Hamas wants to renew the faux truce

Posted on 12/23/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Of course Hamas wants to renew the truce.

Senior Hamas official Mahmoud Al-Zahar said Tuesday that his organization was willing to renew the truce in Gaza if Israel adheres to the terms that have been agreed upon last June.

There are several reasons why Hamas wants to renew the truce.

First, I think Hamas has discovered that Israel really means to go in force into Gaza, and while they’re pretty sure they can handle the IDF, what with using the three-year-old model of Hezbullah and the Lebanon War (while the IDF is prepared to go in with new tactics that will bewilder and defeat Hamas), they don’t want to—yet. They want to continue the arms buildup without penalty.

Second, they want the fiction of the truce so that idiots like the editorial writers at the Washington Post will chastise Israel for refusing to supply her enemies with the means of her destruction, rather than chastise the terrorist group that wants to destroy Israel.

And last, there’s the “Why bother?” factor—the one where Hamas gets everything they want by pretending to follow the truce, which is actually a “calm,” which is actually permission (they think) to send in the occasional rocket instead of the barrages every day that they intend to send in when they’re up to full strength. Why shouldn’t Hamas get to pretend there’s a truce, when the world will condemn Israel for responding to the rocket fire, rather than Hamas for firing (or allowing the firing of) the rockets? It’s a win-win for Hamas.

So of course they want to renew the “lull.” It costs them little, and brings great rewards.

Posted in Gaza, Hamas | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Eyeless on the Potomac: the WaPo tells Israel to defend itself with the goodwill of Hamas

Posted on 12/23/2008 by Soccerdad

Israel has some tough choices ahead. Amos Harel of Ha’aretz writes:

According to leaks from Jerusalem Sunday, a decision has been made for an extensive military action, and a ground operation is not out of the question. At this stage, Israel apparently prefers other options. First, the air force will go in, striking not only rocket-launching cells but also attempting to hit the manufacturers, suppliers and commanders. Targets might also include Hamas bases, offices, and if there’s an escalation, assassinations of senior Hamas officials.

As for a ground operation, the question is how to get Hamas to go back to the understandings in place at the beginning of the cease-fire without risking all-out fighting that would begin with rockets on Ashdod and Be’er Sheva and end with the return of Israeli armor to Gaza.

But as Harel noted earlier:

Israel’s leaders seem to be realizing their error of recent weeks vis-a-vis Hamas. Hamas concluded from Israel’s declarations that we want peace and have no intention of taking over Gaza; that it is free to strike at the Negev as much as it wants because Israel is afraid of an entanglement.

In other words if Hamas thinks that it will suffer no consequences, it will attack Israel.

On the other hand.

A point the media has missed over the past few days is that most of the rockets are being launched by Islamic Jihad and smaller factions, which Hamas has stopped reining in. If Hamas goes into action, there could be 100 rockets a day instead of dozens.

Understand then, what Harel is saying, is that Hamas allowed the rockets to be fired into Israel. The problem is that if Hamas actually gets involved in rocket firing, the violence against Israel will be greater.

Yaakov Katz of the Jerusalem Post writes about what Hamas has accomplished in the past six months

Since the unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Hamas has been involved in one of the most intensive military buildups – for a terrorist group – in modern history. It, everyone knows, is no longer a small terrorist group just capable of building explosive belts for suicide bombings.

While Hamas used the past six months of a “cease-fire” to train its forces, it also took advantage of the suspension in IDF operations to fortify its military posts in the Gaza Strip. According to one high-ranking security official, Hamas has dug dozens of kilometers of tunnel systems throughout Gaza that will be used by fighters to move from one place to another undetected.

Knowing this renders today’s Washington Post’s nostalgic editorial More Rockets From Gaza even more lame than it appears at first glance. The subtitle of the editorial is “Israel must protect its citizens — but can it do so by military action?” and, as you can guess the answer is “It depends how you define ‘must’ and ‘no.'”

The Post’s editors lay out:

Neither side seems to want such an all-out fight — particularly not Israel, whose defense minister has pointed out that an invasion could cost hundreds of lives and leave thousands of Israeli troops stranded in Gaza without an exit strategy. But neither Israel nor Hamas has been satisfied with the informal cease-fire they reached in June with the help of Egypt. During the summer and fall, the rocket fire from Gaza diminished but never entirely stopped. Israel, in turn, allowed only a modest increase in the flow of goods into Gaza, which has been under virtual siege since last year, and frequently sealed off the strip entirely in response to fresh attacks.

