My Photo
Location: Eastbourne, United Kingdom

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Karel Martel

De enigste, maar dan de enigste, die mij, die het hier met een noorderlijke moslimrakettenregen moet stellen, een hart onder de riem steekt is Charles.

Ik zit hier onder de emoties en nerveus de smerige-radioactieve-iran-bommetjes af te wachten en ons Charles belt mij geregeld des avonds op uit het thuisland. Het landje waar mijn bakermatje lag, waar mijn kribbe stond. Mijn bakjevolmetstro.

Koud water voor een uitgedroogde, verzengde ziel. Dank je.

Het zou misschien wenselijk zijn dat zoon David, desnoods ook met ons zoet hondje Tarzan, hierkomen om orde op zaken te stellen. 's Nachts met zijn speurzinnen de rimboe intrekken achter de fundamentalisten-hisbollas-met-of-zonder-rakketjes om zodoende hun een deftige stamp achter hun broek te verkopen zodat ze de aftochtblazen richting Teheran-Borgerhout-cafee Bagdad. Molenbeek aan de Zenne mag ook.

De slag bij Poitiers 732 wordt traditioneel beschouwd als een keerpunt in de opmars van de islam in Europa


Anonymous Charles said...

Abou Jahjah wil vechten

Als we de kranten mogen geloven, staan de koffers van Dyab Abou Jahjah klaar. Niet voor de Begijnenstraat – Jahjah moet zich hier nog voor de rechtbank verantwoorden voor zijn aandeel in de migrantenrellen van 2002 – maar voor Libanon.

Het zit er in het Midden-Oosten immers bovenarms op tussen Israël en de islamitische terroristen van de Hezbollah. We gaan ons hier niet uitspreken over de grond van het conflict, maar Abou Jahjah wil terug naar Libanon om te gaan vechten aan de zijde van zijn makkers van de Hezbollah. “Ik wil niet meer schrijven, ik wil niet meer spreken. Het enige waar ik nog aan denk, is terug naar mijn thuisland te gaan. Dit zou de laatste tekst kunnen zijn die ik schrijf voor ik begin aan een reis die ook mijn laatste kan worden”, klinkt het melodramatisch op de website van de AEL.

We veronderstellen dat er in Vlaanderen niet veel mensen zullen treuren om het vertrek van een fundamentalistische oproerkraaier. Maar Jahjah zou zich wel eens flink kunnen misrekenen. Een robbertje vechten met de politie in Antwerpen is één ding, een oorlog uitvechten met de goed uitgeruste en getrainde troepen van Israël is een ander paar mouwen. Daar weten ze wel raad met knapen als Abou Jahjah.

2:42 AM

7/21/2006 02:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Afew years back, when folks talked airily about "the Middle East peace process" and "a two-state solution," I used to say that the trouble was the Palestinians saw a two-state solution as an interim stage en route to a one-state solution. I underestimated Islamist depravity. As we now see in Gaza and southern Lebanon, any two-state solution would be an interim stage en route to a no-state solution.

In one of the most admirably straightforward of Islamist declarations, Hussein Massawi, the Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago, put it this way:

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

Swell. But, suppose he got his way, what then? Suppose every last Jew in Israel were dead or fled, what would rise in place of the Zionist Entity? It would be something like the Hamas-Hezbollah terror squats in Gaza and Lebanon writ large. Hamas won a landslide in the Palestinian elections, and Hezbollah similarly won formal control of key Lebanese Cabinet ministries. But they're not Mussolini: They have no interest in making the trains run on time. And to be honest, who can blame them? If you're a big-time terrorist mastermind, it's frankly a bit of a bore to find yourself Deputy Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Pensions, particularly when you're no good at it and no matter how lavishly the European Union throws money at you there never seems to be any in the kitty when it comes to making payroll. So, like a business that's over-diversified, both Hamas and Hezbollah retreated to their core activity: Jew-killing.

In Causeries du Lundi, Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve recalls a Parisian dramatist watching the revolutionary mob rampaging through the street below and beaming: "See my pageant passing!" That's how opportunist Arabs and indulgent Europeans looked on the intifada and the terrorists and the schoolgirl suicide bombers: as a kind of uber-authentic piece of performance art with which to torment the Jews and the Americans. They never paused to ask themselves: Hey, what if it doesn't stop there?

