So who are these monsters we have to release?

Make no mistake about my feelings in regard to the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap. I am very happy that he will come home and while the price to pay for his release is very high, I applaud my government for being able to make this very difficult choice, and support this decision.

But it is an incredibly high price to pay and one can only wonder about the society which welcomes monsters such as the terrorists we are forced to release.

Here's a little glimpse of a handful of the people beasts the peace-loving and state-deserving Palestinians wish to see free:

• Walid Abd al-Aziz Abd al-Hadi Anajas, born in 1980, currently serving 36 life sentences for his role in the terror attack at Moment Caffé in Jerusalem on March 9, 2002, where 11 civilians were immediately killed and 54 more were injured.
  
• Nasir Sami Abd al-Razzaq Ali al-Nasser - Yataima, born in 1977, currently serving 29 life sentences for his role in helping bomb the Park Hotel in Netanya when it was full of guests for the Passover Seder on March 22, 2002, where 30 civilians were killed and 140 injured.
  
  
• Maedh  Waal Taleb Abu Sharakh, born in 1980, currently serving 19 life sentences for his role in the bombing of bus 37 in Haifa on March 5, 2003, in which there were 17 fatalities and 53 wounded.
• Fadi Muhammad Ibrahim al-Jaaba, born in 1982, currently serving 18 life sentences, also for his role in the bombing of bus 37 in Haifa.
  
• Mus’ab Ismail aI-Hashlimun, born 1982, currently serving 17 life sentences for dispatching the two suicide bombers who realized the twin bus bombing in Beer Sheva on August 31, 2004, where 16 civilians were killed and 100 wounded.
  
• Tamimi Aref Ahmad Ahlam, born in 1980, the female terrorist currently serving 16 life sentences for driving the suicide bomber to his destination, the Sbarro pizza restaurant terror attack on August 9, 2001, where 15 people (including 5 members of the same family) were killed, and 130 people wounded.
  
• Abd al-Aziz Yussuf Mustafa Salehi, born in 1981, the man who proudly waved his blood stained hands to a cheering crowd after the brutal lynch of two Israeli non-combatant reservists, before their bodies were thrown from the window and trampled on, on October 12, 2000.
  
  ;
• Muna Jawad Ali Amna , born in 1976, serving 1 life sentence, was present at the Ramallah lynching and was excited by what she saw, and decided to get active online. She lured 16-year-old Ofir Rahum to Jerusalem then Ramallah, after telling him on the Internet that she was a new immigrant from Morocco. She drove him to his killers who fired several shots at him.
  While in prison, she adopted a young baby born there, does not regret what she did and says that people shouldn't look at her only as a murderer, she also has a deep personality.
  

These are not people who deserve to be free. They deserve to rot in hell for a few eternities, not to be hailed as heroes in their home villages.The only thing I can console myself with is the fact that they had very good living conditions in Israeli prisons, and will now go back to their previous, crummy living standards. In fact, they will all probably have to go into hiding because Israel has made it clear that just because they are being returned does not mean they are no longer targets.

Remember, it's easier to kill them outside of prison rather than inside.


You can see the full list of the terrorists about to be freed here.
For detailed accounts of the lives cut short because of these terrorists, One Family Fund has it all. Read their stories and remember their lives.

Analysis of Abbas's UN speech

For a while now, I hear people around me ask innocently "why shouldn't the Palestinians be recognized as a full member-state by the UN?" as if that's the solution to the whole Middle East Peace Process.

These people can go to lengths dissecting Netanyahu's speech, casting doubt on his willingness to go to negotiations, taking offense at his slightest criticism of the Palestinian Authority for the current status quo, and generally feeling that his concerns regarding terrorism and security are bordering on paranoia.

But place these people in front of Abbas's speech, and they can't find a thing to criticize. Oh yeah sure, he hasn't been the perfect negotiator, but he's the most secular leader the Palestinians are likely to get, or something just as apologetic.

You expect so little of me that I can get a standing ovation just by waving this wad of papers

Why is it that people have such low expectations of the Palestinian leadership? Raise the bar a bit, you're not doing them any favors by treating them like incompetent kindergartners.

