WP categories after it and populate them with posts. Oh, wait. I already did.

06/01/2006

The British academic boycott: anti-Semitic in effect and intent

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Israel, Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 11:30 am

You’ve read in many places by now the decision by a British teacher’s union to boycott Israeli scientists unless they sign some McCarthy-like statement saying they don’t agree with Israeli government policies (”Are you now or have you ever been a member of Likud?”). Something leaps out at me in every single article that gives the Israeli viewpoint of British academics.

The Israel Science Foundation, the largest funder of basic research in Israel, sends out some 10,000 letters a year asking scientists to examine research proposals by Israeli researchers and decide whether they deserve funding. According to Professor Joseph Klafter, the ISF’s chairman, about 10 scientists have refused to participate in the review process this year. He said that the foundation first began encountering such refusals following Operation Defensive Shield in March-April 2002. Such refusals typically say something like “I respect my Israeli colleagues, but until Israeli policy changes, I will be compelled to refuse your requests.”

What was Operation Defensive Shield? Why was it instituted?

After two months of intensive suicide bomber attacks inside Israel culminating in the attack on the Park Hotel in Netanya on Passover eve, killing 30 people including entire families, the government authorized the IDF to enter Palestinian controlled areas (Area A) with full force.

Over 30,000 reservists were called into duty for the operation that included incursions into most of the major Palestinian cities on the West Bank.

The goal of the operation was fourfold: to destroy as much of the terrorist infrastructure as possible; to re-establish Israeli deterrence; to place the terrorist organizations on the defensive, and to isolate Arafat and weaken his authority.

An important byproduct of Operation Defensive Shield was utterly overlooked by most of the world at large: The IDF discovered documents directly linking Yasser Arafat to terrorist attacks on Israel while he was supposedly working for “peace.” The world issued a collective yawn, and denials that this proved Arafat was behind terror. The usual accusations of the Mossad manufacturing evidence occurred, in spite of incidents like the Karine A, in which 50 tons of weapons were prevented from reaching Israel, and Arafat’s complicity was again proven — and again ignored.

In March alone, more than 135 Israeli civilians were murdered in terrorist attacks.

That was the reason for Operation Defensive Shield.

The spring of 2002 is when world opinion, never very fond of Israel, turned vehemently against the Jewish state. The constant terror attacks were ignored, or excused as an expected response to the “crimes” of “occupation” (this, in spite of the fact that the PA ran the terrortories [sic] under the corrupt Jew-hater, Yasser Arafat (may his name be erased). Jews blown up on buses? Well, hell, that’s what they get for not letting the palestinians have their own state. Jews gunned down at a Bat Mitzvah celebration? It’s their own damned fault for occupying the indigenous people’s territory. Jews fight back to destroy the terrorist infrastructure? Hey! Hey! YOU CAN’T DO THAT TO THE POOR LITTLE UNARMED, UNDERFED, UNEMPLOYED, INNOCENT PALESTINIANS!!! YOU HAVE TANKS! THEY DON’T! YOU HAVE HELICOPTERS! THEY DON’T! YOU HAVE AIRPLANES! THEY DON’T!

That is essentially the attitude and the argument that came out of Israel’s actions of self-defense. You will still hear that argument today, as well as the accusations of massacres, war crimes, etc., etc. You will never hear a peep from the world about palesitnian atrocities. They have pretty much ignored the murder two days ago of a couple who were accused of “collaboration.”

This is the turning point for British academia. In the spring of 2002, when Israeli children on their way to school were being blown to pieces on buses, and the Israelis finally said “Enough!” and began to clamp down on the palestinian terror infrastructure, the world rose up in indignation against — Israel. Not against the murderers of children. Not against the murderers of Holocaust survivors at a Passover seder. Not against the corrupt, murderous, lying regime of Yasser Arafat.

Against Israel.

