January 29, 2007

1st Suicide Bomb in Israel in 9 Months - A Month After Olmert Removes Some Security Checkpoints

Just over a month ago, I posted:

Has Prime Minister Olmert, of Israel, lost his mind?

TEL AVIV - The Israeli army is "up in arms" regarding an order issued yesterday by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to remove a series of West Bank security checkpoints that regularly stop terrorists from infiltrating Jewish cities, according to military officials.

In accordance with promises made to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a summit this weekend, Olmert instructed the IDF to remove 49 West Bank roadblocks and checkpoints. Twenty-seven roadblocks are to be removed immediately, and the rest within about a week, subject to a final decision by government officials.

Olmert also instructed IDF soldiers to not thoroughly examine every vehicle at 16 of the West Bank's largest roadblocks. Vehicle examinations usually cause long delays at the checkpoints.

Olmert said the moves were aimed at bolstering Abbas at a time when his Fatah party is engaging in infighting with rival Hamas factions. Abbas last weekend called for new Palestinian elections in a move widely seen as attempting to dismantle the Hamas-led government.

Palestinians say the West Bank roadblocks and checkpoints are degrading. They complain of waiting in long lines to pass through West Bank cities.

But according to IDF statistics, upwards of 60 percent of all attempted suicide bombings are stopped at the checkpoints. Israeli soldiers routinely catch Palestinians at checkpoints en route to central Israel with explosives or suicide belts. Many of the terrorists are caught during vehicle inspections.

...Military officials told WND the removal of roadblocks in the past directly resulted in an increase in terrorism.

"The checkpoints work. It's that simple. It's how we stop most terrorism," a military official told WND.

 And today, Israel was struck by its first suicide bombing in 9 months:

EILAT, Israel (AP) - A Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a bakery in this southern Israeli resort town on Monday, killing three other people, police said. It was the first suicide bombing in Israel in nine months and the first ever to hit Eilat, Israel's southernmost city.

A spokesman for Hamas, the radical Islamic group that controls the Palestinian parliament and Cabinet, praised the bombing as a "natural response" to Israeli policies - a position likely to complicate the group's efforts to end a crippling aid boycott imposed by the international community.

Two Palestinian militant groups, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, claimed joint responsibility for the attack.

As shown on this map, Eilat is not near the West Bank security checkpoints; but the article quoted above notes that terrorists often come through checkpoints en route to locations that are relatively distant: "Israeli soldiers routinely catch Palestinians at checkpoints en route to central Israel with explosives or suicide belts."

It is not yet known if this suicide bomber came through any of the removed West Bank security checkpoints. But this event argues that those checkpoints are needed and should be reinstated.

The Hamas government states that the bombing is "a natural response" to Israeli policies. I wonder what a natural response by Israel to the bombings would be? For many nations historically, completely taking over the Palestinian territories, and destroying the Hamas government, would be a very natural response. Israel won't do that, in order to show the world how devoted it is to peace.

 

Update 1-31-07: Olah Chadasha, of the Greetings from the French Hill weblog, provides info on how these terrorists got into Israel:

...this terrorist came through Gaza. Therefore, while you are totally correct, another vital point needs to be pointed out here. Here is how he most likely got out of Gaza, not the West Bank. There are two most likely possibilities here. As you are very well aware, the southern city in Gaza, Rafiah, is a maze of tunnels that are used by terrorists to smuggle terrorists, weapons, explosives, and other munitions and goodies used to fight against Israel and rival factions within Gaza. No, these tunnels are NOT used to smuggle food, medicine, or any other products or goods that could be used to support the people of Gaza. Terrorists also use these tunnels to smuggle terrorists into Israel, so they could bypass Israeli soldiers and check-points. And, here-in lies the further conclusion of your point. The check-points work. They stop terrorists from attacking Israel. The entirety of the MSM has used the fact that this is the first suicide attack within Israel in over 9 months in the context that the Hudna or cease-fire worked. Nothing could be further from the truth. Terrorist attacks against Israel have been prevented by the IDF and their immense hard work, including the check points. It has NOT been for lack of trying from the terrorists that there has been very little terrorist attacks against Israel in the past year and a half.

