END THE GAZA BLOCKADE

As of now, Egypt does not want Gaza. Fatah is not prepared to retake Gaza. Hamas is absolutely unwilling to negotiate a permanent peace agreement. The only thing left for Israel to do is retake Gaza, drive out Hamas and reassert control over the area. This will lead to short term violence, but long term peace. As opposed to the current scenario adopted by the Obama administration which leads to both short term violence and long term catastrophe.
The blockade of Gaza has failed. Not because of Israel, but because the world could not make the right choice between a democratic country and a genocidal terrorist group that is second cousins with Al Queda. The blockade was Israel's concession to terrorism, a passive enforcement of its borders and interdiction of arms smuggling. The passive response is dead now. It's time to retake Gaza or face the consequences.

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

it won't be perfect... but it will be better then the Arabs killing Arabs and the Arabs killing us. Democracy is not absolutist. People do not have a right to elect genocide as their leader. that is exactly what Hamas is. Read the Hamas charter

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Iranian aid ships to set sail for Gaza

Iran's Red Crescent is getting prepared to send two relief ships to the Gaza Strip.

Two Iranian aid ships carrying humanitarian relief and medical supplies for the people of Gaza will set sail for the coastal sliver in the upcoming days.
Iran's Red Crescent announced Monday that the cargo will include food, medicine and appliances and it will be accompanied by a group of Iranian doctors and relief workers.
"The aid consists of food and medical supplies, which will be transported into Gaza via the Rafah border in Egypt before the week is through," the country's Red Crescent Director Abdolraoof Adibzadeh said.

via presstv.ir

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Ideas for ‘reverse flotillas’ gain steam

Ideas for ‘reverse flotillas’ gain steam

By ABE SELIG

Israeli groups mull sailing toward Turkey to "remind the world of Turkish hypocrisy."

Although most of the recent talk regarding flotillas has revolved around ships sailing toward Gaza, at least two plans have emerged for “reverse flotillas” – from Israel toward Turkey – to highlight what organizers have labeled the Turks’ “shameless hypocrisy” in their criticisms of the Jewish state.
The most ambitious of the two plans has been devised by members of Israel’s National Student Union, who this week announced their intention to set sail toward Turkey, in an effort to bring humanitarian aid to the “oppressed people of Turkish Kurdistan” and to members of the “Turkish Armenian minority.”

via jpost.com

People forget the cruelty of the historical Turkish nation. It went through a 70 year hiatus, but they were notoriously a violent empire. I'm not just saying this to get even with these guys because they committed some kind of asshole prank that went Woodstock 99... I'm saying I wouldn't mess with them. They have a sadistic culture that those Israeli Tech coffee sippers in Tel Aviv do not understand. We are stupid if we think we can turn this into a teachable moment. These Turks are not on the level. They plaid the west for a few decades and when it became obvious that energy was king their loyalty wavered. These Turks are not just fair weather friends that need to be reminded of our love of humanity. These Turks are not not rational. It sounds rather right wing to break a Turkish blockade, but like any attempted involvement in Arab land it is a leftist move. If you have a problem then kill them in war. Do not get involved with their people. It is none of our beeswax. Let them kill each other.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Obama forces Israel to attack now rather then later in agreement to allow Iranian anti missile system from Russia