Notice the equivalence between Israel’s blockade and Hamas’s targeting civilians. Unfortunately the Post uses the inflammatory language of “virtual siege” when in fact it has been nothing of the sort. First of all, Gaza abuts Egypt too. If there’s a siege of Gaza it’s something that Egypt participated in too. Second of all, these past six months Hamas has been importing weaponry and construction material through their infrastructure of tunnels. If civilian supplies are short, it’s because Hamas has chosen Qassams over butter.

The editorial spends a lot of time concentrating on Hamas’s popularity and uses that supposed popularity as an argument against an Israeli military campaign. Of course, if they’d been paying attention, the editors would know that Hamas’s popularity has decreased lately and would lose elections to Fatah. And of course worries about Hamas’s popularity should come second to protecting Israeli citizens, so saying that Israel shouldn’t attack Gaza.

Overall the editorial fails to acknowledge that Hamas has used the quiet to re-arm and protect its infrastructure against Israeli attack. This has now put the Negev – possibly even as far as Be’er Sheva – into rocket range. So the basic flaw in the editorial is a failure to take Hamas’s threat to Israel seriously.

But more troubling is this. Nearly three years ago at the time that Hamas won the legislative elections, the editors of the Post welcomed the victory:

Having prescribed democracy as an essential condition for a Palestinian state, the Bush administration can hardly stand in the way of electoral participation by a movement that represents a large fraction of Palestinians. It must hope that Hamas eventually will embrace democracy as the sole means of advancing its agenda, rather than as a mere tool to prevent its own disarmament or any Palestinian concessions to Israel, and that it will feel obliged to moderate its tactics and agenda while serving in government. Whether or not that happens, a Palestinian Authority backed by Hamas may be able to restore a semblance of order to Gaza. In the dismal present circumstances, that would be a step forward.

The problem then, as it is now, is that Hamas – regardless of the fact that they won a majority votes – is not a democratic movement. It is a terrorist organization devoted to the destruction of Israel. The only order that Hamas brought to Gaza was its own. It brutally drove out (and killed) Fatah’s people and used Gaza as a base to launch attacks against Israel. Now, as Ha’aretz and the Jerusalem Post report, they’ve used the territory they control to build a military infrastructure that threatens a significant portion of Israel’s Negev. Now having seen that Hamas has parlayed its electoral win into an improved positions for its terrorist operations, it’s disingenuous for the Post’s editors to tell Israel, well, they ought to trust the electoral process again.

When I saw this editorial, I figured I wouldn’t be the only one who would be bothered by it. So in these troubled economic times, I did what any other enterprising capitalist would do: I outsourced the fisking of this editorial to some friendly bloggers. The do great work, and what’s more they work for cheap. Joshuapundit brought a military perspective to his response, Mere Rhetoric a rhetorical and political perspective and Elder of Ziyon marshaled the facts that contradict the Post’s assumptions.

JoshuaPundit:

I can just imagine the sort of ‘Israeli thinkers’ the WAPO has in mind..probably the same sort of people who thought Arafat could be trusted, totally retreating from Gaza was a great idea and that a six month respite for Hamas to build up its military was an even better one.

Another ‘ceasefire’ is going to bring Hamas around? Wasn’t that the idea of the last one? Worked well, didn’t it?

I’ve got a small bit of news for these people. An all out war against Hamas would not ‘strengthen radical factions’ it would kill and defeat them.But only if it were an all out war,that included shutting down the Israeli-supplied electricity and taking out the power plant and Gaza’s infrastructure as well as targeting Hamas’ military and its leadership for annihilation.

It won’t easy or pleasant, but the longer Gaza festers the more costly it will get. The Palestinians will not do a damned thing to dismantle Hamas. Israel will have to do so itself.

Mere Rhetoric quoting and then skewering the editorial sentiment:

After six months of relative calm, hostilities once again are escalating between Israel and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Between Friday and yesterday some 60 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel, whose air force responded with strikes against the launchers. So far there have been no serious injuries on the Israeli side, and one Palestinian has been reported killed.