The British academic boycott has nothing to do with academic freedom. It has nothing to do with ending “apartheid” policies. It has everything to do with the British intellectual elite being unable to get over its centuries of Jew-hatred, or to allow the Jews full citizenship in the world.

If the British academics truly believed that it is wrong to take over a country, displace the indigenous population, colonize and settle it with your own, and force your rule on it — they’d be boycotting themselves, because that is what Great Britain did to Ireland.

I say again: Thank you, Great-grandfather, for emigrating from Scotland to America. Thank you for not making me a citizen of the U.K.

04/06/2006

The EU will support Hamas

Filed under: Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

Javier Solana and the EU have decided they don’t want to see a Hamas government fail.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana told the European Parliament on Wednesday that the EU did not want the Hamas government to fail and believed the Islamist movement, which espouses the violent destruction of Israel, should be given a chance to change.

These people are unbelievable. They live with their heads in the sand, with their ears plugged by their fingers while they shut their eyes and say “Lalala, I can’t HEAR you!” when confronted with information like this:

Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar on Wednesday denied referring to a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict, wording that might have hinted Hamas was recognizing Israel’s right to exist.

“Such a sentence was not used in the letter,” Zahar told Reuters in the Gaza Strip.

And:

“I dream of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it,” Zahar said in the interview. “I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize).”

And:

“We and the Zionists have a date with destiny,” he said. “If they want a fight, we are ready for it. If they want a war, we are the sons of war. If they want a struggle, we are for it to the end. We have more stamina than Israel and will defeat it, God willing.”

And:

Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader sworn into the Palestinian Authority cabinet last week, told the Xinhua news agency that he is certain the goal will be realized, because “There is no place for Israel on this land.”

And these quotes are all from the last two and a half weeks.

And here’s one from yesterday:

Israel must not be recognized and the Palestinian Foreign Ministry should aim to establish a Palestinian State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, in place of the Jewish State, PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar said according to Palestinian media reports.

The EU is full of morons. Hamas will never change. Hamas will never moderate.

The war is coming.

03/07/2006

Drop the Saudis from the WTO

Filed under: The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

One of the restrictions on WTO member countries is that they may not boycott other member countries. But the Exception Clause appears to be in full swing here, because the Saudis are openly announcing that they still boycott Israeli goods, and are hosting an OIC forum on how to improve the boycott of Israel.

Despite a promise made to Washington last November to drop its economic boycott of Israel, Saudi Arabia plans to host a major international conference next week aimed at promoting a continued trade embargo on the Jewish state, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The Post also found that the kingdom continues to prohibit entry to products made in Israel or to foreign-made goods containing Israeli components, in violation of pledges made by senior Saudi officials to the Bush administration last year.

“Next week, we will hold the ninth annual meeting for the boycott of Israel here in Jidda,” Ambassador Salem el-Honi, high commissioner of the Organization for the Islamic Conference’s (OIC) Islamic Office for the Boycott of Israel, said in a telephone interview.

“All 57 OIC member states will attend, and we will discuss coordination among the various offices to strengthen the boycott,” he said, noting that the meeting is held every March.

The OIC, consisting of 57 Muslim countries, is based in Jidda, as is its boycott office.

Gee, I wonder if any action will be taken against Saudi Arabia’s membership status in the WTO.

No, not really. I was just kidding.

The Exception Clause stands unchanged.

11/20/2005

The terrorism Exception Clause

Filed under: Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 6:25 pm

The news is good coming out of Jordan, everyone writes – even Glenn Reynolds – because the Jordanians are protesting the suicide bombing attacks that killed dozens and wounded hundreds in Amman. Yes, they’re protesting suicide bombings–when the result kills Muslims. They’re perfectly fine if the bombs kill Americans, and especially if suicide bombings murder Jews.

Norm Geras had a roundup of comments last week. I’ve been saving my own roundup for a while. Here’s one of the comments that make me believe that perhaps the optimism is, shall we say, misplaced:

“Oh my God, oh my God. Is it possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims?” asked a weeping Najah Akhras, 35, who lost two nieces.