Recently the Obama administration gave Moscow two concessions that could have a harmful influence on the course of current history: lifting sanctions against the Russian military complex, and agreeing not to ban the sale of advanced anti-aircraft batteries to Iran.
Presumably these concessions were given as "carrots," after Russia agreed to a package of United Nations' sanctions against Iran. While the U.N. resolution bans weapons sales to Tehran, it would not prohibit Moscow from completing the sale of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Teheran, a contract that was suspended due to pressure from the U.S. and Israel, but not cancelled. This sophisticated defensive system -- surface-to-air missiles that could can bring down any incoming projectile -- would totally nullify any military option that Israel -- or any other country -- might wish to take against Iran's nuclear facilities.
These concessions, the latest moves by President Obama to bolster U.S.-Russian relations, might be considered an adjunct to the START agreement on nuclear delivery systems. Administration spokesmen, however, said this understanding was not a quid pro quo for Russian acceptance of sanctions against Iran, a denial that seems inconsistent with the timing of the decision.
Most significantly, the concessions are "premature and unwarranted," according to former State Department official David Kramer. A Russian transfer to Iran of anti-missile systems is far more significant than further sanctions. John Bolton, former acting Ambassador to the United Nations, argued that the Russians got the upper hand. They sensed desperation on the Obama team and, he said, "extracted all that the traffic would bear."
If the Russians do deliver the S-300 missiles - now that the U.S. has granted them a green light - Israel will be placed in an untenable position. Israel might feel compelled to attack before the system is employed, or else be obliged to consider more losses than in any raid. For months, Israeli diplomats have been shuttling to Moscow in an effort to prevent this agreement. Now the U.S. - Israel's presumptive ally - has undermined, and perhaps even thwarted, the Israeli military option.

via hudsonny.org

If anything the Iranians are not the least bit worried by the prospect of sanctions; they know that the Chinese will soften any effects. The Brazilians and Turks perceive that Obama neither wants to or has the strength to punish anyone. We can't even support the Dalai Lama.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Reuters Withdraws Cropped Anti-Israel Photos, Inserts Biased Anti-Israel Captions Instead

Having had to quietly pull cropped and photoshopped images that hid jihadist violence on the Marmara, images that were edited in explicit violation of their ethics guidelines, Reuters is now quietly reissuing the full undoctored photos. And adding this kind of crap in the captions:

Pro-Palestinian activists hold down an Israeli commando on the Gaza-bound Turkish ship Mavi Marmara in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea early May 31, 2010. Israeli marines stormed the Turkish aid ship bound for Gaza on Monday and nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed, triggering a diplomatic crisis and an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council.

“Activists” were “holding down” the Israelis who “stormed” their “aid ship.” That’s a second stab at objectivity, from a media outlet that’s theoretically overcompensating for the functionally doctored propaganda they just got caught publishing.
We’re in the midst of a solidly theorized cycle of populist scapegoating, wherein global populations in confused decline are seeking a readily identifiable victim that can be pinpointed as the source of all their problems. Eliminate the scapegoat, the psychology goes, and you eliminate all the problems. Eliminate Israel, the hope is, and you eliminate Muslim discontent all the way from Afghanistan to the capitals of Old Europe.
Can you imagine how surreal the backlash is going to be when they find out they’re wrong? At the very least this much, right?

via mererhetoric.com

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Reminder:What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007(first post)
Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th
Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put an end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

How Islamists Turned the World Upside Down

A briefing by Melanie Phillips
Formerly a writer for the U.K.'s Guardian, Melanie Phillips is a journalist for the Daily Mail, author of the best-selling Londonistan, and a recipient of the Orwell Prize (1996). On May 10, she addressed the Middle East Forum in New York on the subject of her latest book, The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

"Asked about whether there were any moderate Muslim leaders, Ms. Phillips answered in the negative. Nonetheless, there are many moderate Muslims who want to live lives "like the rest of us," but who have been betrayed by their community leaders who often have an Islamist agenda as well as Western politicians who appease these radicals. She added that if moderate Muslims can assert themselves with support from the West, they stand a chance of becoming the dominant force in the Muslim world."

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Context, Fairness, and Gays

When it comes to issues like "don't ask, don't tell," part of the problem is missing context. As Robert Knight notes, the moral case against homosexuality is part of a broader sexual ethic. But upholding that traditional sexual morality implicates the behavior of a lot of heterosexuals, so it is easier to single out homosexuals. By singling out gays, however, it offends a lot of people's sense of fairness.
Consider don't ask, don't tell. I believe the strongest argument against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military is it is simply a bad idea to introduce sexual tension into the armed forces (John Guardiano goes through some of the reasons why this is a bad idea). But we already let women serve, though we don't yet let them bunk with men. The ban on gays in the military makes sense as part of a broader effort to uphold a martial culture. But if that culture is already being undermined, is there still value in singling gays out?

