Gaza fashion sense

Whether or not people agreed with the the Gilad Shalit deal, last Tuesday I know everyone agreed on one thing while watching the Egyptian Interview.

That shirt was one freakin' ugly shirt.

So someone explain to me, how is it that this shirt is now the height of fashion in Gaza?

But while most focused on his gaunt frame, it appears many Palestinians were more interested in his outfit, which became an immediate trend in Gaza. Merchants in the Strip are now offering "The Shalit shirt" in a wide range of colors, for NIS 60 ($16.5). The demand, it seems, is very high.

Facebook group member uploads photo comparing himself to Shalit

I guess there really is a humanitarian fashion crisis in Gaza.

The day after the release - random Gilad Shalit thoughts

I feel emotionally spent after spending the day yesterday following every minor event related to the release of Gilad. There's a jungle of thoughts running around my head, it's impossible to get them organized.

• Today is a better day than yesterday. Today, Gilad wakes up in his own bed, and will meet only people he knows and trusts.
• So many little things he'll need to catch up on. In five years he's missed out on (among others) Facebook, iPhones, last Harry Potter book, Lady Gaga, Chemistry Nobel prize... 
• We all saw the forced Egyptian TV Interview. It was cruel and sadistic. And yet, it highlighted the stark contrast between Gilad's sweet character and the brutality of his captors.
  I almost retched when I heard the question "You’ve known what it’s like to be in captivity. There are more than 4,000 Palestinian prisoners languishing in Israeli jails, will you now join the campaign for their release?"
  Gilad answered "I’ll be very happy if they are released, but they shouldn't go back to fighting Israel"
  This answer is nothing short of amazing, considering his captors were right behind him with a gun, and he couldn't be sure that his answers wouldn't prevent him from going home.
• Side note: this was not how it was translated in Arabic or by the BBC. People not listening to the original Hebrew received "I'll be very happy if they are released and go back to their families". Why bother interviewing him if you're going to lie about his answers?
• Speaking of cruel and sadistic, the interviewer Dragon Lady said she didn't know he was being forced to do the interview.
  Really? Masked Hamas men with guns behind him, and you think it's his free will?

  

  This looks like it's exactly how Gilad would like to spend his time

• To all the people who criticize Israel for "disproportionate use of force", where are you now? Why are you not criticizing this deal for its disproportionality?
• Reading users' comments on any other news site which allows them is an experience equivalent to reading a Kafka novel. On more than one occasion I've read comments talking about "the arrogance of the Israelis, thinking that they're the chosen people, that one Israeli is worth over a thousand Palestinians".
  Really? You guys think that we set the exchange rate? How clueless can you get?
• To all the people who scream "Apartheid" at Israel, will you continue doing that? You do realize that here we have killers going free just because they're Muslim and their targets were Jews? 
• Amna Muna, the She-Devil who lured Ofir Rahum to his death, was not nice to other inmates while in prison. In fact, she harassed and terrorized them. So much in fact, that she refused to enter Gaza because she feared retaliation from her victims' families. Instead, she delayed the whole thing and finally got sent to Turkey. May she choke on a Turkish delight. Amen.
• There were some delays in getting Shalit back due, among other things, to the Egyptian interview. We waited patiently, holding our breath.
  There were some delays in getting the freed prisoners to Beitunia, and finally the transfer route was changed. Of course the Palestinians rioted and threw stones. No one is even surprised because it's so typical.
• Notice how relieved we all were that Gilad, while extremely pale, traumatized and underfed, is more or less in good condition?
  How come nobody even doubted that the Palestinian terrorists would be?
  Oh right, Israeli Double Standard time.
• I started crying when I heard the Yas'ur pilot say over his speaker "מביאים את גלעד הביתה" (We are bringing Gilad home).
• What a dissonance. Gilad, after 5 years in captivity, can still muster enough optimism in him to say that he hopes this will advance peace. The terrorists, after barely a few minutes of freedom, already cried for "the next Gilad Shalit" to be kidnapped. 
• It's so nice to see Noam and Aviva genuinely smiling. 
• I can hardly believe the strength of character that Gilad has shown. What a sweet, brave young man.