That doesn’t seem to me to be a ringing condemnation of suicide bombing. And this gets the award for Ironic Paragraph of the Year:

Similar thoughts were heard over and over in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Thursday, as Palestinians expressed outrage over suicide attacks aimed at civilians.

This article, about 17 dead from one family, went around the AP wires, and therefore worldwide to newspapers:

For more than five years, Palestinian militants have carried out dozens of suicide bombings in Israel, killing hundreds of people, often with wide support from a public that believed the attacks were a justified response to Israeli military rule.

But the mood has changed in recent months following a cease-fire with Israel, and the attacks in Amman could further sway public opinion against suicide bombings.

“Palestinians have tasted the blind violence that does not differentiate between people – children, women, wedding parties, ordinary people,” said Palestinian newspaper commentator Hani al-Masri.

“I expect now a significant change in the Palestinian political culture,” he said. “For sure, this attack will push Palestinians to reconsider this way of suicide bombings, and I think it would reduce support for attacks that kill people without any differentiation.”

Say, did anyone happen to notice a drop in palestinian support for suicide bombings against Israelis? [crickets] Yeah, me neither.

There was another article in the AP, this one about how the people of Al-Zarqawi’s town are “torn” over the bombings.

Some voiced anger of al-Zarqawi’s attack on fellow Jordanians, but others were unsure that he was involved at all, saying it could have been a bogus claim.

Others blamed Israel, which despite its 1994 peace treaty with Jordan is still seen as a pariah by many here, who trace their roots back to the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

“I don’t even know if the man is still alive or not,” Abed el-Momany said of al-Zarqawi. “I would not discount the Israeli Mossad. Israel is the worm in the Arab world,” he added.

Ayman Tawalby, sitting cross legged on the ground and stroking his Osama bin Laden-style beard, said he opposed any terrorist attacks inside Jordan.

“I support the resistance against the Americans in Iraq and against the Israelis everywhere,” said the unemployed 47-year-old. “Those are our enemies. But I don’t support bombing innocent civilians.”

In the town’s center, Nabil Daoud said he supported bin Laden when he fought the Soviets and, later, the Americans in Afghanistan, just like he backed al-Zarqawi’s insurgency against the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq.

“But when they started targeting Muslims, I stopped sympathizing with them,” said Daoud, who is in his early 20s. “I don’t understand it anymore.”

They’re not really torn. They simply don’t think it’s okay to target Muslims. Jews? Not a problem. Americans? Go for it. Muslims?

“Oh my God, oh my God. Is it possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims?”

There have been no protests from the Muslim and Arab world at the hundreds of suicide bombings in Iraq, in which Muslims are killing Muslims nearly every day. And of course, we have never seen an Arab nation protest suicide bombings in Israel.

What I’m seeing from the Jordanian marches is the same thing we’ve seen in anti-terror marches everywhere. They are rejecting terrorism only when it affects them personally. They have no problem with terrorists targeting Israelis and Americans, or other “enemies” of theirs. That is, the majority does not. A tiny minority is arguing that all suicide bombing is a crime against humanity. But they are in the minority.

When I see Jordanians protest a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that kills only Jews, then I will believe that they are having a true epiphany. For now, all I see is self-interest at work.

And Jew-hatred. Always, the Jew-hatred.

11/03/2005

Bloodthirsty killer legislators II

Filed under: Israel, Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 1:00 pm

Let’s see if I have the timing of this right. Shaul Mofaz says Israel will not tolerate Hamas as elected legislators, and will not work with the PA if Hamas becomes their partner in terror. They may not be able to actively prevent it, but nothing says they have to help the palestinians with their elections–meaning that Israel would not lift curfews and travel bans, thus guaranteeing a low turnout for Hamas. Before meeting with Mofaz, Condi Rice says that Abbas must fight terror before moving on to the next step in the Road Map. In the meantime, Rice tells Mofaz that he should suck it up and deal with Hamas terrorists as legislators, as it’s an “internal” palestinian issue. (But of course, terrorists were not allowed to run for office in Afghanistan and Iraq, and nobody told the U.S. to suck it up and let them.) Mofaz then announces that Israel will not interfere with palestinian elections.