Well, about 30 years too late, they're asking it now. For the first quarter-century of Israel's existence, the Arab states fought more or less conventional wars against the Zionists, and kept losing. So then they figured it was easier to anoint a terrorist movement and in 1974 declared Yasser Arafat's PLO to be the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," which is quite a claim for an organization then barely half-a-decade old. Amazingly, the Arab League persuaded the U.N. and the EU and Bill Clinton and everyone else to go along with it and to treat the old monster as a head of state who lacked only a state to head. It's true that many nationalist movements have found it convenient to adopt the guise of terrorists. But, as the Palestinian "nationalist" movement descended from airline hijackings to the intifada to self-detonating in pizza parlors, it never occurred to their glamorous patrons to wonder if maybe this was, in fact, a terrorist movement conveniently adopting the guise of nationalism.

In 1971, in the lobby of the Cairo Sheraton, Palestinian terrorists shot Wasfi al-Tal, the prime minister of Jordan at point-blank range. As he fell to the floor dying, one of his killers began drinking the blood gushing from his wounds. Doesn't that strike you as a little, um, overwrought? Three decades later, when bombs went off in Bali killing hundreds of tourists plus local waiters and barmen, Bruce Haigh, a former Aussie diplomat in Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, had no doubt where to put the blame. As he told Australia's Nine Network: "The root cause of this issue has been America's backing of Israel on Palestine."

Suppose this were true -- that terrorists blew up Oz honeymooners and Scandinavian stoners in Balinese nightclubs because of "the Palestinian question." Doesn't this suggest that these people are, at a certain level, nuts? After all, there are plenty of IRA sympathizers around the world (try making the Ulster Unionist case in a Boston bar) and yet they never thought to protest British rule in Northern Ireland by blowing up, say, German tourists in Thailand. Yet the more the thin skein of Palestinian grievance was stretched to justify atrocities halfway around the world, the more the Arab League big-shot emirs and European Union foreign ministers looked down from their windows and cooed, "See my parade passing!"

They've now belatedly realized they're at that stage in the creature feature where the monster has mutated into something bigger and crazier. Until the remarkably kinda-robust statement by the G-8 and the unprecedented denunciation of Hezbollah by the Arab League, the rule in any conflict in which Israel is involved -- Israel vs. PLO, Israel vs. Lebanon, Israel vs. [Your Team Here] is that the Jews are to blame.

But Saudi-Egyptian-Jordanian opportunism on Palestine has caught up with them: It's finally dawned on them that a strategy of consciously avoiding resolution of the "Palestinian question" has helped deliver Gaza, and Lebanon and Syria, into the hands of a regime that's a far bigger threat to the Arab world than the Zionist Entity. Cairo and Co. grew so accustomed to whining about the Palestinian pseudo-crisis decade in decade out that it never occurred to them that they might face a real crisis one day: a Middle East dominated by an apocalyptic Iran and its local enforcers, in which Arab self-rule turns out to have been a mere interlude between the Ottoman sultans and the eternal eclipse of a Persian nuclear umbrella. The Zionists got out of Gaza and it's now Talibanistan redux. The Zionists got out of Lebanon and the most powerful force in the country (with an ever-growing demographic advantage) are Iran's Shia enforcers. There haven't been any Zionists anywhere near Damascus in 60 years and Syria is in effect Iran's first Sunni Arab prison bitch. For the other regimes in the region, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria are dead states that have risen as vampires.

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan in a remarkable display of urgency (at least when compared with Sudan, Rwanda, Congo et al.) is proposing apropos Israel and Hezbollah that U.N. peacekeepers go in, not to keep the "peace" between two sovereign states but rather between a sovereign state and a usurper terrorist gang. Contemptible as he is, the secretary-general shows a shrewd understanding of the way the world is heading: Already "non-state actors" have more sophisticated rocketry than many EU nations; if Iran has its way, its proxies will be implied nuclear powers. Maybe we should put them on the U.N. Security Council.