I'd like to end this post with an apology to Gilad. 

For years we've glimpsed into your life, into your family. We feel like we know you, and now that you're back we act almost like we deserve a piece of you and your life. We don't. Please forgive our curiosity, it all comes from a good place in our hearts, and we want confirmation that now, everything will be all right and you'll be happy. I hope everyone respects your privacy.

ברוך שובך

A Double-Edged Sword

While all the news of the world are pointed at the Shalit family, I'd like to take a step back and look at Benjamin Netanyahu, who ultimately bears the responsibility for the decision of the prisoner release.

Think of all that must be going through his head, and has been for years.

On one hand, there's a boy who hasn't begun to live his life yet because he was obliged, as every young Israeli man, to first serve his country as a soldier.

The torment of freeing Gilad Shalit

I don't dare get my hopes too high.

Just yesterday there was the inauguration of the exhibit of "When the Shark and the Fish first met", a story written by 11 year old Gilad Shalit, at the European Parliament in Brussels.

And today I come home to read the headline we've been waiting for for over five years.

Gilad could be home within days

I can hardly believe it.

I know there are two sides to this argument.

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.

Of course Erdogan acts this way - you let him!

Erdogan now thinks that he can say words in Latin and look intelligent.

He thinks the Mavi Marmara incident can be considered as a casus belli. He wants to use international law to attack Israel, all the while ignoring the international law whose verdict was that Israel's actions were completely legal.


Does NATO not care that its ally is openly threatening to enforce a legal blockade?

Why do you think Turkey's Erdogan feels such freedom to publicly express his heinous and hypocritical opinions?

drybonesblog.blogspot.com

The world exploded with headlines about Israel's excessive force and refusal to apologize, but was predominantly silent in regards to Turkey's faults. The world gave Erdogan a welcoming stage for his fury, while chastising Israel for its refusal to apologize for legally acting in self defense.

Why shouldn't Erdogan feel free to expell the Israeli ambassador? To threaten to cross the blockade? To send warships to the Mediterranean? After all, he learned from the best didn't he?

Were there gigantic headlines when Ahmadinejad insisted that the Holocaust was a myth? Did Iran get any backlash from the UN for threatening to wipe out Israel, another member of the UN? Their chronic terrorism founding?

Erdogan has seen that for years Ahmadinejad can get away with whatever the hell he wants. Why on earth shouldn't he do the same? Why should he hide any longer behind some pseudo politically correct mask?

The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it.

And now for the latest in absurd news...

Monday evening an Israeli was shot by Palestinian gunmen while driving his car. The Aksa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility and said that it's in protest against Annapolis.
Yeah, let's try and make peace with people who protest a peace conference by killing us. Hell, let's give them a country, an army and more funding!

And then there's this headline, which made me wonder if there's a hidden camera in my office...
Israel to free 441 Palestinian prisoners - In a bid to win Arab nations' support for a peace initiative, the prime minister also pledges to raze illegal West Bank outposts.

This is not even for lasting peace, this is to have support for a peace initiative.

What rational mind can't understand that it's insane to give our "peace partners" their terrorists back in order to achieve peace? Would you put a child rapist in charge of a kindergarten as part of his correctional treatment?

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?

The Flaw in the Land for Peace Concept

This headline, Arab League to visit Israel, caught my attention...

This article talks about the Arab League sending envoys to Israel to discuss an Arab "Peace initiative" which I think is flawed in its very core.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the foreign ministers
would lead an Arab League mission to Israel to discuss the Arab peace plan,
which would trade full Arab recognition of Israel for an Israeli withdrawal from all lands captured in the 1967 Mideast war and
the creation of a Palestinian state.

This is wrong. It is flawed to exchange something real and physical like land for something non tangible and vague like recognition. What does recognition even really mean? How can you say you don't recognize us if you're willing to talk to us about recognition?
We exist, whether they like it or not. This is not a matter of discussion. In my opinion, giving weight to their non-recognition of us gives them the power to play with us. It's a negotiation chip. They'll trade us recognition for something, but through that negotiation we will have actually gotten nothing.