Mr. Mofaz said that the Palestinian Authority chief should move to dismantle armed factions before the election, and that Israel would not have any dealings with members of terrorist groups who might be elected to the parliament and become part of a Palestinian government.

Wow, that’ll show them. “You’re a member of Hama? You can’t come to the meeting.”

Once again, the hypocrisy and double-standard of the world–and this particular administration–makes me sick. A terrorist is a terrorist, whether he is wearing a suit or a kaffiyeh.

Once again, the Bush Administration’s stance on terrorism against Israelis fails the test.

I know someone that voted for Bush who will be voting Democratic come Tuesday.

10/31/2005

Iran’s slap on the wrist

Filed under: Israel, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 8:30 am

The UN Security Council released a “statement” chiding Iran for calling for the destruction of Israel. The non-Arab, non-Muslim world reacted with outrage. We’re still waiting to hear from an Arab or Muslim nation that they don’t agree with Iran’s stance, although I may have missed a statement from one of the more moderate nations (Jordan, for instance).

Iran’s government has quite clearly come out in support of its president, in spite of the media spin to the contrary.

Editorial writers from around the world are recoiling in horror that Iran would give George W. Bush exactly the kind of leverage he needs to prove that Iran is a rogue state, while managing to downplay exactly what Iran said to give W. that leverage.

In the meantime, Iran offers Islamic Jihad a bounty for firing rockets into the West Bank while denying that it supports palestinian terrorists–which denial is quoted throughout the wire services and other media as if it might actually have some basis in fact, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is a lie–and still, Kofi Annan is going to visit Iran next week.

Actions have consequences. If Israel had called to wipe Iran off the map, she’d have been expelled from the UN in a heartbeat.

Once again, the Exception Clause applies. I hold out little hope that Annan will cancel his visit to Iran.

10/26/2005

Bloodthirsty killer legislators

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 8:35 am

So the president doesn’t think it’s a good idea to “interfere” in the palestinian elections, and has forced Israel to drop its demand that the PA forbid Hamas members to run for office in the upcoming elections.

Here are the thoughts and words of one of those Hamas leaders. Once again, the Exception Clause–the understanding that the laws that apply to the rest of the world, such as not allowing terrorists to run for office in Afghanistan and Iraq, do not apply when it comes to the safety of Jews.

Hamas will increase the number of kidnappings of Israelis if Israel does not release Palestinian prisoners, the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, told Haaretz this week.

He added that the group will not extend its participation in a cease-fire among Palestinian organizations beyond the end of 2005 if the Palestinian Authority reneges on its promise to hold elections in January.

So there you have the first admission: Hamas will be back murdering Jews as soon as the elections are over–elections in which they are expected to take as many as a third of the positions.

Zahar said that although Hamas participated in municipal elections and while it may agree to temporary political arrangements, it has not changed its basic position that Palestine between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River is sacred Muslim land. He conceded that the Hamas charter calling for the destruction of Israel could change, but “the subject is not under discussion right now.”

I’m not getting how the charter can change if he insists that Israel is Muslim land. This is the latest Hamas spin. It’s bullshit. But they know the world will take the spin and say, “See? They can change! They’ve said so!” while ignoring the rest of the words. Case in point:

Zahar said he believed Oslo would lead to “one big zero” politically. “But today the situation is different. There is Palestinian consensus regarding the 1967 borders and some people think this is a strategic alternative and the end of the story. But Hamas regards these borders only as a stage in the struggle, which will be decided by a change in circumstances. Some Israelis think when we speak about the West Bank and Gaza it means we have given up on the historic war and this is not the case.”

