FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

I am really going to try to understand this:

A new counter-terrorism phrasebook has been drawn up within Whitehall to advise civil servants on how to talk to Muslim communities about the nature of the terror threat without implying they are specifically to blame.

Reflecting the [UK] government’s decision to abandon the “aggressive rhetoric” of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism…

“This is not about political correctness, but effectiveness – evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them.” — The Guardian (UK)

The idea seems to be that Muslims will be offended if radical Islamic terrorism is in any way identified as related to Islam, and will be less likely to cooperate with the authorities.

Well, which Muslims are we talking about?

The ones who are already committed to violent jihad against the West will probably be pleased. They will be able to continue recruiting and pretending that their interpretation of Islam is normative and reasonable.

What about moderate Muslims? The strategy of ignoring the source of terrorism undermines their struggle to marginalize the jihadists in the Muslim community. Those like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser here in the US, who believe that “tolerance in Islam [is] a fundamental principle of the Holy Koran” and who “refuse to acknowledge the justification of any form of terrorism”, have been betrayed by the official abdication of responsibility to tell the truth.

By not identifying Islamic terrorism as related to radical Islam, the effect is exactly the opposite of what is intended: since there is no admission that radical Islam exists, moderates are the ones who are insulted. The average citizen, who knows well that the subway bombing was not perpetrated by football hooligans, will not learn that all Muslims are not terrorists. And the UK government, in turn, looks stupid, dishonest, or both.

This policy is not good for anyone except the jihadists.

Technorati Tags: UK, terrorism, Muslims

YNet reports:

A woman was murdered [at about 10:30 AM] Monday morning and about 10 people were injured in a terror attack carried out by a suicide bomber at a commercial center in the southern Israeli city of Dimona.

A police officer who was in the area, [Chief Inspector] Kobi Mor, shot and killed another terrorist. The explosive device on the second bomber’s body did not explode, and sappers were dispatched to the scene of the attack to detonate the device in a controlled manner.

Fatah’s al-Aqsa brigades took ‘credit’ for the attack. There are conflicting reports as to whether the terrorists originally came from Gaza and crossed the Egyptian border, or from Hebron by way of an area where the security fence has not yet been built.

Mor, the police officer, was a hero, shooting the second terrorist in the head as he tried to activate his explosive belt. Had he missed, he and numerous others would likely have been killed or seriously injured.

Palestinians in Gaza celebrated the joyous event by passing out candy and flowers. It takes a special kind of culture to take pleasure in randomly ending the lives of innocent people out shopping, but we don’t need to go there today.

Palestinians in Gaza distribute candy, flowers, to celebrate successful murder

This is the first successful suicide attack in Israel since January of last year, when three people were killed in a bakery in Eilat.

Although suicide bombings are dramatic, one mustn’t forget the almost daily shootings, stabbings, rocket and mortar attacks, etc.

Although the police and other security services do a remarkably effective job of intercepting terrorists, even a 99% success rate means that one will get through every 100 attempts. And there are plenty of attempts.

There are several steps that Israel could take to improve the odds. One would be to close the gaps in the security fence (and now this includes the Egyptian border). Another would be to target those who plan the attacks, recruit the bombers, etc. It should be no less suicidal to organize bombings than to carry them out. It goes without saying that when such terrorist planners are arrested, they should be executed, rather than released in prisoner swaps, goodwill gestures, etc.

And it seems silly to continue talks with Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, who is unable, unwilling (or both) to do anything to stop Palestinian terrorism.

Technorati Tags: Israel, terrorism, Dimona

The Arab League’s Standing Committee on Human Rights approved a draft of the Arab Charter on Human Rights in 2004, and now it is awaiting ratification by the member states.

About time that they recognize such issues, right? Some of the principles in the declaration are these, from Article Two:

(a) All peoples have the right of self-determination and to control over their natural wealth and resources, and the right to freely choose their political system and to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

(b) All peoples have the right to national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

One would think that this would apply to the Jewish People too. We have a movement for self-determination and national sovereignty as well. It’s called Zionism. But (big surprise), the ‘human rights charter’ specifically excludes us:

(c) All forms of racism, Zionism and foreign occupation and domination constitute an impediment to human dignity and a major barrier to the exercise of the fundamental rights of peoples; all such practices must be condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination.