So what is in reality Israel's first non-Arab war is a glimpse of the world the day after tomorrow: The EU and Arab League won't quite spell it out, but, to modify that Le Monde headline, they are all Jews now.

7/23/2006 06:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Hizbullah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies.

By hiding behind their own civilians the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians.

This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option, and the terrorists with a win-win option.

There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media and the so called "human rights" organizations could stop falling for this terrorist gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda.

Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of "overreaction," "disproportionality" and "violations of human rights."

In doing so they play right into the hands of the terrorists, causing more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides.
If instead this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a win-win situation for the terrorists.

IT SHOULD BE obvious by now that Hizbullah and Hamas actually want the Israeli military to kill as many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as possible. That is why they store their rockets underneath the beds of civilians; why they launch their missiles from crowded civilian neighborhoods and hide among civilians. They are seeking to induce Israel to defend its civilians by going after them among their civilian "shields." They know that every civilian they induce Israel to kill hurts Israel in the media and the international and human rights communities.

They regard these human shields as shahids - martyrs - even if they did not volunteer for this lethal job. Under the law, criminals who use human shields are responsible for the deaths of the shields, even if the bullet that kills them came from the gun of a policeman.

Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing them - on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the terrorists from killing their innocent civilians.

NOW THAT some of those who are launching rockets at Israeli cities have announced they have new surprises in store for Israel that may include chemical and biological weapons, the stakes have gotten even higher.

What would Israeli critics regard as "proportioned" to a chemical or biological attack? What would they say if Israel tried to preempt such an attack and, in the process, killed some civilians? Must a democracy absorb a first strike from a weapon of mass destruction before it fights back? Would any other democracy be expected to do that?

The world must come to recognize the cynical way in which terrorists exploit civilian casualties. They launch anti-personnel rockets designed to maximize enemy civilian casualties, then they cry "human rights" when their own civilians - behind whom they are deliberately hiding - are killed by the democracies in the process of trying to prevent further acts of terrorism.

The very idea that terrorists who use women and children as suicide bombers against other women and children shed crocodile tears over the deaths of civilians they deliberately put in harm's way gives new meaning to the word "hypocrisy." We all know that hypocrisy is a tactic of the terrorists, but it is shocking that others fall for it and become complicit with the terrorists.

Let the blame fall where it belongs: on the terrorists who deliberately seek to kill enemy civilians and give their democratic enemies little choice but to kill some civilians behind whom the terrorists are hiding.

Those who condemn Israel for killing civilians - who are used as human shields and swords for the terrorists - actually cause more civilian deaths and make it harder for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.

HOW THE WORLD reacts to Israel's current military efforts to protect its citizens will have a considerable impact on future Israeli steps toward peace. Prior to the recent kidnappings and rocket attacks the Israeli government had announced its intention to engage in further withdrawals from large portions of the West Bank.

But how can Israel be expected to move forward with any plan for withdrawal if all it can expect in return is more terrorism - what the terrorists regard as "land for rocket launchings" - and more condemnation when it seeks to protect its civilians?

7/23/2006 06:53:00 PM  
Blogger maharal said...

Defeating the barbarians at our gate

Isi Leibler, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 25, 2006


This war could have been avoided had we not continued to bury our heads in the sand as we watched the Katyusha missile infrastructures being built by Hizbullah on our northern border.

For over a year, Kassam rockets rained over us and although we threatened reprisals ad nauseam, all we did was bomb empty fields and abandoned buildings. History will surely now condemn the unilateral Gaza disengagement and the precipitous withdrawal from Lebanon as unmitigated disasters, both from the military standpoint as well as from the vantage of psychological warfare.
All we did was succeed admirably in convincing the jihadists that we lacked deterrent capabilities and were at the point of unraveling in terms of national morale. But this is not a time to indulge in recriminations. Today we must set aside our differences and unite behind our leaders, making them aware that if greater sacrifices are required in order to defeat the barbarians at our gate, they have our full support.

PRIME MINISTER Ehud Olmert is a civilian without military experience. And "peacenik" Minister of Defense Amir hardly radiates the charisma of a warrior.

But David Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol, and Menachem Begin also lacked military backgrounds but emerged as outstanding national leaders in war as in peace.