GWB Did Not Lie

"Top Ten Myths of the Iraq War," from StrategyPage, is being widely linked, and as far as I'm concerned, it should be linked by everybody. I'll comment on Myth #1:

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians. The Iranians wanted revenge on Saddam because of the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980, and the eight year war that followed.

Bush did not lie when he said there were WMD's in Iraq. This is so self-evident that Republicans feel it's too absurd to even have to say so. Even if GWB had been wrong, being wrong is not the same as lying. We feel that even the people saying that Bush lied, must know they are exaggerating. Yet just last week, Carl Bernstein repeated this nonsense:

In the case George W. Bush, the American system has obviously failed -- tragically -- about which we can talk more in a minute. But imagine the difference in our worldview today, had the institutions -- particularly of government -- done their job to ensure that a mendacious and dangerous president (as has since been proven many times over, beyond mere assertion) be restrained in a war that has killed thousands of American soldiers, brought turmoil to the lives of millions, and constrained the goodwill towards the United States in much of the world.

"Mendacious," says Bernstein. Bernstein is clearly wrong ( i.e. by his own standards, apparently, "lying" ) to say so. Bernstein can only argue that GWB was wrong when he said there were WMDs in Iraq, and being wrong is very different from lying.

And as StrategyPage states, GWB wasn't even wrong.

Next time you hear someone say GWB was lying when he said there were WMDs in Iraq, consider pointing out to them that being wrong is not the same as lying.

UN Condemns Holocaust Denial - AWE and WUPJ Appeal to UN to Put Ahmadinajed on Trial

Last Friday the UN officially condemned Holocaust denial without reservation:

UN Assembly condemns Holocaust denial by consensus; Iran disassociates itself

26 January 2007 - The United Nations General Assembly today condemned without reservation any denial of the Holocaust, with only Iran publicly disassociating itself from the consensus resolution which was immediately hailed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The Assembly, noting that the resolution was adopted on the eve of the UN-designated annual International Day of Commemoration for Holocaust victims, who also included not only Jews but also Roma, Sinti, homosexuals and other groups, called on all its 192 Member States "unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end."

Welcoming the measure, which was introduced by the United States on behalf of 103 co-sponsors, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement voicing "his strong desire to see this fundamental principle respected both in rhetoric and in practice."

"By this action today, the General Assembly reaffirms its condemnation of the Holocaust as a crime against humanity," said the body's president, Sheikha Haya Al Khalifa of Bahrain.

Today the Association for World Education and the World Union for Progressive Judaism called on the UN to condemn Iranian President Ahmadinajed for actions contrary to this resolution - and also called on the UN to bring Ahmadinajed to trial for continued "direct and public incitement to commit genocide," which is "punishable" under the UN Charter and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The text of the appeal to the UN has been forwarded to this site by one of its authors, Mr. David Littman (emphasis in original):

ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION

WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM

United Nations-Geneva / Monday, 29 January 2007 (9:00am)

Call for Firm Action Today to Condemn President Mahmoud Ahmadinajed

Urgent Appeal to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon / High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour / President of the Human Rights Council Ambassador Luis Alfonso De Alba

We welcome the GA's Resolution by consensus - co-sponsored by 103 States - which condemned, without reservation, any denial of the Holocaust, and the Secretary-General's "strong desire to see this fundamental principle respected both in rhetoric and in practice." Speaking before the vote, Iran's representative "fully dissociated himself from today's entire hypocritical exercise," alleging: "Its main sponsors had sought to present the text under 'mischievous' intent to pursue narrow political interests and misuse the Assembly."