The very act of party A negotiating with party B for recognition of party B implies the acknowledged existence of party B by party A, therefore the whole negotiation is futile.

The whole concept of land for peace is ridiculous. These disputed lands, we got them because THEY broke the peace. Had they not decided to wage war against us (I realize this is a very general THEY) then these lands would have never been in our hands. So we should reward both their war initiation and their losing the war by giving them land? If we had lost the Six-Day War, would we even have the option of negotiating anything? We would have been dead.

The concept of land for peace is flawed at the root. This is because in exchange of land, a physical tangible thing, we get back a concept, an idea, a warm fuzzy-wuzzy feeling which we hope is shared with our counterparts, but have no way of ever really knowing.
By this Israel pays for something which was rightfully hers from the beginning, the notion of peace.
Peace is not something which can be achieved in a day, there is no "On/Off" button for peace. It is achieved over time, with a respective cooperation of some sort (One which, I would imagine, would be ensured in a fair peace negotiation). Land can be given in one day, it does have that immediate property which can change in an instant from "ours" to "theirs".
On the other hand, if one day peace is achieved, it can disappear in a moment. The concept of peace can be erased with one movement. But the land given for this peace would then remain in their hands.
At this point, Israel will have lost everything and gained nothing.

"This is the first time the Arab League is coming to Israel," Regev said.
"From its inception the Arab League has been hostile to Israel. It will be the
first time we'll be flying the Arab League flag."

So they already won something. We're flying their flag. Are they flying ours?

And then the article talks of another part of the peace proposal, which in and of itself proves that this "peace proposal" is nothing more than a Trojan horse.

Israel has welcomed aspects of the plan, while rejecting its call for a
return of all of the West Bank and an implied demand to resettle within Israeli
borders the Palestinian families who became refugees from the 1948 war that
followed Israel's creation.

The refugees issue has always angered me. Not only the issue itself, but the world's blindness to what it means.
First the issue itself:

1. Even though about 680,000 people of Arab descent became refugees at the time of Israel's creation, most of them did so without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. Had they decided to stay, they would have been part of today's Israeli Arab population. These people have become refugees in their respective host countries, and have remained so for almost sixty years. We are now three or four generations later.
   At about the same time, about 1,5 million Jews were forced or threatened out of Arab countries throughout the Middle East. About 600,000 were resettled in the newly established Israel (the others fled to Europe or the United States).
2. These "Palestinian" refugees have lived in squalor ever since becoming refugees. One of the distinguishing marks of poverty is having many children per family. They excelled at that. Oddly enough descendants are also refugees, making them the only population on earth whose refugee status seems to be hereditary.
   If you would compare to other situations, this would mean that I, as a descendant of four European Jews displaced during WWII, would still be qualified as a Polish refugee, just as my grandparents were for a few years after WWII.
   I am sorry, but children, grandchildren, and whatever the ensuing family tree might be, they ARE NOT refugees. Of the original 680,000 refugees, how many are left? This is the only number that should be considered.
3. Obviously, having 8 kids per family or what not has increased their population to 3 or 4 million (I lost count). They are asking to relocate these 3-4 million refugees back in Israel. Since Israel is a democracy, a sudden increase of its Muslim population will make sure that the only Jewish country in the world will de facto no longer be Jewish. Why would they propose such a thing under the guise of a "peace proposal"? It's a sure death of Israel as we know it, and that is what they really want to achieve.

But the point that really angers me, and that no one seems to talk about, is the absurdity of this claim.

This claim, to return 4 million Palestinian "refugees" in Israel, is claimed and repeated in parallel with the claim for a Palestinian country. What do they need a Palestinian country for if the plan is for them all to be relocated in Israel? Why do they need to return to Israel if they have a Palestinian country? Isn't this an obvious attempt to erase Israel? Either from the outside, by creating a terrorist state as a neighbor, or from the inside, by eliminating the unique Jewish identity of the country through demographics.

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?

Breaking news: A recording of Gilad Shalit

This is the first sign of life that we have from Gilad Shalit in a year.