Besides, most Israelis of all political persuasions would agree that since the outbreak of hostilities, both Olmert and Peretz have performed in an exemplary manner and emerged as true national leaders. The prime minister's recent Knesset speech to the nation was Churchillian, and will go down in history as one of the most stirring calls to the nation from any Israeli leader.

Clearly the present campaign to root out Hizbullah has created a greater sense of Israeli unity than at any time since the Six Day War. Aside from a handful of fringe extremists and eccentric Ha'aretz op-ed writers, there is a genuine consensus that this is truly a classic case of a just war.

Our adversaries no longer even bother to go through the pretence that the conflict is related to land for peace. Hizbullah and Hamas, backed by the Iranians and Syrians, seek the elimination of Jewish sovereignty - nothing less.

WE ARE NOT attacking Lebanon. We are attacking Hizbullah, which has stuck itself like a leech on the Lebanese people. They are terrorists armed with lethal hi-tech weapons who believe they are sanctified to ravage our sovereign territory in order to kill and kidnap civilians and soldiers.

No other country could remain passive in the face of such provocations, combined with the daily launching of missiles on civilian population centers. By any terms these are acts of war. As Olmert put it in the Knesset, "No more!"

And whereas decent nations at war may seek to minimize casualties of innocent non-combatants, to relate to "proportionality" in this context can only be described as playing foul.

Playing foul are those repeating the perennial mantras of "cycles of violence" and spouting generalizations based on moral equivalency which fail to distinguish between aggressors and victims. Playing foul was Kofi Annan scolding us, and the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for "disproportionate use of military force" - a resolution which was only averted by the US veto. Playing foul were the Russians, the French and other Europeans demanding a halt to the "inflicting of suffering on innocent Lebanese civilians."

Playing foul was the EU President deploring the destruction of civilian infrastructure and condemning Israel's "unjustified air and sea blockade," even hinting at economic sanctions.

TO HIS CREDIT, President Bush stood by Israel from the outset, adamantly reiterating our right to defend ourselves and refusing to support a cease-fire which would have enabled Hizbullah to retreat and regroup in order to confront us again at a time of its choosing.

We should not be under any illusion that the hostile attitude displayed against us by much of the world will change overnight. But now, for the first time, even countries that until now displayed bias and applied double standards in judging us are following the American lead.

Perhaps recent events may finally be making some of the Europeans aware of the stark reality that they and we Israelis are on the same side, on the front lines facing the authentic cut-throat jihadists, the advance guards of Islamic fundamentalism seeking to conquer the world and transform it into a caliphate.

The first major breakthrough came with the statement of the G8. For the first time Russia and France endorsed a resolution which clearly distinguished between the aggressor and victim. Hopefully it may represent the turning point of a growing realization that the only real beneficiaries from this violent upheaval are the Iranians, who are orchestrating the conflict to promote their own objectives.

THE PEOPLE of Israel are already displaying qualities of fortitude and determination that their enemies mistakenly believed had been eroded by soft living and consumerism.

Now is the time for us to reinforce our unity and national consensus. So long as the government remains firm on its objectives - the dismantling of Hizbullah and the return of the hostages - we are entitled to expect our politicians to set aside their differences.

Now is the time to demonstrate our united resolve, with leading opposition politicians, including Binyamin Netanyahu speaking to the world, with one voice in support of the efforts of our prime minister.

Now is the time to promote the most talented and articulate Israelis to present our case to the world, even if that requires some of the currently ensconced bureaucrats to temporarily step aside.

Now is also the time to repair our relationship with Diaspora Jewry and welcome their input into the war of ideas in which we have been losing ground over these past years by being falsely portrayed as brutal occupiers.

This could represent the beginning of a campaign to reverse the global tide of media demonization and bias confronting us.

HISTORY MAY make us grateful that the Hizbullah offensive took place now rather than in a few years' time, when the price in blood would undoubtedly be much higher. Our challenge is to guarantee that the bloodshed and the sacrifices our people are currently making will not be in vain and will result in a more secure Israel.

That means finishing the job, as Prime Minister Olmert has promised to do

7/25/2006 01:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home