But that isn’t the money quote. Here it is:

“The present cease-fire is not a change of position. … There is a difference between a change of circumstances and a change of position.”

Hamas is a group of murderers and Islamic fanatics. They will never change their charter, they will always reject the presence of infidels on “sacred Muslim land,” and they will never get along with Israel.

What is it about that the world can’t understand? The murderers say it, and say it, and say it again–and the EU opens negotiations with them, the UN refuses to call them terrorists, and the Bush Adminstration says it’s okay for them to run in palestinian elections.

The only explanation I can find is that there is one rule for the world, and one for the Jews.

The world does not like the Jews.

10/21/2005

Now I believe: W. is an idiot

Filed under: Israel, Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 7:50 am

As if the previous post weren’t bad enough, there’s this report of the Bush/Abbas press conference in the Jerusalem Post:

n a joint press conference in the White House Rose Garden, Bush demanded that the PA confront violence before the elections, but refrained from demanding that Hamas be disarmed before it is allowed to take part in the political process. He referred only to “armed gangs,” and did not mention Hamas by name.

[...] Bush was full of praise to Abbas in their joint press conference and repeated several times that he had chosen the way of peace and had run for office with a platform of peace.

Sure. The way of peace and the platform of peace: Peace between palestinians. Let us not forget that Abbas was Yasser Arafat’s hand-picked choice, and that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the mass murderer for decades.

The message to Abbas, according to one source, was that: “You have to role up your sleeves and start working, buddy. Otherwise you’re not going to have a Palestinian state.”

He also dismissed the notion that Israel would be disappointed that Bush did not call on Abbas to ban Hamas from participating in elections or even refer to it by name.

He said Bush was leaving the “internal matter” of who participates in elections up to the PA, but warning it that it would face the consequences of allowing armed groups to run. The source summarized: “It’s your problem, and it’s a problem you have to solve.”

No, I think it’s going to be Israel’s problem, when the arms are directed her way, and the blood starts flowing freely again.

Funny. The Taliban wasn’t allowed to run in the Afghan elections. Ba’athists were prevented from running in the Iraqi elections. But it’s just ducky to let Hamas terrorists run in the palestinian elections.

Why? Because terror against Jews is part of The Exception Clause. But you all knew that already.

It’s official: Bush sells out Israel

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

President George W. Bush, the man for whom I voted because of his stance in the war on terror, will not pressure the palestinians to prevent Hamas from running in the upcoming elections.

WASHINGTON – The United States will not actively oppose Hamas’ participation in the Palestinian Authority parliamentary elections, Palestinian officials said following U.S. President George Bush’s meeting with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday.

Even before the White House meeting, American officials said that while Washington objects in principle to allowing an armed organization to run in the elections, the final decision rests with the PA. And while Bush raised the issue of disarming Hamas prior to elections at Thursday’s meeting, he did not dwell on it or pressure Abbas, Palestinian sources said. He also did not mention the issue during a joint press conference with Abbas following the meeting. American officials explained that Bush believes there is no advantage to staging a frontal confrontation with Abbas a few months prior to the January elections.

There is no advantage to pushing Abbas to conform to his duties as determined by the Road Map, which are to disarm terror organizations and prevent terrorism against Israel.

No. There’s no advantage. It’s only going to prevent more Jewish deaths. We wouldn’t want you to pressure the PA to do the right thing at the expense of Israeli lives, though. No, instead, Bush is going to pressure Israel:

“Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its roadmap obligations,” Bush said, referring to a blueprint for peacemaking approved by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

Without elaboration, the president said Israel would be “held to account” for any actions that hamper peacemaking or burden the lives of Palestinians.

But Bush said he was a “heck of a lot more confident” of peace prospects than when he first took office five years ago. Both Abbas and Prime minister Ariel Sharon are committed to making peace, he said.

