Category Archives: Political Commentary

The New Brown Shirts

Jihad has come to America’s streets:

How ironic, really, how tragic, that Muslims, who want us to believe that Islam is the religion of peace, would behave in such a hateful and violent way!

Oh yes. And without shame, and with great pleasure, the protestors call Jews: pigs, apes, donkeys, vermin, and faggots. They hurl curses at their far more sedate opponents. They threaten to rape their opponent’s mothers and visit a slow and painful death upon their opponents’ wives and children. “Nuke Israel” screamed one young woman in hijab, over and over again in Ft. Lauderdale. “F–k you Jew” was also a favorite chant.

I guess that wearing hijab does not necessarily make a woman modest or kind.

By and large, the world media is watching Hamas’s back and presenting the case for terrorism, not for democracy or the rule of law. The potential menace of these mobs has flown far below the mainstream media’s radar as well.

I began writing about this kind of unleashed Nazi-like “brownshirt” behavior in 2003-2004, right after I first encountered it when I lectured on campus. What was once contained on campus, has now taken to the streets. These demonstrators are clone-versions of the speakers and organizers of the International Solidarity Movement’s annual conference, (a pro-Palestinian terrorist support group), but they are now on the march, no longer confined to a single campus; a version, perhaps, of an Islamist street mob, whipped into a frenzy by prayer, sermons, and televised propaganda that then surges out into the street, burns American and Israeli flags, kills Christian Arabs, Christian Africans, and Christian south Asians, but also lynches, rapes, and stones Muslim and Christian women to death.

As Glenn Reynolds often notes, they’re not anti-war. They’re just on the other side.

[Late morning update]

Here’s more on the atrocious and shameful behavior of the press in Gaza:

Hamas only gains a real advantage to having Palestinians suffer if they, who do so much to inflict that suffering, can blame it on Israel. It would be absurd for Hamas to stand in front of the world and say, “Look at how much we make our own people suffer; join us in hating Israel.” So the game is intensely hypocritical. It depends on getting public opinion, both in the Arab-Muslim world and in the West, to accept a scapegoating narrative — the Palestinian Guernica — that deflects responsibility.

And the pathetic thing is that it works. In the Arab world gory images of dead and wounded play round the clock, inciting furious demonstrations. But, alas, it also works in the West. And it works primarily because of the behavior of the Western media, who systematically frame the conflict in terms of the Israeli Goliath and the Palestinian David, who do not hesitate to challenge Israeli spokesmen, interrupt them, contradict them — but who fail to do anything of the sort with their Arab interlocutors.

Thus, for hours and days after the story of idling ambulances first broke, BBC never mentioned it. On the contrary, they continued to run footage of complaints from Gaza about the terrible condition of the hospitals and calls for international intervention to save the poor people of Gaza. This enables the worst kind of hypocrisy, of demopathic behavior — accuse others of violations of a humanitarian code which you flout, not only with your enemies, but with your own people.

The next day, when Christian Fraser finally got some more airtime again, the border was open even if sluggish. No mention of the earlier, revealing incident ensued. Kristy Lang, the anchor, begins with a leading question that does not allow for much elucidation:

KL: “I’m with BBC correspondent Christian Fraser who’s at the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza. This, just to remind you, this is a crossing that has been closed for the last few days. They are letting some people through, isn’t that right Christian?”

CF: “Yes, they’re letting across the most seriously injured; they’ve just let 10 in the past several hours, up to about 40 in the last couple of days. These are the most seriously injured.”

Meanwhile, the headliner at the bottom of the screen reads: “Palestinian medical officials: 10 killed in latest attacks. … Palestinian medics say 360 people have died. … UN says 62 women and children killed.”

Nor is this kind of discreet silence passed over Hamas behavior restricted to the Beeb. CNN didn’t even mention the story, despite their anchors citing material from the wire services, where all the major ones covered it. Similarly, when a young girl described waking up in bed next to her dead sisters and then blamed it on Hamas — “Hamas is the cause, in the first place, of all wars” — ABC ran the footage without including the final, devastating comment. Why? Because it didn’t make sense to them? Because it violated the “grand narrative” and would only confuse the public?

Some of us aren’t confused at all. Just disgusted and appalled.

[Late morning update]

Ron Radosh writes about the (odious) return of moral equivalence.

[Early afternoon update]

More (depressing) thoughts from Victor Davis Hanson:

Almost no other issue in recent memory has illustrated the moral bankruptcy of much of the international community. Hamas has no pretensions, like the PA, of being a governing authority; it used violence to rout the PA and then bragged that its charter pledging the destruction of Israel remained unchanged. Israel evacuated Gaza; Gazans in response looted their own infrastructure, alienated both the PA and Egypt,and then sent off more than 6,000 rockets against Israeli civilians, while eagerly becoming a terrorist puppet of theocratic Iran.