I am not sure why all of the Arab League nations have not ratified the Charter. Maybe the government of the Sudan feels that they would have to stop murdering the black residents of Darfur, which could theoretically be considered racism.

A pity, because the Charter includes some very wortwhile provisions, like this, from Article Three:

(a) Each State party to the present Charter undertakes to ensure to all individuals subject to its jurisdiction the right to enjoy the rights and freedoms set forth herein, without distinction on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religious belief, opinion, thought, national or social origin, wealth, birth or physical or mental disability.

I suppose that Jews could live in Saudi Arabia — oh wait, it only refers to “individuals subject to its jurisdiction”, and there are presently no Jews in Saudi Arabia because none are allowed! Catch 22. Oh well, at least Egypt and Saudi Arabia would have to stop imprisoning bloggers like Kareem Amer and Fouad al-Farhan for their thoughts and opinions.

And what about this:

(c) Men and women have equal human dignity and equal rights and obligations in the framework of the positive discrimination established in favour of women by the Islamic Shariah and other divine laws and by applicable laws and international instruments. Accordingly, each State party pledges to take all the requisite measures to guarantee equal opportunities and effective equality between men and women in the enjoyment of all the rights set out in this Charter.

I suppose the restrictions on dress, free movement and association, entry into various professions, driving, education, etc. which fall on women in various Arab cultures are all examples of positive discrimination.

Nowhere in the document are homosexuals mentioned. So I suppose that even if it is ratified, Egypt can continue torturing and imprisoning gays, Saudi Arabia can imprison, flog, and even execute homosexuals, and so forth.

Arab human rights, apparently go only so far; no Jews or Gays are included.

Technorati Tags: Arab League, human rights, gay Arabs, Zionism

What more can I say about the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) (see: The asymmetry of the conflict)? They are certainly not interested in peace, unless it’s the peace of the grave for Israel — and you can decide for yourselves in a moment if ‘Christian’ is an appropriate adjective.

A few weeks ago, a pair of terrorists infiltrated a kibbutz and tried to kill Jews. The Jews fought back and killed the terrorists. I wrote then about the way the incident was reported, as though the Palestinians were minding their business when they were attacked by ‘settlers’ (see: Reuters inverts reality).

But the Reuters approach does not come close to that of CPT. The following email appeared on the CPT listserve. It appears to be genuine, although nothing would make me happier than if CPT insists that it was written by a provocateur! All emphasis is mine.

—– Original Message —–
From: cpt hebron

To: Yahoo

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 10:50 PM
Subject: [cpthebron] Hebron:Tragedy in Beit Ummar part I

Tragedy in Beit Ummar: A closer look

By Dianne Roe

1 February 2008

I sat in the Jerusalem Hotel restaurant last Sunday and read the headline in Ha’aretz (Israeli newspaper): Yeshiva counselor who killed terrorists lives to tell the tale (by Nadav Shragai, Ha’aretz 27/01/2008). In that article Elyakim Kovatch, the counselor who shot the two intruders, used the word terrorist twelve times to refer to the young men he killed.

What do you call people who cut a fence, sneak into a kibbutz where there is a school, and try to kill teachers and students? Read the Ha’aretz article, by the way, it’s interesting.

I left the restaurant, boarded the bus for Hebron, and got off at Beit Ummar to meet the grieving families of the ones the press refers to as “terrorists.” Cousins Mahmoud (21) and Muhammed(21) Sabarnah had entered the library of a Yeshiva at Gush Etzion settlement adjacent to Beit Ummar late evening 24 January and, according to Kovatch, wielded a knife and a handgun, and ordered those in the library to go up against the wall. Another counselor, Rafael Singer, threatened with a gun and the Sabarnah cousins wrestled with Singer, stabbing him. Kovatch then shot and killed the cousins. No Israeli was seriously wounded.

What would have happened if they had not been killed? How many students and teachers would have been slaughtered?