Who actually has legal rights to Palestine? Part 2

Now that we've established the legal framework in place before the creation of the State of Israel, we can discuss the agreements, rights and obligations which followed it, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 242.
(If you haven't read Part 1 yet, I highly recommend it, it's good for your health)

Is Israel always in the UN's cross hairs?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 does not call for the return to 1967 borders

I assume most of you were already familiar with this concept. Still, it never hurts to be reminded of the context around this resolution. There are many points of discussion in regards to this resolution:

• Does every single word matter?
• Which version actually counts, the English or the French version?
• Is this resolution legally binding?

Who actually has legal rights to Palestine? Part 1

With all this media frenzy about the Palestinian unilateral state bid at the UN this coming week, does anyone ever stop to think whether this move will have any legal ramifications? What's more, does anyone even care what previous commitments state and what they oblige their parties to uphold?

Well, the Mainstream Media (MSM) sure doesn't. Furthermore, President Abbas knows very well that the MSM has a selective amnesia when it comes to these subjects, and he exploits that to the max.

Why yes, contracts are legally binding. Unless you signed a contract with Israel obviously.

Points to keep in mind which we'll be developing in this post:

• United Nations General Assembly Resolutions are not legally binding.
• Rights in regards to Jews and Arabs in Palestine were created in International law during the British Mandate of Palestine (in other words, a long time ago)
• United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 does not call for the return to 1967 borders
• Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed legal agreements, or contracts, which give both parties not only rights but also obligations.

United Nations General Assembly Resolutions are NOT legally binding.

Wait, what? No way.

Why do Jews wear Kippas?

To breakdance of course!

Gotta say, I'm really loving these Jewish holidays creative videos that have been popping up the past year. This "Rosh Hashanah Rock Anthem" is by Street Art Production. Cool stuff!

What present to get for a BDS friend?

Bored kids seeking to experience self-righteous indignation and then pretending that that indignation is useful to anyone. I'm sure we all know at least one person who fits that description. I have quite a few friends who do.

Now, the problem is, what do you do when their birthdays come around?

Yesterday, we had a little get-together for a close friend's birthday. Now to be totally fair, this friend isn't really active in the Palestinian arena of her organization, she concentrates mostly on developing countries in Africa (good on her!).  However, this doesn't stop her from randomly posting her organization's messages about the Arab-Israeli conflict on facebook, and to have simplistic four-word opinions such as "Palestinians live under oppression" or "Jewish settlers prevent peace" or even "Israel is exaggerating. Again". While she doesn't actively seek to BDS (She has no idea that all of the herbs she buys at the supermarket are from Israel), she knows her organization does a lot of propaganda for it, and she agrees with their reasons to do so.

She's not a bad person, though she does have some very enlightened thoughts such as that Jews wear funny little hats and that they don't integrate well, and they're really obsessive about their kitchens. (She babysat to a religious family once, and thought it was okay to bring her frozen lasagna and heat it in their oven. Let's simply say that hilarity did not ensue, and that the oven spent a week disassembled in the garden.)

Again, to be really fair, it's understandable that with what the medias here show of the conflict, it's almost impossible to have a different opinion, and it takes a great mind to be able to question oneself and search beyond the available platitudes.

I digress.

Her organization is very active in boycotting all things Israel, including open hearings and debates if they include anyone from Israel "with an agenda". They are definitely not in the business of understanding. Few people who proselytize about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict believe there is any value in listening to the other side.

I could have given her a little set of Ahava creams, or a basket filled with bamba, bissli and other Israeli calories, or perhaps an Israeli music CD (who doesn't love Idan Raichel?). But would she have felt differently about Israel's policies after feeling her super soft hands? Doubtful. I want something that will get her thinking, something that will start a debate. I don't need to convince people and to have everyone agree with me, but I do want their horizons to spread beyond their comfort level. Progress is made when ideas clash together. Or something.

Getting her a heavy duty geo-political book about the situation, or some historical analysis wouldn't be quite right. I'd obviously pick for something "from my side", and she'd be very wary reading it (if she ever would). I decided to give her an illustrated book called "How to understand Israel in 60 days (or less)" by Sarah Glidden.