Well, that’s a relief. Bush is more confident, even though there’s no proof whatsoever that the pals are ready to stop murdering Jews, and even though palestinian television is currently showing an anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli program that claims (among other things) that Israel is infecting palestinians with AIDS.

Ariel Sharon is a fool. The supposed letter from Bush he got is worthless. Bush sold out Israel. Watch for another Oslo in the final years of the Bush Administration, because once again, I’m not seeing a difference between his Mideast policy and his predecessor’s.

10/20/2005

An almost balanced AP analysis

Filed under: Terrorism, The Exception Clause, palestinian politics — Meryl Yourish @ 8:05 am

The AP is running an almost-balanced news analysis of the upcoming Bush/Abbas talks.

Except for the fact that they call Hamas “extremists” and “militants,” neglect to mention that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, that they are terrorists and murderers, not politicians, and that if the Ba’athists were refused slots in the Iraqi elections, and the Taliban in the Afghan elections, it is only natural that Hamas be refused to be allowed to participate in palestinian elections. But that Exception Clause keeps on kicking in.

But Edward Abington, a former U.S. consul-general in Jerusalem who advises the Palestinian leadership, said Abbas prefers bringing Hamas and other militant groups into the political process, where he hopes to bind them to law-and-order legislation.

“As far as running in an election, you cannot cherry-pick between those you like and those you don’t like,” Abington said in an interview. “But once they are in the legislature they will be bound by the decisions and the laws passed by the legislature.”

Abbas may face similar requests to screen out extremist candidates when he meets with House and Senate leaders after seeing the president. Abbas also was to meet with Vice President Dick Cheney.

Oh, yeah. Once they become legislators, they’re going to suddenly realize it’s illegal to murder people. Uh-huh. Sure. Because, it’s not like they already ignore the laws regarding, say, Israelli “collaborators.

Yeah. Sure. Uh-huh.

09/21/2005

Quartet to Israel: Deal with the terrorists

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 8:03 am

We have our answer to whether or not Israel is expected to deal with terrorists: A resounding yes.

QUESTION: First of all, Secretary Rice, we just got the statement, but basically it said in the statement something about militias not candidates for — armed militias not being candidates for elections. So let me put it another way. Prime Minister Sharon said last week that he will not — that Israel will not help in — if Hamas is part of the election. What is your view on that?

And also for the Europeans, what is there — maybe Foreign Minister Straw. Since the EU said yesterday that it’s about to, I think, 215 million Euro was the number to Gaza, what do we do to assure that money that goes into the Palestinian territories will not go into, you know, failed projects that might go to waste?

SECRETARY RICE: Before turning to my European colleague, let me just say that I think the Secretary General has said very well that there is concern that any democratic process must observe that you cannot have kind of an armed option within the democratic process. But we understand that the Palestinian political system is in transition, that it is in transition toward a democratic system, and that that has to be a Palestinian process.

We would hope that the elections can go forward and that everyone will cooperate to make those elections go forward because elections are fundamental to the continued evolution and development of the Palestinian process. That said, again, we have noted that ultimately it is the case that there is a fundamental contradiction between armed activities and the political process, armed activities that are outside the monopoly of the state on violence and the political process. And so that is a matter of principle ultimately.

We understand that this is a transition and I think everybody understands that this is a transitional process.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SECRETARY RICE: This is going to be a Palestinian process and I think we have to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process.

But it’s not just Israel and the palestinians. Now the UN is allowing Iran Hizbullah to dictate the process.

QUESTION: The question is the implementation of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and also the signing of a peace treaty between Lebanon and Israel.

SECRETARY GENERAL ANNAN: The dismantling of Palestinian militia in Lebanon does come under 1559, but this is something that the Lebanese authorities will have to handle. And of course, we have discussed this issue with them and they will do it their way in time and organize themselves to do that.

The other aspects of 1559 that we have implemented were discussed here in this house and in this room.