I recognized Mahmoud Sabarnah’s mother when she rose to greet me at the calling hours, eyes filled with tears. The last time I saw her she was smiling and dancing at the wedding of one of Mahmoud’s cousins. I thought of how I first met members of the extended Sabarnah family in the summer of 1997 when the Israeli military issued demolition orders on their homes. Bypass road #60, built on Palestinian land to connect the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, does not bypass Beit Ummar; it goes right through heavily populated areas.

For a discussion of who owns the land in Gush Etzion, see: History of Gush Etzion and Kfar Etzion Massacre. Rt. 60 connects Gush Etzion with Jerusalem. It was necessary to build a special wall alongside it to prevent shooting attacks on Israeli traffic.

I remember that in 2000 and 2001 I met many of the Sabarnah neighbors, also grieving for their children. Israeli soldiers killed many along road #60 in the early months of the second intifada for the crime of living and walking near road #60.

I remember going with members of the Sabarnah family and other Beit Ummar farmers a few years ago when the Israeli military announced they were placing a security zone around Karme Tsur settlement, in effect more then doubling the size of Karme Tsur, and taking in the plums, grapes and olives of the Beit Ummar farmers. I heard one of the farmers from the Sabarnah family cry, “The land is gone.”

I visited Mahmoud Sabarnah’s sister in 2002 after the Israeli military threatened her husband with home demolition if anyone threw stones from near their home or from the almond grove north of their home on road #60. I remember that shortly after that their six- year- old child cried when the Israeli army uprooted the almond trees.

In 2004 I stayed overnight with one of the Sabarnah families when Israeli soldiers entered their neighbor’s home, forcing the family out at gunpoint, and abducting their son, taking him off to prison.

Is this really all there is to it? More Palestinians just minding their business? Somehow I doubt it.

Christian Peacemaker Teams is against weapons, whether they are carried by soldiers or civilians. But why do newspapers refer to Palestinians as terrorists when they threaten armed settlers, and not use that term when armed soldiers enter homes and terrorize unarmed families?

Well, Reuters doesn’t. But anyone who doesn’t understand the difference between being a terrorist and arresting one is missing some brain cells.

Suppose the occupier and the occupied changed places. The headline of the event might be Head of Israeli terror group kills two Beit Ummar soldiers as they infiltrate terrorist cell. Or suppose instead of changing places they become equal neighbors, sharing the land with no wall between them and no weapons in their hands…

Jews have been trying to live in peace with Arabs in Gush Etzion since about 1923. After a while they began to understand that the Arabs were not interested in sharing anything except bullets.

Technorati Tags: Israel, CPT, terrorism

The Winograd Commission report on the Second Lebanon War has been released, and it’s ugly (although many feel that the part that was made public was not at all ugly enough, since it did not explicitly demand the resignation of the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert).

The consensus is that the goals of the war were fuzzy, the strategy nonexistent, the preparation poor, the tactics wrong, and that as a result soldiers and civilians died and were wounded for nothing — or less than nothing, since the strategic situation now is worse than before the war.

Here are a pair of snippets from commentary on the report. The articles linked are worth reading in their entirety.

Michael Oren:

I had fought in war before but had never seen such intensive fire — tracer bullets, rockets, artillery shells — nor been assigned a more horrific detail. My unit was escorting the bodies of Israeli soldiers killed on the last night of the Second Lebanon War, a few hours before the U.N. cease-fire agreement took effect. None of us understood the purpose of this last-minute offensive or, indeed, many of the government’s disastrous decisions during the war. We agreed that the burden of these failures would be borne by our leaders, military and civilians alike.

Now, a year and a half later, veterans of the war are demanding that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert accept responsibility for its conduct — or risk unraveling the consensus on which Israel’s survival depends.

Ami Isseroff:

Israel has a tradition, that when a major failure occurs – or even a minor but symbolic one – the Prime Minister responsible for that failure resigns. David Ben Gurion resigned when he was not exonerated for his suspected role in the Lavon affair. Golda Meir resigned after the failure of the Yom Kippur war, and Yitzhak Rabin resigned because of a trivial technical violation – his wife had a forbidden $3,000 bank account in the United States. This last seems laughable in view of the major failures of the recent war. The fact that the resignation of Olmert after the war was not automatic is an indication of the real problems in public morality, priorities and values that caused the failure.

Technorati Tags: Winograd Commission, Israel, Olmert