You can hear the recording here on walla.co.il. Gilad Shalit's father confirms this is his son's voice.

There is a Hebrew transcript apparently here but I can't read a word of Arabic, so I don't know where to look for it.

Here's the English transcript I took from monsters & critics:

'I am the soldier Gilad, son of Noam Shalit, imprisoned by the martyr Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades.
'Mom and dad, my brother and sister and my friends in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).
'I send you my greetings from prison and my yearning to see you.
'I have completed an entire year in captivity, my health continues to deteriorate and I need prolonged hospitalization.
'I am sorry at the lack of interest of the Israeli government and the IDF in my case and their failure to heed the demands of the martyr al-Qassam.
'It is clear that they must heed these demands to free me from my prison, and especially since I was on a military mission under military order and I was not a drug dealer. (Eds: reference to Israeli businessman Elhanan Tannenbaum who
was freed from four years of captivity by the Lebanese Hezbollah movement in a 2004 mass prisoners swap. He has since admitted that he had been dealing drugs at the time of his abduction.)
'And just as I have parents, a mom and a dad, so the thousands of Palestinian prisoners have mothers and fathers whose sons must be returned to them.
'I have great hope in my government that it will take a greater interest in me and will respond to the demands of the Mujahideen.
Corporal Gilad Shalit.'

This is a whirlwind of emotions for me. Gilad is alive. He needs help. Amnesty is completely silent about this (last news report on Amnesty's site with Shalit's name dates from June 2006). The ADL isn't silent about this (kudos to them, as usual).

In exchange for Gilad they ask that we release thousands of terrorists with blood on their hands.
I ask you, what is a tormented country to do in the face of this? For a parent there is nothing worse than to have a child held in captivity. Yes, it is worse than death. Because there is always the hope of seeing him again living side by side with the terror of what is happening to him every single second. But how can Israel release murderers who openly admit they'll go right back to doing what they were doing? They won't see this as a sign of peace offering. It will be a sign of weakness. And that means there will be more kidnappings of soldiers. And more terror.

Dan Gillerman said it very well: "These people are not in jail for some minor traffic violation. They are in jail because they planned, helped or participated in terror attacks on Israelis."

Israel is a country that is subjected to harsh criticism from organizations like Amnesty and the Red Cross and the UN. We get complaints that it's so hard for a terrorist's wife to come visit her murdering husband because he's in a jail 5 hours away from her. We get complaints that their cell phones are confiscated. No praise for Israel's doctors who take care of those terrorists. No word of praise for the normal jail conditions they receive. And what else? No criticism for Gilad's harsh conditions. He says he needs medical attention. This is the first time we've heard his voice, and look what they're making him say. An Israeli soldier would not say that of his free will.

Where's the balance? What did Gilad Shalit do that the world isn't outraged that anyone in the world might suggest that his freedom is equivalent to the freedom of thousands of terrorists??

Update: Here's a clearer video on youtube. You can tell he's being told what to say.

Benjamin Netanyahu talks about the British Academic Boycott of Israel

I know not everyone in Israel likes Bibi. And I know people in Europe absolutely hate him. They don't even know why. But then again, they don't need rational reasons, do they?

Anyhow, Bibi is one of Israel's most articulate politicians. He has a sharp tongue during interviews, an impeccable way of speaking, and an assertive no-bullshit attitude. Always calm and posed, even when you can see he's angry. That's the true force of a diplomat. Being outraged, but without needing to raise one's voice. During last year's Lebanon war, he was one of the most vocal defenders of Israel on international screens, along with Dan Gillerman, another strong diplomat.

Here he is again, talking about the British Academic Boycott of Israel.



Come on, Europeans, really, what is it that you don't like about this guy? The fact that he tells things like they are?

In the face of evil, if good men and women sit back and do nothing, evil triumphs

There's only ONE Jewish country in the world

I have quite a number of Muslim and Arab friends. I avoid talking about politics, especially Middle East politics with them because I've already heard some of the things they say regarding the subject. And I'd like to keep them as friends.