via spectator.org

with the age of sexual hysteria and lawsuits I'm not sure why the military is tolerating sexuality interactions at all.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Tony Blair says he is 100% on Israel's Side

Jerusalem - Israel has the right to protect itself, former British prime minister Tony Blair said in an interview with Channel 10 on Tuesday.
Blair met with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Tuesday to discuss the repercussions of last week’s flotilla raid.
“Any investigation has to be full and impartial, and there may be some sort of international element that could be part of it,” Blair said.
While Blair stressed the need to launch an international, impartial probe into the incident, he assured that he wholeheartedly supports Israel’s right to self-defense.
“There are no questions at all. There have been rockets fired from Gaza, there are people in Gaza who want to kill innocent Israelis,” the former UK premier said said.
“When it comes to security, I am one hundred percent on Israel’s side.
via vosizneias.com

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

EU volunteers to monitor ships heading for Gaza

The European Union has volunteered to 'monitor' ships heading for Gaza.

French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, said Sunday night that the EU is prepared to monitor the ships heading for Gaza to ensure that they bring only humanitarian supplies and not weapons.

In his remarks he said, "We can implement strict checks on shipping cargo, and we would be happy to do so."

Fortunately, there is no need for Israel to answer this particular offer (the last time the Europeans offered to monitor something in this part of the World, they fled to Israel when Hamas took over Gaza). Israel Radio reported on Monday night that Hamas rejected the offer outright, saying that boats could be inspected at their port of departure and then allowed to sail straight to Gaza. Good luck with that.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

So the E.U. wants to monitor ships heading to Gaza.... but who will monitor the E.U.? ...that is if Hamas complies

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

The UN Choice to Head Investigation of Gaza Flotilla: Not Goldstone But a Set-Up Nonetheless: Geoffrey Palmer of New Zealand

.

By Barry Rubin

Why is New Zealand’s former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer the UN's choice to head the international investigation of Israel’s confrontation with the Jihadi flotilla militants? Because he'll make it look fair while finding Israel guilty. Not that he's highly biased personally, but the cards are stacked nonetheless.

The key reason why Palmer is up for the job is that New Zealand former Prime Minister Helen Clark, whose hatred for Israel is almost unequalled among Western politicians, is now a high-ranking UN official who pushed for him. While nominally she might do so only to have a fellow New Zealander and a fellow Labour Party person, it is hard to believe that Clark would support anyone she expected might find in Israel’s favor. Under Clark, New Zealand was then the only Western country in the world to be ruled by 1960s’ New Left radicals.

Palmer himself, however, is considered to be a fair person who has never been heard to say anything about Arab-Israeli issues. But Helen Cook knows him better than I do and it is hard to believe she would pick anyone she thought might possibly conclude that Israel was in the right.

Actually, while it may seem Palmer was a successful politician he was only briefly a transitional prime minister, picked by a Labour party too split to agree on anyone else. In office, though, Palmer was unpopular because he is aloof, dull, has a high opinion of himself, and does not suffer fools gladly.

In earlier life, Palmer was a left-wing student newspaper editor. Many of the New Zealand Labour Party leaders were New Left activists in the 1960s and 1970s. While later considered a centrist in the New Zealand Labour Party, this is arguably the most left-wing social democratic party in the world.

His expertise in international law seems something of a pose, developed largely since leaving politics. Since his real expertise is not clear he is likely to depend on highly partisan advisors. Moreover, his party and country confronted France over nuclear tests in the Pacific and opposed visits by U.S. ships carrying nuclear weapons. He is not likely to be friendly to the side whose actions are represented by a professional military.

Thus, while Palmer would give the appearance of fairness and may, by his own lights, try to be genuinely balanced, it is likely that his commission would not give Israel a square deal especially once stacked with partisan members and staff who aren't going to have any real intention of hearing Israel's side of the story.