It's the story of Sarah, a young American Jew, who goes to Israel for the first time, expecting it to fit her preconceived notions of it. It didn't. The tension in the story is based on the fact that progressive Sarah, like many of her cohorts, is critical of the State of Israel, particularly its treatment of the Palestinians. But what she sees is a reality much different from what she believed. Not all of it is good, which is probably the book's strongest point. It doesn't have all the answers. Heck, it doesn't even have all the questions. But she does question herself, and in that she does a grand job. It takes a very strong personality to say "I was wrong, I learned something new."

There are a few points in the book on which I wish she would have dug deeper, but on the whole I feel it's a very nice starting point for a more civilized discussion than random shouting of slogans. I hope that after reading this book my friend will see that there are no easy answers, and that not everything can be divided into "good" and "bad". Just because the loudest voices she hears seem to be so certain doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that they're the loudest.

I hope that after reading it, we'll have some interesting conversations where she'll be more open to hear my thoughts (right now, I can't possibly be objective because I'm Israeli and therefore too involved).

Hasbara doesn't always have to be directed at the masses, this type of hasbara is one person at a time. The book is available in English, French, Spanish, German, Italian and Dutch. I'm sure you all know a person who could benefit from a book like this as a light introduction to the subject. Don't wait and make a lovely gift to your favorite BDS friend today!

Palestinians celebrated 9/11 with candy

As we near the somber anniversary of the greatest terror attack ever perpetrated on US soil, take a moment to remember how you reacted. Take a moment to remember how your fellow citizens in your respective countries reacted.

How did people in East Jerusalem react?

The Palestinians danced joyfully in the streets, distributed candy, and flashed V for victory signs.

Remember this in a couple of weeks as these same Palestinians insist to the UN on their right to a state, in the very same city whose destruction they celebrated.

Myths of the Middle East

This is a great article by Joseph Farah which I read about seven years ago.
I realize that even though I know this, most people around me don't. This is a good point to start discussions. Separate truth from myth. It's so simple.
The whole article is so great, I'll have to quote it entirely.

Myths of the Middle East

Posted: October 11, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

I've been quiet since Israel erupted in fighting spurred by disputes over the
Temple Mount.

Until now, I haven't even bothered to say, "See, I told you so." But I can't resist any longer. I feel compelled to remind you of the column I wrote just a couple weeks before the latest uprising. Yeah, folks, I predicted it. That's OK. Hold your applause.

After all, I wish I had been wrong. More than 80 people have been killed since the current fighting in and around Jerusalem began. And for what?

If you believe what you read in most news sources, Palestinians want a homeland and Muslims want control over sites they consider holy. Simple, right?

Well, as an Arab-American journalist who has spent some time in the Middle East dodging more than my share of rocks and mortar shells, I've got to tell you that these are just phony excuses for the rioting, trouble-making and land-grabbing.

Isn't it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious
movement for a Palestinian homeland?

"Well, Farah," you might say, "that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem."

That's true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.

The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power.

Palestine has never existed -- before or since -- as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.

But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the
fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.

What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem.

Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct.

I know what you're going to say: "Farah, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third most holy sites."

Not true. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed
ever visited Jerusalem.

So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam? Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets -- myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.

The latest round of violence in Israel erupted when Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon
tried to visit the Temple Mount, the foundation of the Temple built by Solomon. It is the holiest site for Jews. Sharon and his entourage were met with stones and threats. I know what it's like. I've been there. Can you imagine what it is like for Jews to be threatened, stoned and physically kept out of the holiest site in Judaism?

So what's the solution to the Middle East mayhem? Well, frankly, I don't think there is a man-made solution to the violence. But, if there is one, it needs to begin with truth. Pretending will only lead to more chaos. Treating a 5,000-year-old birthright backed by overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence equally with illegitimate claims, wishes and wants gives diplomacy and peacekeeping a bad name.

There's a nice joke I heard once, about Benjamin Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat.

Bibi and Arafat met at Camp something with Cinton.
As Clinton and Arafat sat down, Bibi remained standing and said "Before we start any negotiation, I would like to say that this is all your fault Yasser. Three thousand years ago, in the Negev desert, there was a Jew called Herschele who took a quick dip in an oasis he came across. While he was enjoying the fresh water, a Palestinian came and stole his clothes! This how this whole conflict started Yasser, because a Palestinian stole an innocent Jew's clothes!"
Arafat was completely taken aback. He began stuttering "B-b-but that's not true! You are lying! This is impossible!"
Bibi asked "Why is this impossible Yasser?"
Arafat replied "Because there were no Palestinians here in the desert three thousand years ago!".
Bibi finally sat down, saying "Good. Now that we agree on that subject, we can start the negotiations."