That’s a blase way of putting it. I would have written something like “over the weekend Palestinian soldiers rained down explosives on Israeli schools and hospitals, reaching Israel’s largest port city, scoring direct hits on homes, and turning southern Israeli into a warzone.” But I guess “some 60 rockets were fired from Gaza” adequately conveys the situation. And I do appreciate how they’re using the passive voice / active voice trick – “rockets were fired” / the Israeli “air force responded.” It’s been a mainstay of anti-Israel bias since before I began blogging and I give a little sniff of nostalgia every time I see it.


Elder of Ziyon:

Wow. Israel sent in daily deliveries of goods essentially every day from August through October, truckloads of food, medicine, fuel, clothing, building materials, and other goods. In return, Hamas built up an arsenal of more rockets, imported tons of explosives, gathered more money by taxing smuggled goods, didn’t lift a finger to take administrative responsibility of Gazans’ daily lives (leaving that to Western money filtered through Fatah institutions,) and created an infrastructure to kidnap more Israeli soldiers. And the wise old men of WaPo now say that Israel should do exactly the same thing again?

UDATE: A number of other bloggers joined in. Daled Amos mixed a reference to domestic politics in with Washington Post: Israel Should Give Hamas A Bailout Too and uses sarcasm to good effect:

Please join me in a moment of silence out of respect for Hamas in Gaza and their long history of searching for a peaceful end to the war they have declared on Israel. Or has nobody at The Washington Post read the Hamas Charter?


Boker Tov Boulder observes:

The Washington Post does not revile HAMAS terrorists, it lends them credibility. And it warns Israel not to respond militarily to the rocket attacks -timed just so, to hit children on their way to school- because “a war would only strengthen the movement’s most radical factions.” Instead they urge that Israel feed their enemy and make certain they have plenty of medicine and fuel, as if on a full stomach, in good health and with their tanks all gassed up, HAMAS would somehow be more palatable… or less dangerous.

And My Right Word fisks selected quotes in WashPost is really dumb. The naive silliness of the editorial is emphasized by updates at the end of the post on the latest escalation by Hamas against Israeli civilian targets.

And finally Meryl points out the Post is doing Hamas’s work for them:

Second, they want the fiction of the truce so that idiots like the editorial writers at the Washington Post will chastise Israel for refusing to supply her enemies with the means of her destruction, rather than chastise the terrorist group that wants to destroy Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias | Tagged | Comments Off on Eyeless on the Potomac: the WaPo tells Israel to defend itself with the goodwill of Hamas

Funniest video of 2008

Posted on 12/22/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Go here.

Do not be eating or drinking.

And then, thank Allah for the video.

Seriously.

Posted in Humor | Comments Off on Funniest video of 2008

Second light

Posted on 12/22/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Something different from my usual virtual menorah: Pictures from a Chanukah party I attended tonight. Four of my seven students from last year were there, as well as one of my favorites from three years ago. And there were new children to meet. There was a ton of food, nearly all of it fried. My contribution was my home-made potato chips, which were gone long before dinner. Hours to make, minutes to eat.

Second light

It was a BYOM party: Bring your own menorah. Josh’s parents didn’t notice that line on the invitation, so I let him light my menorah. I love the look of utter concentration on his face.

Second light

This is all of the younger kids. The grinning boy in the back is my guy Andy, the host of the party, who is a lot sweeter than the tough-guy act he puts on. (The smile really gives him away.) Which is not to say he can’t be tough. Just that he can’t fool me. Andy has a motorcyle menorah. Very cool. Emily is going to be annoyed that her face is half-hidden, but this was the best of the group shots. Minus two points to Megan (tall girl, back row) for forgetting that Shehechiyanu is only said on the first night. Next to half-hidden Emily is Megan’s sister Alana, who should have been my student last year but who went to a different synagogue, and in the front row is Libby, Josh’s twin. Libby and Josh were the fifth set of boy-girl twins I had in six years of teaching. What are the odds of that? (Sorry, don’t recall the names of the other two boys, who are friends/neighbors and weren’t former students of mine. Wait–the little one is Anthony, I think.)

Second light

One more picture of Josh concentrating. Lighting candles is serious business when you’re a fifth grader.

I had a wonderful time. I’m still smiling. And the kids all got (sigh) taller. But it was lovely seeing them and their parents.

Posted in Holidays, Israel, Religion | 1 Comment

Could or would

Posted on 12/22/2008 by Soccerdad

The death of Mark Felt – Deep Throat of Watergate fame – inspired former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie Jr. to ask, “Could we uncover Watergate today?” Instapundt observes that Downie is asking the wrong question rather the question:

. . . is whether the press would cover a Watergate if it happened under a Democratic administration.