On the 2^nd International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, we call on Member States of the United Nations to act decisively now by invoking the UN Charter and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - in order to bring President Mahmoud Ahmadinajed to trial before the International Criminal Court, and Iran before the UN Security Council. The reiterated call by Iran's president for Israel's elimination is "inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" (UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2:4). And Article III (c) of the Genocide Convention is clear: "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide" ( … ) "shall be punishable." Its Article IV states that: "Persons committing Genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals." At a Teheran Conference on 26^th October 2005 Iranian President Ahmadinajed called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." He also announced that: "very soon the stain of this disgrace will be purged from the centre of the Islamic world." And he ominously warned all peacemakers: "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." In his 5^th December 2005 speech to the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Mecca, he proclaimed that the major problem in the Islamic world was "the presence of the Zionist occupation in the heart of the Islamic region," even predicting that its "judicious removal will pave the way to the appearance of Islam's power in the successful management of global matters." Last week he repeated his threatening scenario for the rapid demise of the State of Israel.

In a TV speech on 14^th December 2005, he had referred to the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews as a fabrication: "They have created a myth in the name of the Holocaust and consider it above God, religion and the prophets." On 5^th January 2006, Iran's state-controlled TV screened a discussion on "the myth of the gas chambers" and "the truth of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Before the 2006 1^st International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, Ahmadinajed announced a special "Holocaust 'Myth' Conference" in Teheran, which took place last month in defiance of world public opinion. In his 8^th January 2007 letter to Human Rights Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba, Iran's Ambassador Alireza Moayeri stressed that: "The international conference on the Holocaust, held in Teheran, has been an academic event, to examine and investigate the facts about a historical claim without any prejudice or judgment (...) This is a legitimate question that: while there are serious opposing ideas over the issue, in particular on the number of perished, among scholars around the world, why an artificial red line has to taboo[sic] the entire issue of the Holocaust, preventing to bridge this gap, in total contradiction of article 19 of the UDHR and article 19 of the ICCPR."

We strongly urge the Secretary-General, the Human Rights High Commissioner and Council President, and all UN Member States, to take heed of the Iranian president's 'thinking' - in particular that ideological parallel between the clear reference in his 26^th October 2005 speech to a 'Jihad ideology': "the struggle [Jihad] between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels", and to Hitler's words in Mein Kampf (My Struggle), describing the 'true Aryans' pitted against non-Aryans! Are the horrors of the 20^th century's Nazi "final solution" to be repeated in the 21^st - while the international community merely notes 'with concern' this gathering storm?

The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran's "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" ( by the elimination of a Member State, i.e. "politicide" ) requires FIRM ACTION TODAY. As was stressed over the years: any "Contracting Party" may invoke article 8 of the post-Holocaust Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (approved on 9^th December 1948, the day before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and "call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such actions…for the prevention and suppression of…any of the acts enumerated in article III." Iran's defiance of the 1945 UN Charter is another reason for all persons and UN bodies to ACT NOW.

René Wadlow (Main Representative of AWE) / David G. Littman (Representative of AWE & WUPJ)

Leo McKinstry in the Daily Express: Pandering to Religious Demands is Destroying England’s Identity

Forwarded this site by Mr. David Littman, Representative of the Association for World Education (no link):

Pandering to religious demands is destroying our national identity

Leo McKinstry Daily Express columnist

918  words

22 January 2007

The Daily Express (page 12)

(c) 2007 Express Newspapers

---

LEADER

DURING the dark days of 1938, as Nazi tyranny spread across Europe, Winston Churchill spoke of his despair at the government's enfeebled response to the threat of Hitler.

---

"I have watched this famous island descending incontinently, fecklessly, the stairway which leads to a dark gulf, " he said.

He went on to warn that "if a moral catastrophe should overtake" Britain, then future historians would be baffled as to how a great nation allowed itself to be destroyed so easily.

Thanks to Churchill's magnificent leadership, the end of our civilisation under the German jackboot was averted.