Will repeating a lie often enough change the truth?

So two months later and still no Internet at home. This doesn't mean that I haven't got loads and loads to say.

I'll start with this headline that I saw today on Jpost: 'Western Wall was never part of temple'

This is a claim that was already repeated by Yasser Arafat, most notoriously during the failed Camp David talks in the summer of 2000. If I remember correctly, he stated that the Western Wall was never holy for Jews, the only thing it had of importance was that Mohammed tied his donkey to that wall on his way to Al-Aksa. Baloney.
Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Quran, while it is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible.

"The wall is not part of the Jewish temple. It is just the western wall of the
mosque," he said. "There is not a single stone with any relation at all to the
history of the Hebrews."

Correction:
No one claims the wall used to be part of the Jewish temple (other than some ignorant journalists). The Temple was built on a flat surface. But that area is called Temple mount, which means that there are mountains there. So before building the temple, they built a flat surface. The Western Wall is one of the supporting walls of that flat surface. Not a remainder of the Temple. Both temples have been completely destroyed. Jews are not supposed to step where the Temple used to be until a new one is built, so this is the closest Jews can get to the Temple.
That there is not a single stone with any relation to Jewish history is ridiculous. The Wakf has repeatedly dug up old archaeological remains of Judaism and destroyed them.
If they destroyed them, it means they existed, no?
But obviously, if the Wakf took the time and effort to destroy old archaeological proof of Jewish presence preceding Muslim presence, it's because they want to convince everyone that Jews didn't exist there before. That Jerusalem was never important to the Jews, only to the Muslims, and that from forever and always.
Wrong.

"Zionism tries to trick the Jews claiming that this was part of a Jewish temple,
but they dug there and they found nothing," Sabri added.

Wrong again.
It's the other way around you see. Islamists try (and have succeeded) to convince the Muslim masses that Jerusalem is of massive importance to their religion, but in fact it is not. It is never mentioned in the Quran. The only thing coming vaguely close is Mohammed's dream in which he drifts to "the furthest mosque" (Al-Quds). He never really stepped in Jerusalem, and nothing really links that location in his dream (which he had in the 7th century) to the Temple mount, where King Solomon built the first Temple in 10th century BC.

How can you negotiate with people like this about such an important subject when you can't even agree on the truth?
How can we ever agree on what the truth is when for years they have been destroying evidence to our truth?
Why would anyone believe that they actually want anything closely resembling peace with us?

No Mouse Trap Large Enough for this Filthy Rat

I've mentioned this creature before. Farfur is an Islamist Mickey Mouse lookalike. He preaches hate, terror, martyrdom and world domination on a children's show on Palestinian TV.

For some reason, they decided to eliminate the ugly Mickey Mouse clone. (Maybe they were about to get sued by Walt Disney for defamation of character?). Now let's see, if you'd ever want to eliminate a character from a children's program, how would you do that?

1. Discreetly never use his costume again. Maybe no one will notice.
2. Have a goodbye episode where you explain that he's going off to college or to Australia or to the moon or something. He'll promise to send postcards.
3. Have him killed by the evil blood-sucking money-craving land-stealing neighboring Jews. While he's killed have him remind the entire generation of influential young Palestinians that they will be forever miserable unless they liberate an imaginary country which never existed, and convince them that it actually did exist and it got stolen.

Obviously, the Palestinian authority responsible of what gets shown on TV opted for number 3. Color me surprised. Let's see some Oscar-winning acting on their behalf in the following video.

If you want a brief resumé of this great movie, here it is (taken from comments from LGF):

An old Palestinian man has a grandson, named Farfur, who, for reasons entirely unclear, is a gigantic rat. Grandpa bequeaths to his rodent kin the "keys" and "documents" to "Tel Aviv". (Which city didn't exist until Jews built it). Subsequently, Farfur the talking rat gets abducted and interrogated by a brutal African who is also Israeli. (We know he's Israeli because he wears his sunglasses indoors and generally behaves like a total prick). The African Israeli demands that Farfur turn over the Tel Aviv "documents", alternating his negotiating technique, bizarrely, between vicious beatings and generous offers of financial compensation. Farfur (the rat) spurns these inducements, and is subsequently beaten to death, apparently unable to defend himself, notwithstanding the fact that he seems to outweigh his assailant by a
considerable margin.