Consider a few data points.

1) Newsweek had a story about an inappropriate relationship between President Clinton and an intern. Newsweek was not going to publish it, until Matt Drudge got wind of the story and publicized on his website.

2) During the 2004 Presidential election 60 Minutes aired allegations that President Bush had received favorable treatment during the Viet Nam war. Dan Rather produced a document showing to “prove” the charge. Charles Johnson showed that the memo could not have been produced on the typewriters at that time.

3) A number of the images during the Israeli-Hezbollah war of 2006 were doctored or staged. Again it was bloggers, not the MSM that noticed.

4) Earlier this year a French court found that Philipe Karsenty had not libeled Charles Enderlin when he claimed that Enderlin had fabricated his report about Mohammed al-Dura. Though Enderlin’s report was the basis for much of the subsequent media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian violence there was next to no MSM coverage of this decision that demonstrated Enderlin’s dishonesty.

5) Subsequent to Watergate, the Washington Post used its position as the exposer of official corruption to campaign for campaign finance reform. However there were limits to its curiosity. For example when its favored candidate this past election cycle, President-elect Obama’s campaign was found to have disabled protections to allow the acceptance of anonymous and potentially illegal donations, the Post followed up – rather late – with an article on the subject, hidden on page A2, a week before the election. There was a single follow up with no outraged editorial at the way candidate Obama skirted the laws the Post insisted were necessary to limit the corrupting influence of money in politics. (At least the Post allowed Bradley Smith to tell it like it is. The Post’s wimpy criticism of Obama on the topic of campaign finance reform – “a cause he injured” – in its endorsement proved Smith’s point.)

Towards the end of his article Downie asks:

In today’s cacophonous media world, in which news, rumor, opinion and infotainment from every kind of source are jumbled together and often presented indiscriminately, how would such an improbable-sounding story ever get verified?

It’s funny but the one item of investigative reporting that Downie cites as coming from the blogosphere is the U.S. attorneys firings. Not one of the items mentioned above, was a concern of his. I don’t think he’s been paying attention, but there has been a lot of investigative journalism going on. Of course many of those bloggers doing the investigative work are looking at stories that Downie’s paper has been curiously incurious about.

Mr. Downie ought to follow Instapundit’s suggestion and stop wondering if his paper “could” uncover another Watergate and wonder if they “would.”

Likelihood of Success disagrees and argues that visions of glory would inspire journalists to look beyond petty partisanship in the pursuit of corruption. On the other hand, I look forward to seeing the media get its instincts back in four to eight years.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Media Bias | Tagged , | Comments Off on Could or would

The problem with the world viewpoint on Israel

Posted on 12/22/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Here is the problem with the world’s viewpoint on Israel in a nutshell. What part of this definition don’t the media organizations understand?

  1. a military order to cease firing
  2. a suspension of active hostilities

Apparently, all of it.

Hamas says open to new truce in Gaza
Palestinian armed groups in Gaza observed a 24-hour halt to rocket fire against Israel at the request of Egyptian mediators, a senior official of the ruling Islamist Hamas group said on Monday.

Ayman Taha told Reuters: “Hamas and other factions agreed in order to give a chance to the Egyptian mediation and to show that the problem was always on the Israeli side.”

That’s the lead. Here’s the seventh paragraph:

Israel and Egypt were skeptical about the Hamas declaration of a hold-fire, though it seemed to be observed, with only two rockets and a mortar reported to have been fired on Monday from Gaza, and a rocket and four mortars shot on Sunday night.

It wasn’t observed. It was violated. There was no hold-fire if three rockets and five mortars were fired from Gaza into Israel during the “halt”. It’s not a halt. It’s a slowdown. WTF is wrong with the effing people? Are they so blind and stupid that they simply refuse to allow Israel to have a single shred of just cause to go into Gaza to stop the rocketeers?

What part of cease-fire do these morons not understand?

Please read the entire two paragraphs as if they were in all caps, because that’s how I wrote them in my head. With many exclamation points.

Posted in Hamas, Israel, Media Bias | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Credit where it’s due

Posted on 12/22/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Gentlemen, while I appreciate the spread of the term “Jew cooties,” I think a tip of the hat once in a while to the originator (at least in the blogosphere) of that term would be nice.

