According to this piece from the Jerusalem Post, the stories about Israelis not allowing ambulances through is bogus. It’s the Palestinians who are preventing it, for propaganda purposes.

Now admittedly, this is an Israeli newspaper, but the Palestinians have admitted to, indeed rejoiced in, the deaths of murder-bombers. Why should we not think that they’d unflinchingly use already-dead bodies to advance their cause?

According to this piece from the Jerusalem Post, the stories about Israelis not allowing ambulances through is bogus. It’s the Palestinians who are preventing it, for propaganda purposes.

Now admittedly, this is an Israeli newspaper, but the Palestinians have admitted to, indeed rejoiced in, the deaths of murder-bombers. Why should we not think that they’d unflinchingly use already-dead bodies to advance their cause?

According to this piece from the Jerusalem Post, the stories about Israelis not allowing ambulances through is bogus. It’s the Palestinians who are preventing it, for propaganda purposes.

Now admittedly, this is an Israeli newspaper, but the Palestinians have admitted to, indeed rejoiced in, the deaths of murder-bombers. Why should we not think that they’d unflinchingly use already-dead bodies to advance their cause?

Don’t ask me why, but I’m listening to Jerry Rivers on Greta’s show. The internal idiocy pressure has built up, and the pressure relief valve below his nose has opened.

He repeats the same nonsense that we hear from most liberal commentators. It’s difficult to make peace because we have two people–Sharon and Arafat–who hate each other too much to make a deal. That’s the problem–it’s just a personality conflict.

No, Jerry, it’s not a personality conflict. It doesn’t matter who’s in charge of Israel. Yasser is not going to do any deal that doesn’t position him to destroy Israel. Period. End of sentence.

What you have is one leader who wants his state to survive, and another who wants that same state to end. There is no compromise here. Arafat doesn’t (just) want a Palestinian state. He wants a permanent solution to the problem of a Jewish state in any land that he considers Palestine. Until Jerry, and the other journalists, recognize this fundamental fact, the reportage from the region will continue to be skewed and bizarre.

According to this story from AP, campus idiotarians are protesting Israeli policies. I weep at such a blatant display of historical ignorance:

Students for Justice in Palestine likened the current Mideast violence to the Holocaust — only with the Palestinians as the victims. They also called for the university to divest any Israel-related investments.

They are equating chasing down terrorists and enemy soldiers cravenly hiding among civilian populations, with putting men, women and children into trains and shipping them off to be shot, or gassed. As someone who probably lost relatives in the latter manner, I am beyond outrage.

“This really should be Holocaust prevention day,” said Sarah Weir, a 23-year-old cognitive science major.

I read stuff like this, and I just want to take them by the shoulders and shake them until the oatmeal that passes for cognitive machinery comes out of their ears.

A cognitive science major? She should stop studying thinking for a while, and just try doing it instead. But one wonders if she has the equipment for it.

I already mentioned this this morning (a few posts down), but here’s a press story. The Church is angry at the Israelis for shooting at the Church of the Nativity (in apparent response to sniper fire from it). No similar anger is expressed at the Palestinian commandos who took over the place.

In fact, not only are they not angry, but they’re attempting to negotiate a deal to move them to Gaza, after they’ve given up their weapons.

Why are they doing this? Do they think they’ve done nothing wrong? Or is it because they don’t want the church to sustain any more damage, and risk the lives of the hostages (who they will not admit are hostages) in the battle that it would require to capture or kill them?

If the former, they are moral morons, and don’t deserve to run a Sunday school, let alone a Christian church. If the latter, then it’s clear that the church and its inhabitants are hostages to the situation, regardless of the mealy-mouthed platitudes being pronounced by their eminences.

And either way, they’re apparently perfectly comfortable with rewarding terrorism with freedom to go out and do it some more (there’s likely no shortage of replacement guns in Gaza).

Christians everywhere should be outraged.

I already mentioned this this morning (a few posts down), but here’s a press story. The Church is angry at the Israelis for shooting at the Church of the Nativity (in apparent response to sniper fire from it). No similar anger is expressed at the Palestinian commandos who took over the place.

In fact, not only are they not angry, but they’re attempting to negotiate a deal to move them to Gaza, after they’ve given up their weapons.

Why are they doing this? Do they think they’ve done nothing wrong? Or is it because they don’t want the church to sustain any more damage, and risk the lives of the hostages (who they will not admit are hostages) in the battle that it would require to capture or kill them?

If the former, they are moral morons, and don’t deserve to run a Sunday school, let alone a Christian church. If the latter, then it’s clear that the church and its inhabitants are hostages to the situation, regardless of the mealy-mouthed platitudes being pronounced by their eminences.

And either way, they’re apparently perfectly comfortable with rewarding terrorism with freedom to go out and do it some more (there’s likely no shortage of replacement guns in Gaza).

Christians everywhere should be outraged.

I already mentioned this this morning (a few posts down), but here’s a press story. The Church is angry at the Israelis for shooting at the Church of the Nativity (in apparent response to sniper fire from it). No similar anger is expressed at the Palestinian commandos who took over the place.

In fact, not only are they not angry, but they’re attempting to negotiate a deal to move them to Gaza, after they’ve given up their weapons.

Why are they doing this? Do they think they’ve done nothing wrong? Or is it because they don’t want the church to sustain any more damage, and risk the lives of the hostages (who they will not admit are hostages) in the battle that it would require to capture or kill them?

If the former, they are moral morons, and don’t deserve to run a Sunday school, let alone a Christian church. If the latter, then it’s clear that the church and its inhabitants are hostages to the situation, regardless of the mealy-mouthed platitudes being pronounced by their eminences.

And either way, they’re apparently perfectly comfortable with rewarding terrorism with freedom to go out and do it some more (there’s likely no shortage of replacement guns in Gaza).

Christians everywhere should be outraged.

Lone-Star-state reader Greg Lange points out this bit of all-too-typical tripe and “shrub” bashing from the unredoubtable Molly Ivins. It’s all pretty bad, but the part that really got to me was:

Sharon himself started this second Intifada with his cruelly reckless and deliberately inflammatory visit to the Temple Mount. Took no genius to see what that was going to touch off. If you want to blame this Intifada on someone in particular, Sharon is the leading candidate.

Yes, Molly, ignore the evidence that the Intifada was planned for months leading up to that, and the visit was an excuse–not a reason.

Anyway, I don’t have time to dissect this properly right now–maybe someone else will take a crack at it.

George Mason finally got a memorial on the mall today.