After the farce of the Goldstone Commission, the UN needs to put a better face on its next crusade against Israel. But it is unlikely to be a fairer face. Israel seems to be right to reject a Palmer Commission, despite the resulting international criticism.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood

via rubinreports.blogspot.com

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Reuters Photoshops Again

There's more about the pictures here, here and here (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

Why does Reuters insist on embellishing the truth and trying to make these attacks look less violent than they actually were? Recall this article by Melanie Philips in the summer of 2006. All you have to do is change "Hezbullah" to "Turkey" or "Hamas" or the "IHH" and change "Lebanon" to "Gaza":

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Screenshot from Dagbladet

What do we expect of our soldiers when they are attacked by civilians claiming to be peace activists? What do we expect of the soldiers of other countries? Our boys are fighting terrorism in faraway Afghanistan, while Israel is fighting the same foe on her very doorstep. Yet Norway’s answer to the situation depicted above includes: one of our largest think tanks (Fafo) defining Israel’s boarding as virtually a declaration of war on Turkey, a politician of the government party the Socialist Left clamoring for Norway to lead an international campaing of “forcefull measures” against Israel, an Armed Forces seminar cancelled rather because one of the speakers was an Israeli officers, a famous and loved author (Erlend Loe) speaking, with a flag of Hizbollah flapping in his face, at a demonstration arranged by the Palestinakomite and a cinema replacing the Israeli movie Waltz with Bashir with a Palestinian movie.
Norwegian soldiers roam the Hindu Kush, setting up roadblocks and doing their bit to allow the Afghan government to develop a proper nation state. God forbid that anything like the above should ever happen to any of them.
The screenshot above is from an article in Dagbladet.

via israelwhat.com

Peace Activists out of Tarantino film?

From: Carol Shelby Date: June 7, Tehillim please for the son of our daughters friend who was one of the commandos attacked by one of these good, kind peace activists. He is at present recovering in Tel HaShomer. He was shot in the legs, had his ear cut off with a knife, (it has been re-attached so we pray it will be O.K.) and badly injured in the arms. He faces many months of treatment and physio. His name is: Daniel Lazar ben Tina Taabel Lea.

there is a conversation on my facebook profile that related to this here

Below, a first hand account from Amir, an Israeli soldier who was there.

Hello Uncle Erwin,

This is Amir writing you after reading what you sent to my father, Eitan. As you know, it was my unit and my friends who were on the ship. My commander was injured badly as a result of the "pacifists" violence. I want to tell you how he was injured so you could tell the story. It shows just how horrible and inhuman were the activists.

My commander was the first soldier that rappelled down from the helicopter to the ship. When he touched ground, he got hit in the head with a pole and stabbed in the stomach with a knife. When he drew out his secondary weapon-a handgun (his primary weapon was a regular paintball gun: "Tippman 98 custom") he was shot in the leg. He managed to fire a single shot before he was tossed from the balcony by 4 Arab activists, to the lower deck (a 12 feet fall). He was then dragged by other activists to a room in the lower deck were he was stripped down by 2 activists.

They took off his vest, helmet and shirt, leaving him with only his pants and shoes on. When they finished they took a knife and expanded the wound he already had in his stomach. They cut his ab muscles horizontally and by hand spilled his guts out. When they finished they raised him up and walked him on the deck outside. He was conscious the whole time. If you are asking yourself why they did all that, here comes the reason. They wanted to show the soldiers their commander's body so they will be demoralized and scared. Luckily, when they walked him on the deck a soldier saw him and managed to shoot the activist that was walking him down the outside corridor. He shot him with a special non-lethal bullet that didn't kill him. My commander managed to jump from the deck to the water and swim to an army rescue boat (his guts still out of his body, and now in salty sea water). That was how he was saved.

The activists that did this to him are alive, now in Turkey, and treated as heroes. I'm sorry if I described this with too many details, but I thought it was necessary for the credibility. Please tell this story to anyone who will listen. I think that these days you are one of Israel's best spokesman.

Thanks uncle Erwin, Shabbat shalom!

Amir