The category was established here in October of 2005, although I’d been calling it that as early as February of that same year.

Now, if either of you boys were using the term before February of 2005, I will relinquish my claim to fame on that particular nomenclature. (One has to use very big words when one is cross-blogging with Omri; the dude is getting his Ph.D in rhetoric ((which is what I repeatedly tell those people who are silly enough to keep arguing with him: “You’re arguing with a guy who’s getting a Ph.D in arguing?”)), which means you really need to choose your words. Dude.)

But if you can’t find me a post predating mine, well then, I claim “Jew Cooties” for my own. At least until someone sues me for it.

Posted in Bloggers, Jew Cooties | 12 Comments

Hamas: Truce and lies

Posted on 12/22/2008 by Meryl Yourish

There’s a 24-hour lull in the rocket fire, according to Hamas, that they’re observing at Egypt’s request. Problem is, Egypt said they never asked for one.

The Egyptian Foreign Ministry denied reports that it had requested that Hamas hold its fire, saying it was a completely false claim, Army Radio reported on Monday afternoon.

Earlier on Monday, senior Hamas official Ayman Taha said that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had stopped launching rockets at Israel as they were observing a 24-hour cease-fire at the request of Egypt.

According to Taha, the brief ceasefire went into effect on Sunday evening.

So why has there only been one rocket so far today? Well, Reuters may have the answer:

Sources in Gaza, however, said the weather conditions were preventing the gunmen from launching rockets at Israel.

I wouldn’t know if that’s true, as the weather reports I read didn’t say much beyond cloudy, with a chance of rain. Too foggy? Too clear? Who knows? What I do know is that there is no truth in Palestinian spokespeople. And Hamas is still pulling the same-old, same-old:

Ayman Taha said the brief ceasefire went into effect on Sunday evening. He said Hamas might consider a longer truce if Israel were to reciprocate by ceasing all military attacks in Gaza and lifting an embargo on the impoverished territory.

Yes, that would work. Then Hamas could really regroup and rearm, and set Israel up for a serious battle in a year or so. But not to worry. It looks like Ehud Barak is holding up the Gaza operation.

And oh yeah—now that Tzipi Livni is running for Prime Minister, she’s suddenly gotten tough on terrorists.

Livni told him the situation in southern Israel was escalating and made it clear that Israel has to defend its citizens and cannot remain indifferent in light of the situation. She added that Jerusalem still views Cairo as a mediator which may help calm the situation down.

That’s telling him, Tzipi. That’ll get those rockets stopped.

Posted in Gaza, Hamas | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Seated between Iraq and Israel

Posted on 12/22/2008 by Soccerdad

Rick Richman pays tribute the Irish diplomat and scholar Conor Cruise O’Brien. He notes Martin Peretz’s observation that the NYT in its obituary doesn’t make mention of his book, “The Siege.”

O’Brien was a contributor to The Atlantic, and that magazine has an extensive excerpt of the book online called Why Israel can’t take ‘bold steps’ for peace. Some of it is dated. But a lot of it still stands. I don’t agree with all of his observations, but it is a fine essay.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | Comments Off on Seated between Iraq and Israel

The Gaza War: Finally imminent

Posted on 12/22/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Unless this is all talk, the IDF is finally going to go into Gaza in force.

Meanwhile, Defense officials revealed that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak met privately on Thursday and decided that Israel would respond militarily to rocket attacks against the western Negev. The timing of the operation will be determined at a later date, likely following a security cabinet meeting later this week.

The government has, meanwhile, decided to embark on an international hasbara (public diplomacy) campaign ahead of a possible major operation in the Gaza Strip.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni convened a special meeting with heads of her ministry in Jerusalem Sunday night to discuss the situation in the South.

Here’s the really importan fact that most people will overlook:

The Post learned Sunday that the IDF Home Front Command had drawn up plans to evacuate children and elderly from Israeli towns that could come under heavy barrages of rockets in the event of a large-scale operation in Gaza.

That’s the one that shows the IDF means business. When the buses start pulling up in Sderot, the IDF will be moving tanks and gear to the Gaza border. And the Hamas leaders will be hiding in their ratholes. Literally, probably.

Hamas leaders went underground in Gaza on Thursday out of fear of being targeted by Israel as the movement announced that it would not extend its unofficial six-month cease-fire with Israel. Hamas also evacuated many of its institutions and security installations in anticipation of an escalation with the IDF, Palestinian sources said.