Among these friends I must say I haven't got any who are die-hard Arafat-dishrag*-wearing Sharon-effigy-burning Pally supporters. Most of these friends don't care much for the subject (or any other world politics subject) and have the usual basic ideas that they were taught at home (Israel started the Six Day War, Israel is as aggressor, Israel is building an Apartheid wall, and your regular anti-Israel misconceptions) and since they don't care much for it, they'll never go read anything which will change their mind. The other bunch of friends are relatively more aware of what is going on, but are also very naive. They seem to think that everything can be solved if people just really got to know each other, etc. While I'd like nothing more than their vision of the world to be true, sadly it isn't.

I got an e-mail today from one of my "naive" Muslim friends. Before I go any further, I'd like to point out that he's not anti-Israel in any way, he's visited the country often and doesn't even mind too much the security checks he has to go through, he knows it's part of the deal. He's very attached to his religion and loves seeing the common points between our two religions, as well as between our two languages. His vision of Islam is very pure and very peaceful and not distorted. He's not very fond of the Israeli political scene, but that's okay. If every leftist anti-Israel moonbat would express him or herself in the same rational tones (naive, yes, but rational) as my friend's, then political debates would be equivalent to a Mary Poppins movie matinee. Imams should take a lesson from him rather than spew hate to an impressionable crowd during a Friday sermon.

Back to the email. (Sorry I tend to get carried away). I got an e-mail from him with an image of a flag of "An imaginary country."I don't know whether he drew this or got this from someone else and then forwarded it. In any case I wonder what he means by this. Does the mixture of the Islamic crescent together with the Jewish star in their respective colors mean that he'd like to have a Muslim country with all the freedoms that are natural in Israel? Does it mean that he would like there to exist somewhere in the world a country where Jews and Muslims coexist peacefully? Or does it mean that somewhere deep inside, even though he really likes Israel, he believes that the problems of the Middle East would be solved if only Israel would cease to be a "Jewish country" and would be a "Jewish and Muslim country"?

I'm not going to ask him, because I'm rather afraid the answer would be the third option (though the second one is quite possible too). Even if it's not what he meant by that picture, I know many people in the world believe that that would be the answer to peace in the Middle East.

Why? Why do people believe that the existence of one tiny country with a Jewish majority is such an obstacle to peace? One country of 6 million (or 7 now? I'm not sure) with nothing of monetary value on its lands, surrounded by a billion Muslims living in a dozen or so Muslim countries rich with oil, that's an obstacle? A country smaller than Rhode Island who asks nothing more than to live in peace with its neighbors and to cooperate with them to further advance the quality of life in the Middle East. Why does the one and only Jewish country in the world disturb people so much?

*Keffiehs look like dishrags to me. In fact, whenever one comes into my possession, that's the only use I have for it.

Different worlds

Many years ago I had a long standing discussion with a friend of mine. Both of us are Jewish but we had very different upbringings. At home I had a very traditional Jewish life, and though we never spoke politics, Israel was always present. I didn't go to Jewish schools, and once I got interested in the subject, I had to acquire my information about the Arab-Israeli conflict independently. My friend on the other hand had almost no Jewish education at home, went to Jewish schools and was part of a very left leaning Jewish youth movement. One of the schools she attended was rather religious and there she developed a strong dislike for religious Jews. This dislike was deepened with the ongoing discussions about politics that she would hear at the youth movement, which were very strongly influenced with Avoda and Meretz ideology. (Personally I am more of a Likud-Kadima-Shinui person, depending on the subject).

We would argue at length about the settlement issue. She would insist that the only problem the Palestinians (and the world) had with Israel were the settlements. The only reason Palestinians brainwashed their children that killing Jews in the name of Allah will get them 72 virgins in heaven, the only reason Palestinians strapped explosive belts onto themselves and then detonated them in a crowd of teenagers waiting in line, the only reason Palestinians do the Nazi salute and read Mein Kampf, all that, it's because of the settlements. If settlements like Ariel and Itamar disappeared, then the Pallies of the West Bank would accept Israel as a neighbor. If Gush Katif and Netzarim wouldn't exist, then the Pallies of the of the Gaza Strip would be fine with the existence of Israel right outside of their borders.