As to the signing of a peace agreement between Lebanon and Israel, that is a matter that the two countries will have to discuss. I’m not sure that on the Lebanese side they are ready to do that as long as they believe the Shebba Farms is still under contention. And I think in time that may happen, but I don’t see it on the cards today.

I should like to point out that the UN certified that Israel withdrew to accepted borders, and the Sheba’a Farms area is not Lebanese land. But now the world is backing down from that and allowing the terrorists to dictate the terms.

So there you have it. The Bush and Blair administrations bristle with anger anytime the press says they ought to sit down and talk with Al Qaeda, but they’re perfectly content to say that Israel should negotiate with two groups that are actively working to destroy them, and have stated as much, and will continue to do so as long as the world continues to reward terrorists that kill mostly Jews.

The Exception Clause, in full bloom.

09/17/2005

The Exception Clause

Filed under: Blasts from the past, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 11:19 am

Originally published on June 11, 2005

Alex Bensky, the uber-commenter, has an explanation as to why groups like Human Rights Watch are so focused on Israeli human rights violations, and rarely on violations against Israelis:
(more…)

09/15/2005

Israel Supreme Court to ICJ: Eff You

Filed under: Israel, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 8:21 am

Look for the screeching to begin: The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the separation fence’s route in the West Bank is legal even while saying the state must reroute some of the fence.

The panel nevertheless rejected a July 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice in the Hague and ruled that Israel had the authority in principle to build a separation fence in the West Bank, beyond the Green Line, for security reasons.

[...] The panel ruled that according to international law, an army in occupied territory is authorized to erect a fence in order to protect the lives of its own citizens, including settlers. The High Court based its ruling on regulations of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which constitute an integral part of international law, as well as the constitutional rights of settlers under Israeli law.

This decision rejects the petitioners’ stance that Israel does not have the authority to build the fence beyond the Green Line and that the fence was being built for political, not security, reasons.

The justices ruled that the international court’s decision should be given legal weight, but that since the judges at The Hague were not presented with the complete evidential basis for Israel’s security needs, the international court’s ruling does not bind the Israeli High Court of Justice.

That’s telling ‘em.

09/14/2005

Crimes against Jews

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Israeli Double Standard Time, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 8:33 am

Saddam Hussein got free rein for decades. Robert Mugabe starves his citizens, North Korea is a prison camp, and the world covers its eyes to those crimes. The massacres in Darfur go on, even as the UN tsk-tsks and says they really are going to get around to doing something to stop them someday. The war crimes trial of Milosevic was how many years long?

So whom does the world go after for “war crimes”?

The Jews.

The EU is one of the groups behind the British arrest warrant for the former head of the IDF Southern Command, Doron Almog. A self-hating Israeli is the lawyer behind the warrant.

Reading article after article after article on this case, I get a sense of 1930s Germany. The war crimes cover sure seems like an excuse to single out the Jews, because I’m not seeing a war crimes warrant for Saddam Hussein’s arrest issued anywhere but Iraq. I see a lot of his defenders, though. I guess it’s okay to be a mass murderer, but it is not okay to do what it takes to defend your people in the midst of a terror war.

And they’re not stopping at Almog. Now they’re going after Dan Halutz and Moshe Yalon.

And yet, there are no war crimes charges against palestinian terrorists, or the terror-supporting states that fund them, train them, and send them weapons and bombs.

When people tell me that the anti-Israel movements are not anti-Semitic, this is why I won’t believe them.

09/13/2005

Everyone but Israel

Filed under: The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 8:19 am

WTO members must conduct free trade with other members. Except, of course, when it comes to Israel.

Saudi Arabia has agreed to lift certain aspects of its boycott against Israel in an attempt to satisfy US demands regarding the Saudi request to join the World Trade Organization.