Defense officials said that Hamas was likely capable of firing more than 100 rockets a day into Israel throughout such an operation. On Sunday, Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Yuval Diskin told the cabinet that Hamas had rockets capable of reaching the outskirts of Beersheba.

They will, at first. But Hamas is fighting the last war. Israel is not.

The big question remains, of course: Will this be a full-scale operation meant to topple Hamas, or will it be yet another “pinpoint” that goes into Gaza, destroys a few bomb workshops and a few stores of weapons and ammunition, and then leaves?

I suppose we could wait breathlessly for Uzi Mahnaimi to give us the scoop in the Times of London, but, gee—he’s remarkably silent on this. I guess his sources all dried up. (On the other hand, he may finally be right about that imminent Gaza operation—a year and a half after he wrote the article.)

Posted in Gaza, Hamas, Israel | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Chanukah: First light

Posted on 12/21/2008 by Meryl Yourish

As always, we have my virtual menorah:

First light

And a reprise of what I found to be a very funny Dreidel song.

Yippee-ai-oh-chai-yay!

Posted in Holidays | Tagged | Comments Off on Chanukah: First light

Because the anti-Israel crowd just doesn’t get it

Posted on 12/21/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Because the anti-Israel crowd is made up of really stupid people, and because I feel the need to channel my inner Hulk, I think it’s time once again to tell all of the tiny-brained, tiny-penised neo-Nazis, as well as the tiny-brained anti-Israel libs and Euroweenies who think they are doing this for our own good, and also the tiny-brained who have no real critical thought processes and simply repeat the latest Chomsky talking points that they heard at the last party, or over coffee in Starbucks, or maybe even during that one time they were actually paying attention in the World History requirement that they had to take, but that they really wanted to be Film Comedy, because that awesome Adam Sandler flick where he teaches the kid to piss on a wall was on the syllabus, but damn, the scheduling conflict really screwed that up.

You see, there’s been an influx of anti-Israel trolls and commenters lately, due to the news sites partnering with Sphere and other agencies, so that sometimes, when I reference a news article, my blog in turn is referenced on that site. It may be Yahoo News, it may be CNN, but whenever I get a reference from there, I get an influx of anti-Israel creeps who seem to be quite upset that they have found a pro-Israel blogger. And they are mystified as to why I won’t publish their comments.

So to save their little peabrains from exploding over the concept that not everyone is actually interested in hearing what they have to say, I was thinking of perhaps adding a rule to my comments policy. One that said that I will delete comments that don’t exactly break the No Israel-bashing rule, but that are still extremely stupid and annoying to me. And then I thought: No. The fact that this is my blog means that goes without saying. I don’t have to approve a single, solitary comment. I don’t have to even have comments. Hell, I didn’t for the first few years I was a blogger. But as to adding that rule, it was because I sometimes get emails or further comments from people whose comments I don’t approve, in which they say “I didn’t break any rules, why won’t you approve my comment?” If I add that rule, I could refer back to it.

Screw that.

It’s my blog, and that’s why I didn’t approve your comment. It’s my blog, and that’s why I get to tell people to take their Israel-hating venom and shove it up their asses, because the only way it gets on my blog is when I put it into a post to mock it.

It’s my blog, and that’s why all of some previous commenters’ comments go into the killfile automatically. They lost their commenting privilege—and it is a privilege, not a right—and that’s the end of that.

It’s my blog, and I get to set the rules of what I’d like to read in my comments section.

Do I want to have posts with long, interesting discussions about Israel? You betcha. Will I get them if I allow the Israel-bashers in? No. Won’t happen. Because everywhere else online, every single unmoderated conversation about Israel is ultimately hijacked by the anti-Israel scumbags. And sooner or later, out comes the anti-Semitism. You have the Stormfront POS’s, the David Duke POS’s, the Pat Buchanan POS’s, and the general, all-around anti-Semitic POS’s simply waiting for the opportunity to spout their venom any place they can, and when they find a blog like mine, with such a large Jewish readership, and so many unabashed Zionists, well, they are not merely POS’s, they are also just as happy as pigs in shit. (The fact that they resemble those selfsame pigs is not lost upon me or my readers.) So why make anti-Semitic POS’s happy if I have the chance to piss them off? It’s a no-brainer. And knowing I have made yet another anti-Semitic bastard a little less happy with his life, well, that’s just the icing on the cake.