There are about a million reasons why this video makes me want to throw up, besides the horrible acting. I'll start typing them until my fingers get tired.

• Grandpa tells Hamas Mickey "This land which was occupied in 1948, is the land which I inherited from my fathers and forefathers".
  This is a phrase commonly used in order to give the impression that "Palestinians" have been there forever, whereas Jews came along recently and stole the land.
  This impression is FALSE.
  More information about this can be found in the book "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters. I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to know the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In time, I'd like to discuss each chapter of her book on this blog.
• He continues "It is a beautiful land, all covered in flowers and olive and palm trees." Is this to give the impression that it was already this way when it was supposedly occupied?
  This impression is FALSE.
  Tel Aviv (this is the city he will soon talk about) was empty dune and founded in the 1880s by Jewish immigrants as an alternative to the expensive town, Jaffa. These empty dunes were purchased from willing Arab sellers in auctions, throughout many years, piece by piece. Here is a picture from such an auction in 1909.
  Anything that flourished in this arid desert is thanks to the Jews who came and built Israel out of the sand. "Flowers and olive and palm trees"? Not in Tel Aviv, not before the Jews.
• Now he talks about Tel Aviv. Sort of.
  "The land is called Tel Al-Rabi, but unfortunately the Jews called it Tel Aviv after they occupied it."
  This statement is FALSE for two reasons.
  Tel Al-Rabi never existed. It is the direct translation of Tel Aviv into Arabic. The Hebrew name was given to this city after it was given to the Hebrew translation of the book "Altneuland" by Theodor Herzl. There was no city there before Jews created it.
  There is a growing use of this fabricated name for the city of Tel Aviv. This is part of the increasing efforts to erase Israeli identity.
• The second reason that statement is FALSE is that Tel Aviv was never "occupied territory", or disputed territory or what have you.
  Tel Aviv always belonged inside Israeli borders. In the UN's 1947 partition plan, after the end of the Independence war in 1949 and until the Six-Day War in 1967, after that war and until today.
  But if Tel Aviv is "occupied", then that means they don't really want to live in peace with Israel next to them, does it? It means they want to completely get rid of Israel, coexistence be damned!
  Shocker?
  Not really.
• Grandpa talks about the keys and documents of the property he left behind. Meaning he was forced to leave everything behind and wasn't allowed to come back.
  This impression is FALSE.
  If he was forced to leave, it wasn't by the Jews. It was by Arab armies who promised they would wipe out the Jews in 1948. Arabs who stayed during the formation of the State of Israel became equal Israeli citizens with the same rights as everyone else. That's why you can still get the best Hummus in the WORLD in Jaffa. Because it's made by one of the descendants of the Arabs who stayed.
  On the other hand, Jews were forced to leave countless Arab countries. And they really were forced. Not make believe forced.
• "Documents proving that the land is ours".
  This is using what we insist on all the time, and turning it against us. We have documents proving that we bought the different pieces of land. We have proof that no lands were stolen.
• "Make sure you don't give up the land Farfur"
  Brainwashing the kids over and over again that they must never give up that land (which they never had).
• "From the filth of the criminal, plundering Jew".
  Palestinian Authority lets this pass on national television in front of thousands of kiddie eyes? Imagine the world outrage if on Israeli TV anyone said "From the filth of the criminal, plundering Muslim"? Double Standards, hellllloooooooo?
• "From the filth of the criminal, plundering Jew who killed my Grandpa and everybody else."
  Uh, I know children have a short attention span, but come on. Only ten seconds ago Grandpa keeled over and died from what appears to be old age and maybe overexposure to the sun (either that, or camel farts).