An agreement between US and Saudi trade representatives was signed last week. As part of this agreement, the Saudi government declares it will not enforce a boycott against American firms that have trade relations with Israel. The Saudis also commit themselves to obeying WTO trade rules regarding all member countries of the organization, including Israel. This does not mean that Saudi Arabia is abandoning the Arab boycott against Israel, but it does limit the scope of the boycott.

“This [agreement] represents progress for Saudi Arabia, the US and the WTO,” said a statement issued Friday by US trade representative Rob Portman.

One of the conditions set by the US for signing a trade agreement with Saudi Arabia was abandoning the boycott against Israel, and the final wording of the agreement is a result of lengthy negotiations on this issue.

What does this mean?

Saudi Arabia hopes to join the WTO by the end of this year and the agreement reached with the US paves the road to reaching this goal.

Good to know that the U.S. is Israel’s ally.

09/08/2005

World to Israel: We don’t care about more dead Jews

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 8:21 am

So much for withdrawal doing a damn thing to change the status quo. The world is warning Israel to “show restraint” as rockets fly into Sderot.

Israel is mistaken in believing that, by withdrawing from Gaza, the international community will tolerate all types of military retaliation against rocket fire originating from Gaza, a senior western diplomatic official said Wednesday.

The diplomat’s comments came on the day that Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom warned visiting Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos to expect a harsh response if Israel was attacked from Gaza following the complete IDF withdrawal. Also yesterday, Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz hinted during an appearance at the Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Relations Committee that Israel would react to Kassams by firing back mortars of its own.

The senior diplomat said that the international reaction to IDF actions in Gaza would most likely depend on the extent of the military action and the number of innocent people killed.

Oh, so Israel’s response depends on how many people die? Funny how the world ignores the French response in the Ivory Coast when their forces were attacked. Or the response Russia shows in Chechnya. Or the response America shows in Iraq and Afghanistan when bombing terrorist positions that sometimes contain civilians.

How is it that only the Jews are told to die without responding? Oh, wait. That’s what the world expects us to do. That’s what we’ve done for two thousand years.

Eff you, Unnamed Western Diplomat, and eff you, world, if you think we’re going to lie down and die without responding.

Never again.

Never again.

Never again.

09/05/2005

The Iranian undeclared war

Filed under: Terrorism, The Exception Clause — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

Iran is once more waging war on Israel, and not exactly by proxy.

An Iranian paper here Monday commented on the withdrawal of the Jewish settlers from Gaza Strip urging Palestinians “to speed up the struggle against the usurper entity Israel.” “Any false sense of euphoria at this stage would be catastrophic,” warned the ‘Kayhan International’ adding that not necessarily an armed confrontation but a “Coordinated Jihad in all spheres of the struggle,” was what was really needed at the current junction.

Criticizing the forthcoming talks between the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the strongly-worded editorial said “nothing is going to come out of these self-humiliating one-sided talks that have seen only setbacks for the Palestinian since the treasonous trend of compromise started in Oslo and Madrid in 1993.”

Not strong enough for you? How’s this?

“The Palestinians have a date with destiny that will eventually obliterate all traces of Zionist usurpation from their homeland,” said the paper in conclusion.

Oh, but that’s only one newspaper, it means nothing, right? Wrong.

Tehran, Iran, Sep. 04 – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the jihad against Israel must continue and be strengthened, Iran’s semi-official daily Jomhouri Islami reported on Sunday.

“The only way to fight the Zionist enemy is to continue and increase resistance and jihad”, Ayatollah Khamenei said at a meeting on Saturday with secretary general of the Palestinian group Islamic Jihad, Ramadan Abdullah, the hard-line daily Jomhouri Islami wrote.

Iran supports Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah, two of the terrorist groups that have murdered or injured thousands of Israelis. And again, the world ignores this completely, and actually has the nerve to support Hizbullah in their ludicrous claim to the Sheba’a Farms area.

Once more, the Yourish.com mantra: Anti-Semites of the world, just die already. That includes the Mullahs who rule Iran.

Powered by WordPress