Do I think that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic? Nope. But all unmoderated discussions (and many moderated ones) about Israel always seem to wind up there. So until that changes (or the world does, whichever comes first), I’m going to keep on pissing off the Jew-haters by not approving their Israel-hating comments. (Oh, and I’ll keep on pissing off the people who used to comment here, but can’t anymore, because they’re apparently too stupid to understand that their comments go, unread, into the trash.)

There. I feel much better now. Time to go check the mailbox and see what the aggregator dragged in, so I can piss off yet another Jew-hater.

It’s not a bug. It’s a feature.

Posted in Evil Meryl, Juvenile Scorn | 12 Comments

Post-ceasefire post-mortem

Posted on 12/21/2008 by Soccerdad

Barry Rubin in Liar, Liar, pants on ceasefire on reasons why it was a mistake for Hamas to end the ceasefire:

The first is that they ending the ceasefire while George W. Bush is president. Certainly Israel feels freer to hit back at Hamas now than after Barrack Obama is inaugurated simply because the new administration would want to avoid a crisis before it consolidates its plans and team. Also, the United States is likely to prefer quiet as it begins withdrawing from Iraq.

Second, the ceasefire is being suspended on the eve of a major Palestinian crisis as Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas announces a self-extension of his term in office. One might think Hamas would prefer to keep the Israel front Israel quiet for a while to focus on battling Fatah and the PA.

Finally, there’s the Israeli election campaign. While this doesn’t make large-scale Israeli retaliation inevitable, such a move would make the current government more popular with the electorate.

Of course mitigating against those is:

[Hamas] knows suffering can be blamed on Israel. Western pragmatists reason: obviously the Palestinians must prefer peace, prosperity, and statehood. Rejectionism must then be due to desperation and the lack of a good offer or faith in the West. In fact, though, the situation is not due to our mistakes but to their deliberate choices.

Thus, Hamas can well conclude that the best way to put pressure on Israel and–in its own mind at least–gain Western help–is to be more radical, not more moderate.

To cite one example, what is considered America’s leading newspaper recently reported that both sides violate the ceasefire: Hamas fires rockets at Israel; Israel retaliates by closing the border. By this definition, the fact that Hamas and its allies fire rockets at Israeli civilians doesn’t allow any Israeli response, military or otherwise. This is the kind of thinking Hamas seeks to promote.

and:

In addition, macho militancy in the Middle East does bring popularity, both domestic and international. The last quarter-century has also shown that Western sympathy can be manipulated by increasing violence and blocking solutions to the conflict in a way that will be blamed on Israel.

May I suggest another reason why Hamas ceased the pretense of a ceasefire? Because it achieved what it set out to. Judeopundit noticed in a Al-Jazeera report:

Palestinian group Hamas has declared that the six-month ceasefire between Israel and the Gaza Strip is over.

The ceasefire officially ended at daybreak in Gaza on Friday and came after armed Palestinian groups admitted that they had been using the truce to train and better arm themselves.

And indeed, This Ongoing War linked to an earlier post of mine that cited a report after one month of the “ceasefire.”

The cessation of the IDF’s operational activity in the Gaza Strip, as stipulated in the lull arrangement, is being used by Hamas and other terrorist organizations to advance their military buildup and increase their readiness for a likely scenario of a future confrontation with the IDF. Since the beginning of the lull, weapons and ammunition have been smuggled into the Gaza Strip on a similar scale to the pre-lull times, despite an improvement in the Egyptian activity against the smugglers. Furthermore, Hamas has significantly accelerated its training activity and its military buildup, publicly announcing it on Palestinian and Arab media.

This is why it’s frustrating when a newspaper, like the New York Times – and much of the MSM – characterize the ceasefire strictly in terms of whether either side is firing. If Hamas is building a tunnel to attack Israel and Israel attacks, well Israel broke the ceasefire. More generally, Barry Rubin describes it like this:

To cite one example, what is considered America’s leading newspaper recently reported that both sides violate the ceasefire: Hamas fires rockets at Israel; Israel retaliates by closing the border. By this definition, the fact that Hamas and its allies fire rockets at Israeli civilians doesn’t allow any Israeli response, military or otherwise. This is the kind of thinking Hamas seeks to promote.