  Children watch this and it brainwashes them into thinking that even if Grandpa died of "natural causes", it is still Israel's fault. It is still the Jews' fault. Always the Joooooooos' fault.
• My four year old neighbor can draw a better Israeli flag than that. Are they so busy coming up with brilliant scenarios for the series that they don't have five minutes to draw a flag that actually represents a country? It's not the flag of Brazil or of Cyprus, which I'll admit are a bit harder to draw. It's two thin blue stripes and a star in the middle. You've burned it so often, you really ought to know it by now.
• Farfur is interrogated for unknown reasons by an Israeli agent who dislikes mice (apparently). Why are children shown this? What is the link between the two? Farfur having pseudo documents makes him an enemy of the state? There is a reason for this...
  It is to give the impression that Palestinians who are held in Israeli jails or are interrogated are actually innocent. (Because obviously, if Farfur has done nothing wrong, it would be ridiculous to interrogate him just because he has an old rusty key and a yellowing piece of paper). The impression is that Palestinians are interrogated just for the fun of the Israelis, even though they have done nothing wrong.
  This impression is FALSE.
  Palestinians who are held in prisons in Israel are there because they have some link with a terrorist activity.
  As Dan Gillerman has often said "They are not in there for some minor parking violation. They are there because of their links to terror."
• Ahhh the Israeli Interrogator seems to be forcing Farfur to sell his documents to the land, or in other words, to sell his land.
  This is to give the impression that previous occasions when Jews bought land from Arabs, if was forced.
  This impression is FALSE.
  In the 19th and early 20th century Arabs were more than willing to sell that useless desert land to foolish Jews. It seemed like easy money to them. Jews didn't force anything out of them. How could they have?
  Arabs made fun of the Jews for buying arid land and swamps, thinking those Jews really don't know the first thing about cultivating land. Then they saw what the Jews did with that "useless" land. Now they regret. Sour grapes. But nothing forced.
  If anything, nowadays, Arabs are forbidden to sell land to Jews. Not by Israeli law, nonono. By general Palestinian consensus. Arabs who sell land to Jews/Israelis get punished.
• All of a sudden Farfur is talking about liberating Jerusalem. Wasn't it Tel Aviv 45 seconds ago? Ah yes, mush it all up so that kids just keep the general idea of "I must liberate my land", which was never theirs to begin with.
• Farfur says "No, we're not the kind of people who sell our lands to terrorists".
  So Israelis are the terrorists now?
• The little veiled girl watches in utter sadness. She's only what, ten years old? Why is she veiled? I understand adult women who, of their own free will, wish to hide their "sexuality" and do so with a veil. But a girl that young is considered already as sexual and therefore needs to be veiled?
  That speaks miles about the morality of the producers of the show.
• Farfur was martyred. This is what is shown to children. In order to become a hailed martyr you need to defend your land.
• She talks of Mohamed Al-Dura, saying he was killed by Israelis.
  This is FALSE.
  If you look at the events of that day, it is almost physically impossible for an Israeli bullet to have hit that boy. It is completely possible that he was hit by a Palestinian bullet. But that's a whole other subject I'll also talk about another time.
• Us Infidels, we're supposed to be the descendants of monkeys and pigs (As far as the monkeys go, I don't really see the insult, but I guess they don't believe in evolution either) (maybe because they haven't?). But what are you trying to say, that Palestinians are the descendants of rats? Or that ultimately all Palestinians will have evolved into giant rodents? On Israeli Sesame Street, Kippi the hedgehog had hedgehog ancestors. No zoophilia in my childhood prime time TV.
• Look at that girl. What kind of a future will she have? Will she believe everything she repeats to the cameras? Will she also go and wear a belt bomb one day and be martyred? She seems like she could have been a smart girl. She could have been so much more than that.