Nothing could be more clear: either the fact that a constitutional republic was trying to avoid civilian casualties while a terrorist organization was intent on killing Jewish civilians as it used its own citizens as shields to protect mostly young male terrorists; or the world’s craven reaction to all this.

Again all very creepy — the stuff of Tolkien’s Mordor. It is now clear that the so-called and much praised “international community,” the hallowed U.N., the revered EU, all pretty much are indifferent to the survival of a democratic Israel, or are actively supportive of its terrorist Hamas enemy. Only the U.S. (for now) stands by a constitutional state in its war against a murderous terrorist clique, with annihilation its aim and religious fascism its creed.

It’s starting to seem like the thirties again in more ways than one.

[Update a few minutes later]

Mark Steyn, on the rocket scientists of Gaza:

…in the modern world there is no diplomatic vocabulary for the kind of cultural fault line represented by the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, so even a smart thinker like Dr. Rice can only frame it as an issue of economic and educational opportunity. Of course, there are plenty of Palestinians like the ones the secretary of state described: You meet them living as doctors and lawyers in Los Angeles and Montreal and Geneva … but not, on the whole, in Gaza.

In Gaza, they don’t vote for Hamas because they want access to university education. Or, if they do, it’s to get Junior into the Saudi-funded, Hamas-run Islamic University of Gaza, where majoring in rocket science involves making one and firing it at the Zionist Entity. In 2007, as part of their attempt to recover Gaza from Hamas, Fatah seized 1,000 Qassam rockets at the university, as well as seven Iranian military trainers.

At a certain unspoken level, we understand that the Huntington thesis is right, and the Rice view is wishful thinking. After all, when French President Sarkozy and other European critics bemoan Israel’s “disproportionate” response, what really are they saying? That they expect better from the despised Jews than from Hamas. That they regard Israel as a Western society bound by civilized norms, whereas any old barbarism issuing forth from Gaza is to be excused on grounds of “desperation.”

Hence, this slightly surreal headline from The New York Times: “Israel Rejects Cease-Fire, But Offers Gaza Aid.” For whatever that’s worth. Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss, a young Palestinian woman who received considerate and exemplary treatment at an Israeli hospital in Beersheba, returned to that same hospital packed with explosives in order to blow herself up and kill the doctors and nurses who restored her to health. Well, what do you expect? It’s “desperation” born of “poverty” and “occupation.”

If it was, it would be easy to fix. But what if it’s not? What if it’s about something more primal than land borders and economic aid?

That wouldn’t fit the narrative.

Death From The Heavens

Was there a major meteoritic strike 13,000 years ago in North America?

That wasn’t very long ago (compared to, say, the sixty-five million years ago that the Yucatan was hit). Evidence continues to accumulate that we get hit a lot more than people have previously imagined. We really need to develop the capability to do something about it. We have technology in hand to do so, but apparently lack the will to deploy it. This by itself is reason enough to make the investment to become a real spacefaring civilization, but pork and maintaining existing jobs remain more important.

“Proportionality”

Tigerhawk has some thoughts on this lefty canard:

During 2006’s Hezbollah war I wrote this post, which remains sadly germane to the present fighting with Hamas:

The left claims that the powerful states of the world, especially the United States and Israel, need not fear for their security because they can use their military power to deter aggression. To a post-Cold War lefty, the magic of deterrence supposedly obviates the need to intervene preemptively, or to remove regimes that commit “petty” acts of war against us or even declare themselves to be our enemy. See, e.g., the most frequently offered reasons why we should not have removed Saddam, or should not consider military options to deal with Iran. We can, after all, obliterate any power that actually attacks us, so why worry?

What your basic anti-defense lefty does not admit, however, is that effective deterrence requires not only the capability to retaliate, but that the threat to retaliate be credible. The former without the latter is worthless.

The requirement that retaliation be proportional reather than “massive” destroys the credibility of the threat to retaliate and therefore the effectiveness of the deterrance. Why? Because it allows the attacker to determine the price he will pay for launching the attack. If the attacker knows that he can absorb a blow equal to the one he delivers, then he will not be concerned that the defender has the capability to retaliate massively.

This is like limiting the penalty for property crimes to restitution. Why not rob the bank? If you’re caught, you only have to give the money back.

The advocates of “proportionality”, therefore, are undermining the effectiveness of threatened massive retaliation as a means for preventing war. If the left succeeds in promoting this ridiculous idea as a new norm of international behavior or requirement of international law, it will have destroyed the effectiveness of deterrence, the one means that we know reliably prevents war in the first place. Surely this is not what the left and the Europeans hope to accomplish.

Surely not…

[Update a few minutes later]

Michael Totten asks what a proportionate response would look like:

The Israeli counterattack is, indeed, disproportionate, but it could hardly be otherwise. “At last count,” J.G. Thayer wrote, “one Israeli and two Palestinians (sisters, ages 13 and 5) died from rocket attacks. So a proportionate response, one presumes, would have required Israel to kill a single Palestinian and two of its own citizens.”