Israel is hamstrung if it plays by these rules and the media portrays this as being even-handed. Does it make a difference how Hamas utilized the ceasefire? It certainly makes a good talking point, but the truth doesn’t seem to have sunk in.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in AP Media Bias, Hamas, Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias | Tagged | 2 Comments

AP bias followup

Posted on 12/21/2008 by Meryl Yourish

The AP has edited its reprehensible headline, but the story remains an example of the anti-Israel bias typical of the world media.

Gaza truce recedes as rockets hit Israel

Now, the headline mentions the rocketing that caused the IDF to fire missiles at the terrorists. But the lead still sucks.

Barrages of rockets fired from Gaza hit Israeli towns Sunday and the Israeli air force responded with a missile strike as violence surged following the official expiration of a shaky truce with Hamas.

Only one Israeli was lightly wounded in the barrage. But after a weekend of heavy rocket attacks, Israel’s government threatened to strike back hard to the continued assaults.

The “shaky truce” produced nonstop rocket and mortar barrages. Not every day, no, but they never stopped. There was no truce—only a “calm.”

And then there’s the modifier of “only” one Israeli being wounded. When a Palestinian is wounded, have you ever seen the AP describe it as “only one Palestinian was wounded in the Israeli strike”? No, you have not.

Buried near the end of the AP story is the information that should have been in the lead: It’s only by chance that no Israelis were killed in the rocket barrage.

On Sunday, one rocket scored a direct hit on a house in the town of Sderot, the blast scattering rubble and furniture inside. “Everyone is traumatized,” the house’s owner, Maya Aviar, told AP Television News.

No one was injured in that attack, but the Israeli military said a worker at a farming community near Gaza was lightly wounded by shrapnel in a separate rocket hit. Another rocket landed in an industrial zone in Ashkelon, a city of about 120,000 people 10 miles (16 kilometers) north of Gaza.

If you’d like to know the total number of rockets and mortars sent into Israel, refer to Elder of Ziyon’s Rocket calendar. Because the AP won’t tell you until the very last paragraph of its stories. That would be the one that always gets lopped off by your local paper. Here’s the last paragraph of this story:

On Saturday, militants fired more than 30 rockets and mortar shells into Israel, and the Israeli air force killed one militant who was launching rockets.

Posted in Israel | 2 Comments

Biased AP headline of the day

Posted on 12/20/2008 by Meryl Yourish

I take it back. I’m not too tired to post, not after I saw this headline:

Israel strikes Gaza day after truce expires

Look at the cause-and-effect of the lead.

An Israeli airstrike against a Palestinian rocket squad killed a militant Saturday, the first death in Gaza since Hamas formally declared an end to a six-month truce.

Palestinians fired 10 rockets and at least 23 mortar shells from Gaza into Israel, causing some property damage but no casualties, the Israeli military said. An Israeli airstrike at one of the rocket squads in northern Gaza killed a militant, said the army and Palestinian medics.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, the armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah movement, identified the dead man as one of its fighters. Hamas, which controls Gaza, said it was behind the mortar fire.

If all you read is the first three paragraphs—and that is what most people read—you think that Israel struck first, then the Palestinians fired back. In reality, rockets have been raining down on Israel nearly every day this month. Here’s what happened this morning in Israel:

Residents of Israel’s Gaza-vicinity communities awoke to the sound of rockets landing near their homes on Saturday morning. At least 11 Qassam rockets and 16 mortars were fired by Palestinian groups towards the western Negev throughout the day.

The first four rockets were fired at around 8:50 am, while many local residents were attending synagogue. Deputy security officer for the Eshkol Council, Nicky Levi, told Ynet that the Color Red rocket alert system sounded throughout several communities in the morning hours.

Two of the rockets landed in open areas in the Eshkol Regional Council, one landed in the Shaar Hanegev Regional Council and the fourth landed just north of Gaza.

A short while after the rockets landed the IDF struck in Beit Lahiya, killing one. Palestinian sources named the man killed as Ali Hijazi, and said he belonged to the Eiman Judeh squads, which are part of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades – the military wing of Fatah.

Nowhere—NOWHERE in the AP article is it indicated that the rockets were fired into Israel, and then Israel responded to her civilians being bombarded by firing on the terrorists launching the rockets.

Effing AP. I really cannot stand them. The only reason I give myself high blood pressure by reading them is that someone has to keep on telling the Israeli side of the story.

Posted in AP Media Bias, Gaza, Terrorism | Tagged , | 1 Comment