Yet if he were alive today, he would surely be despondent at the collapse of our sense of nationhood in the face of the twin forces of multiculturalism and mass immigration.

Churchill spoke in 1938 of a "terrible transformation" having taken place in the spirit of the political classes, whose patriotic self-confidence evaporated when confronted with the brute force of Nazi ideology.

The same is true today as our rulers dilute their allegiance to our traditions in desperation to accommodate other cultures.

A "terrible transformation" has indeed taken place. A mood of self-loathing hangs over our institutions. Our past is seen as a cause of shame rather than pride. Throughout our public services, diversity is to be celebrated, whereas Britishness must be derided, ignored or mocked.

THIS mood of self-abasement can be seen at its most repellent in the reaction to the endless litany of Muslim so-called grievances.

The official dogma of multiculturalism encourages hardline Muslims to believe that they can refuse to abide by the rules and customs of this country, even where their own superstitious, often oppressive, practices are in direct conflict with Western liberal traditions of democracy and tolerance.

A classic example occurred in the case of a newly recruited Muslim female police officer who refused to shake the hand of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair during her passing-out parade.

Justifying her decision, she said that it was contrary to her religion to touch a man. Well, it is also contrary to the Met's operational efficiency to have such an apparent zealot in its ranks. If she cannot have any physical contact with a man, how on earth is she going to carry out an arrest, given that more than 90 per cent of serious offenders are male?

In its desperation to parade its multicultural credentials, the Met, like many of our state institutions, has lost sight of its duty towards the wider public.

The police exist to protect society. Whilst there is no suggestion this WPC is anything other than a faithful Muslim, it is absurd of the Met to take seriously this nonsense, which, in my view, is no more elevated than ancient paganism.

Apart from anything else, the refusal to return a handshake is the height of bad manners, implying that the other person is so unclean or so dangerous that he cannot even be touched. But in our climate of political correctness, traditional Western manners count for nothing compared to the sensibilities of Muslims.

What is particularly depressing about this saga is that Sir Ian did nothing about it.

According to reports from inside the police, when he was informed of the officer's request to avoid a handshake:

"He was bloody furious. But he agreed to go along with it so as not to cause a scene." Sir Ian's behaviour could be a metaphor for modern Britain.

At every turn, we have surrendered to Muslim protests, whether it be over freedom of speech or the wearing of the veil. Our Christian heritage is being dumped for fear of "giving offence" to radical Muslims, while new religious discrimination laws force employers to bend over backwards to meet Islamic demands.

A PERMANENT soundtrack of Muslim grievance plays in our society, exploding into full volume at the hint of any challenge to Islam. This climate of appeasement is dressed up as religious tolerance but is really just cowardice. Our institutions are terrified of radical Islam because of the threat of violence. The shadow of the bullet and the bomb lurks behind wails about Islamophobia.

The great Trinidadian writer Sir Vidia Naipaul once described Islam as "sanctified rage" and that has been the bitter experience of countries throughout the world over the past 30 years, as the death toll mounts from the atrocities perpetrated by fundamentalists.

Yet, even as their grim catalogue of murder lengthens, radical Muslims present themselves as the victims of Western imperialistic discrimination, oppression or neglect.

Shamefully, too many Westerners and Western governments have colluded in this process.

Instead of confronting the menace of radical Islam, they try to appease it with endless concessions, even compromising basic democratic issues such as women's rights and liberty of expression. They will do anything for a quiet life. But cowardice does not lead to tranquillity. It emboldens those who wish to exploit our weakness.

The late Thirties showed the disastrous consequences of trying to appease a violent, intolerant ideology. Just as today, there was an institutional reluctance to defend British values in the face of this threat.

Opponents of Nazism were often treated as dangerous cranks; Churchill was all but banned by the BBC for being too anti-German. But as he so rightly warned, appeasement is the road to national suicide. We cannot save our civilisation by continually weakening it.