The Palestinians have deliberately destroyed their own children; the destruction is thorough and complete. Is anyone surprised? Hamas swore they would annihilate Israel, and what better way to do it? Wage a multi-generational war against Israel. Indoctrinating the kids with nothing but hate and violence against Jews and Israel, giving them no hope for the present and a bleak future unless Israel is destroyed. How do you deprogram a whole generation who was brought up to think in this fashion?

And while we're on the topic, do you think Farfur is in heaven with 72 virgin Minnies?

Blast from the Past - Arafat is a Mass Murderer

Helping my mom clean out the attic, and I found an old composition book of mine. I would sit in front of the TV, watching CNN, and write what I thought, what I would answer the TV if it could hear me. Sometimes I'd write down a funny thing I'd heard. But usually, it was my reactions to world events. A paper blog actually. The beta version of my blog.

This is something I wrote in the summer of 1999. I was a young idiot and I didn't write the date, but I can tell it was around that time because of other things I wrote in the pages before and the pages after.

I think we should understand that Israel has to stop whatever peace process it is undertaking with the Palestinians. This is because Palestinians don't want a country with the 1967 frontiers, but a total extermination of Israel.

1. Arafat hasn't changed the Palestinian Charter, pleading the destruction of Israel
2. Arafat continues provoking terror and violence
3. Arafat has tripled the size of his army, against all agreements
4. Arafat has openly admitted that he will not stop armed combat
5. Arafat sticks to his (impossible) demand for a Palestinian country whose capital is Jerusalem.

These points all lead to one and only conclusion: Arafat is a mass murderer who should sit behind bars and not receive a Nobel Peace Prize. The Oslo accords should be stopped right now, the Palestinian army disabled, and Israel should be given back its lost territories.

Hmmm, I have to say I was quite a smart kid. Some insight I had. Still more than most people have today.

It was so obvious to me back then, and it still is now. Why is it not obvious for everyone else?

Jerusalem is Israel's capital

I hate the BBC. I hate them for refusing to use the word terrorist. (except for when it comes to describing the perpetrators of the bombs in front of the BBC buildings in London in March 2001).

Richard Sambrook, director of BBC News, said security had been stepped up, and the need for further precautions was being reviewed.
...
Terrorist attacks on the media were rare and so the bomb marked a significant change, he said.

I hate them for the way in their headlines Palestinians always get killed by Israeli soldiers (active use of a verb), but Israelis just simply die (passive use of the verb, even if they were brutally killed by a suicide bomber). I hate them for failing to see that Gilad Shalit's family is suffering the same pain as Alan Johnston's. (Though this isn't true either... Alan's family got proof that he's alive... We're still waiting for a peep from Gilad).

Now what do I see on JPost? BBC sorry for calling Jerusalem capital of Israel

The BBC apologized this week for referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and promised not to repeat "the mistake," following a complaint by four British organizations.

Arab Media Watch, Muslim Public Affairs Committee, Friends of Al-Aksa and the Institute of Islamic Political Thought sent a joint complaint to the BBC after a presenter on its Football Focus program on March 24 mentioned that Jerusalem was Israel's capital and "historic soul."

I'm sorry, but am I missing a piece of history here? Was Jerusalem ever any other country's capital?

Steel added: "I'd like to add my apologies for this most regrettable, but I'm sure accidental, factual mistake. I appreciate that the status of Jerusalem is of particular concern to Palestinians, and it is important that it is not misrepresented. I am confident that lessons have already been learned, and they will be emphasized as a result of my decision."

Again, I'm thrilled that you realize the status of Jerusalem is of particular concern to Palestinians, but then again so is the status of suicide bombers and Kassam rockets. Just because it's a particular concern of theirs doesn't make it right. On the other hand, while before 1967 Jews were forbidden to enter the old city of Jerusalem (which belonged to Jordan, and we didn't hear any "Palestinians" complain about that), ever since Jerusalem is entirely in the hands of Israel, it is open to all religions of the world.
Does the Beeb care that the status of Jerusalem is also of particular concern to Israelis?

By the way, I truly "admire" the IQ level any organization with the name 'Al-Aqsa'. I went to their website, I guess it's http://www.aqsa.org.uk/. (No, they're not getting a direct link from me, even if I only have two and a half readers) (Hi Mom). They, like every other organization with the name 'Al-Aqsa' proudly show images of what they believe to be Al-Aqsa, that big mosque in Jerusalem with the shiny golden dome.

Well they're wrong.

The golden mosque is the Dome of the Rock. Masjid Qubbat As-Sakhrah. The Al-Aqsa mosque is the southern congregational mosque that is part of the complex of religious buildings Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary). It's the small one with the Black/Dark Grey dome. On the picture, number 1 is Al-Aqsa, number 5 is the Dome of the Rock. I wonder how many of the "cool kids wearing the Arafat-Dishrag" know this.