There were, I suppose, other “proportionate” responses available aside from killing one Palestinian and two Israelis. The Israel Defense Forces might have launched thousands of air strikes against targets in Gaza to match the thousands of Qassam rockets fired at the cities of Sderot and Ashkelon. It’s unlikely, however, that this is what Israel’s critics have in mind.

So what do they have in mind? What would a legitimate and “proportionate” response actually look like? Surely they don’t believe Israel should scrap its sophisticated weapons systems, build Qassam rockets, and launch those at Gaza instead.

It’s hard to know what they believe, other than that Israel is intrinsically evil.

[Late morning update]

More thoughts from Alan Dershowitz:

The firing of rockets at civilians from densely populated civilian areas is the newest tactic in the war between terrorists who love death and democracies that love life. The terrorists have learned how to exploit the morality of democracies against those who do not want to kill civilians, even enemy civilians.

The attacks on Israeli citizens have little to do with what Israel does or does not do. They have everything to do with an ideology that despises – and openly seeks to destroy – the Jewish state. Consider that rocket attacks increased substantially after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, and they accelerated further after Hamas seized control last year.

In the past months, a shaky cease-fire, organized by Egypt, was in effect. Hamas agreed to stop the rockets and Israel agreed to stop taking military action against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip. The cease-fire itself was morally dubious and legally asymmetrical.

Israel, in effect, was saying to Hamas: If you stop engaging in the war crime of targeting our innocent civilians, we will stop engaging in the entirely lawful military acts of targeting your terrorists. Under the cease-fire, Israel reserved the right to engage in self-defense actions such as attacking terrorists who were in the course of firing rockets at its civilians.

The world (and much of the media) is nuts when it comes to Israel.

[Afternoon update]

Heh. Disproportionate humanitarian aid:

No indication yet that any aid packages have been strapped onto the 6300 (and counting) missiles those humanitarians from Hamas have fired into Israel since 2005. It seems to me this Israeli aid is very disproportionate. We’ll be back to let you know if the New York Times thinks it should stop until Hamas catches up.

I won’t hold my breath.

Have It Your Way

This has actually been true since I switched to Word Press, but it’s now possible to view specific category posts. For instance, by clicking on the space category, you can see only space stuff (for those who have complained over the years that they like my space posts, but aren’t interested in, or are put off by, my political posts). Likewise, those who like the politics without the space can use this page instead. Or any of the other categories, though those two are probably updated most often. Same thing applies to people who have me on their blogroll as a service to their readers, but don’t necessarily want to subject them to what they might consider off-topic blather (e.g., Alan Boyle or Clark Lindsey, or Jon Goff might only want to blogroll the space category).

Civil War In Palestine?

It’s not a new thing, as we saw when Hamas took over in Gaza, throwing Fatah members off of roofs. But now Fatah is apparently coordinating with Israel to destroy Hamas:

I’ve been talking to friends of mine, former Palestinian Authority intelligence officials (ejected from power by the Hamas coup), and they tell me that not only are they rooting for the Israelis to decimate Hamas, but that Fatah has actually been assisting the Israelis with targeting information.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And it can’t happen soon enough.

This Should Put Her Over The Top

Caroline Kennedy has gotten the coveted Rosa Ortiz endorsement:

Senora Kennedy she is always know the issues. Every morning she always tell me, “Rosa, where is my New York Time paper?” Then she read it before she go to Fifth Avenue for the shopping. When she get back she tell me to put it in the recycle because to save the planet.

Senora Kennedy is the good boss for the people. She treat everybody on the staff very nice and no yell. We all get one day off in the week and she give the $200 bonus this Christmas. Except Maria because she broke the crystal bowl in the office when she dusting.

Senora Kennedy knows how to call the taxi.
Senora Kennedy say to tell you she sometime call taxi by herself.

We’re so fortunate to have investigative reporter David Burge to ferret these things out. But Camelot Barbie shouldn’t feel too bad — Extreme Mortman has come up with a list of ten marketing flops that are bigger than her Senate bid. I think that Waterworld
is worse, too.

Goodie

I know, I know, we culturally insensitive types are always kvetching about how the radical Islamists want to take us back to the seventh century. Well, OK, we were wrong. They want to go even farther back:

On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari’a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.

Hamas’s endorsement of nailing enemies of Islam to crosses came at the same time it renewed its jihad. Here, too, Hamas wanted to make sure that Christians didn’t feel neglected as its fighters launched missiles at Jewish day care centers and schools. So on Wednesday, Hamas lobbed a mortar shell at the Erez crossing point into Israel just as a group of Gazan Christians were standing on line waiting to travel to Bethlehem for Christmas.

I’m sure that the usual human rights groups suspects will be complaining any minute now.

<sound=”chirping crickets”>

</sound>