This, she would say, is also why world opinion is against Israel. If only Israel would show a gesture of good faith, if only Israel would be the "bigger person", if only Israel would give back the occupied territories (this is where I would interrupt and mumble "disputed territories, not occupied, words are important..."), then the world wouldn't be able to not take Israel's side. If Israel gives in to Palestinian demands, then the world wouldn't be capable of saying that Israel has done anything wrong.

It's a bit hard to argue with that ¨logic¨. Especially when you consider this was about 8 years ago, before the world showed its true face.

Still, I couldn't agree.
"But what if we give them back territories, and they continue the violence and the hate? What if they use what we give them in order to attack us even more? I don't trust them."

Her answer was crystal clear, as if she had learned it by heart from her youth movement leader.
"I don't trust them either." (Can I get three cheers for coherence? At least I'd vote for people who say we haven't got a partner for peace. But you? You support negotiations with people you don't trust?) "But Israel can do things the smart way: They can give back territories piece by piece, and the moment the Palestinians misbehave then it all stops. If the Palestinians never misbehave then Israel has what it wants, doesn't it?"

I still couldn't quite see how this was the perfect solution.
"But what if Israel sees they behave well and gives back everything and then they start a war against us? What if even after one piece they start attacking again? Won't they think that we're rewarding terrorism with land? Won't they figure that the more terrorism they perpetuate, the more land they'll get? You think it's that easy to take control again? Once we do, every one will scream that we're occupying again."

But her vision of the world was as clear as it was naive.
"Don't you get it? In that case, since Israel will have done everything that they could do, if the Palestinians throw even one little stone in the direction of Israel, the world will immediately condemn them and will be on Israel's side. If they launch any type of military action against Israel inside Israel's borders then the armies of the world will be there instantly to protect Israel."

In the summer of 2005 her vision finally happened. Israel dismantled the settlements and the army posts in the Gaza strip. All the Jews living there were evacuated. All 8000 of them. You'd think that it'd be a whole lot more since everyone was complaining so much about them being there. 8000 Jews forced to leave because Jews cannot live in the Palestinian Authority. After the disengagement, everything of use that was left (like greenhouses) was destroyed. Synagogues were desecrated. And... Kassam rocket firing intensified. Hey wasn't it supposed to be the other way around? They're happy that we left, they're thankful, so they become a bunch of peace-loving-kumbaya-singing hippies?

My friend and I, we're not in touch anymore. I'm not even sure if she's still in the same country.
But I'd like to run into her some day. I'd ask her "So where's your world indignation over daily Kassam rockets being fired into Israel inside her borders from territories we gave back without any conditions? Where's your world condemnation for the Palestinians' festering circle of violence and hate and applause for Israel's restraint? Where's your world who was supposed to come and save us?"

Sour grapes

People are so ignorant.
At least that's what I hope. Because if they're not ignorant than they're just plain anti-Israeli.
On the way home today, I came across a house which was displaying the following poster on a front window.

It shows a shrinking "Palestine" in green in 1946, 1947, 1948-1967, and 2005 alongside a growing Israel. "Israel speaks of peace, but takes the land". No context, no history, no facts.
Context, History and Facts:
1946:
"Palestine" as such does not exist. It is a region, much like the Sahara is a region and not a country. The British Mandate of Palestine. The green mistakenly covers a very large portion of this "Palestine" as if to say that no Jews even lived there.
1947:
Partition plan, voted on by the UN on November 29th. Plan accepted by the Jews. Plan rejected by the Arab population. Revolts started against the Jews in order to stop them from creating a state in the Jewish part. They were getting prepared to launch a war once the British were to leave.
Palestine is still a region and not a country.
1948:
May 14th, the State of Israel is born and the British Mandate of Palestine is over (in the opposite order). In its "birth speech" as I like to call it, Israel extends a hand to its Arab citizens as well as to its Arab neighbors, in hope of a peaceful start. Arab states launch a war against the newborn state, in the hopes of pushing all the Jews to the sea and not having an Israeli state. They lose. Territory is conquered. They complain that they lost and would like to go back to the way it was before they lost. Because if it had been them who had won the war and had made Israel vanish, they would have agreed to pretend it never happened and go back to square one. Sore losers.
Palestine is still not a country. In fact, documents of that period do not refer to the local non-Jewish population as "Palestinian" (since that meant anyone and everyone living in the British Mandate of Palestine), but as Arabs. The green blotches on the map are Egypt on the left side and Jordan on the right side.
1967:
Unhappy with Israel's existence, Arab states launch yet another war against Israel, in the hopes of pushing all the Jews to the sea and not having an Israeli state. Israel finds out in the nick of time and launches preemptive attacks, legally recognized as self defense. Arab states are caught off guard. They lose. Territory is conquered. They complain that they lost and would like to go back to the way it was before they lost. Because if it had been them who had won the war and had made Israel vanish, they would have agreed to pretend it never happened and go back to square one. Sore losers.
Israel accepts resolution 242 which included returning some of the territories back to the original "owners" which are Egypt and Jordan. Not Palestine, since that country still doesn't exist and never had. The reply is the famous (though not to everyone apparently) "three no's". No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel.
Palestine still doesn't exist. For the record, the PLO - Palestine Liberation Organization - was created in 1964. 3 years before territories were "occupied". So what did they want to liberate exactly?
2005:
(I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that the poster was printed before the disengagement, even though we are now 2007 and that gives them plenty of time to take down that poster and buy/make a new one).
After incessant attacks from terrorists on Jewish settlements, Israel decides to unilaterally disengage from the Gaza Strip. Settlements are dismantled (because Jews are not allowed to live in future Palestine apparently) and Gaza is entirely in the hands of the Palestinian Authority. The territory is no longer "occupied".
Palestine could maybe finally start to exist.
No. Palestine still does not exist. What exists is daily Kassam rockets being fired into Israel. What exists is the Palestinian government factions fighting and killing each other. What exists is a Palestinian people who still haven't got a state, as any people willing to have a state should deserve. What exists is the constant fact that for some obscure reason, Israel is blamed for this.


I remember the house number. I could send them explanations, or easy to read posters (they seem to like that) and pamphlets about Israel. But they won't even bother to read. I think. Should I send?

Upcoming Elections in Belgium

I don't understand much about Belgian politics, they seem to have elections once a year for something or other. In a few weeks they'll be having elections for the Senate and the Chambre. A while ago they had communal elections, not long before that they had regional elections, not to mention federal and legislative elections and I'm probably forgetting something.
One of the political parties is called Parti des Jeunes Musulmans, the Young Muslim Party. Their propaganda has started going up (just like everyone else's, obviously) and I do wonder a bit about it. You see they have women on their list. But at least on one of their posters, where they show the faces of the top three names, the veiled woman's face is hidden by the party's name. Coincidence or unwillingness to show a woman's face? What if she does get elected, will pictures of her always be censored? And who on earth is she?



By the way, see the red bearded guy in the picture? He's Jean-François Bastin, the party's founder, a Belgian convert who's more known under the name of Abdullah Abu Abdulaziz Bastin. He's also been active/started some other political parties such as the PCP and the CIB (I'm not sure of the details, you'll have to excuse me) but he's quit those.
Why this person is "interesting" ?
Well, other than being the leading man on a list called "the YOUNG Muslim Party" even though he's about 60 years old, well he has "interesting" connections.
Is he inspired by Hamas n°2 Muhammad Abu Tir? Both of them sporting lovely bright orange beards...

And his family name has been in the news for reasons other than political elections in Belgium. In 2004 his son, Muhammed El Amin Bastin, was arrested for connections to the 2003 terror attacks against two synagogues in Istanbul. Remember those two terror attacks? On November 15, 2003, two truck bombs slammed into the Beth Israel and Neve Shalom synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey and exploded. At least 57 people died and and about 600 or more were wounded (numbers vary depending on the sources).

With neighbours like these...