Column: Bush, Sharansky and Reagan

PM Ariel Sharon has begun to back off from his ill conceived "unilateral disengagement" plan. He is now offering what has been called "bilateral disengagement" -- meaning that if the new Palestinian leadership fights terrorism, violence, and incitement, he is ready to coordinate a withdrawal from Gaza. Sharon said this on November 16: "If they take the proper steps, it will be possible to attempt to coordinate the withdrawal with them and allow them to accept the territory from us."

But why is Sharon suddenly placing conditions on withdrawal after so adamantly pushing forward the "unilateral disengagement" plan -- and that in the face of enormous opposition?

The answer might be found in the fact that on November 11, five days prior to Sharon's change of tune, President Bush -- who has been reading Natan Sharansky's new book, "The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror"" -- met with Sharansky in Washington.

It seems that Sharansky has made quite an impression there. Firstly, Bush has recommended the book to Condoleeza Rice, who is reading it. Secondly, the responses that Bush gave at a November 12 press meeting with British premier Tony Blair appear to be direct quotes from Sharansky's book. The responses present a new strategy that requires the "Palestinians" to embrace democracy as a precondition for peace negotiations -- adopting Sharansky's position and making "unilateral disengagement" look ridiculous. Perhaps this is the reason for Sharon's new plan.
Here is one of the questions asked of Bush at the joint press meeting and his response:

Question:

"With Yasser Arafat's death, what specific steps can Israel take to revive peace negotiations? And do you believe that Israel should implement a freeze on West Bank settlement expansion?"

President Bush:

" I believe that the responsibility for peace is going to rest with the Palestinian people's desire to build a democracy and Israel's willingness to help them build a democracy. I know we have a responsibility as free nations to set forth a strategy that will help the Palestinian people head toward democracy. I don't think there will ever be lasting peace until there is a free, truly democratic society in the Palestinian territories that becomes a state. And therefore, the responsibility rests with both the Palestinian people and the leadership which emerges, with the Israelis to help that democracy grow, and with the free world to put the strategy in place that will help the democracy grow."

Please make note that in response to a question about a settlement freeze Bush made six references to democracy. Remarkably, Blair, in his responses, echoed Bush's answers almost exactly.

So, it appears that Sharon is adjusting. Does this mean there will be no "disengagement"? Not necessarily, but it looks like Sharon understands the new situation in which he finds himself -- one where Sharansky, a vocal opponent of his plan, has clearly become an influential figure in the White House.

While Sharansky is enjoying a newly exalted status in Washington he first came to the White House after being released from the Gulag in 1986 -- in a prisoner exchange engineered by the Reagan administration. His meeting then was a great success and laid the foundation for the current influence he enjoys.
Sharansky told about the meeting with Reagan in this way:

"The first time I met President Reagan I told him this story. I felt free to tell him everything. I told him of the brilliant day when we learned about his Evil Empire speech from an article in Pravda or Izvestia that found its way into the prison. When I said that our whole block burst out into a kind of loud celebration and that the world was about to change, well, then the president, this great tall man, just lit up like a schoolboy. His face lit up and beamed. He jumped out of his seat like a shot and started waving his arms wildly and calling for everyone to come in to hear "this man's" story. It was really only then that I started to appreciate that it wasn't just in the Soviet Union that President Reagan must have suffered terrible abuse for this great speech, but that he must have been hurt at home too. It seemed as though our moment of joy was the moment of his own vindication. That the great punishment he had endured for this speech was worth it."

It seems that Bush is still hearing Reagan's advice and listening to "this man's" story -- a truly inspiring one. Listening to Sharansky just may save Israel from a reckless plan and vindicate the vision of yet another American president at the same time -- in a different but perhaps not completely different war.

Column: November 19, 2004 -- Rush, Sean, and the Settlers

Arafat finally, finally died and Rush Limbaugh was talking about the talk surrounding it on the radio:

" It's nine-miles-wide country (Israel), and it's something. You know, I think that people talk about "a new day for peace" here, and yeah, there are calls for Israel to step up and make more concessions. But the real opportunity, if there's a new opportunity for peace here, it is solely, solely on the Palestinians. Are they going to have somebody running the show here who is actually interested in some accommodation and getting along with and side-by- side peaceful coexistence? I just don't see it. They can have a leader that stands for it and this guy's going to get shot or AIDS or poisoned or whatever, because the militants, you know, are just not going to go for this. So that's why this is going on. This is how long it's been going on and it's going to go on and on an own until one side defeats the other -- and for that to happen, the world's going to have to stand back and let it happen and I don't think that's going to happen either. So we're smack-dab in the middle of irreconcilable differences and I hate to put it that way but "that's the way it is." (November 12th 2004)

The above is just one example of Rush Limbaugh's statements in support of Israel. Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and others on Talk Radio have shown that not only are they a major force to contend with on the American political scene -- perhaps decisively so, as seen in these past elections -- but that they are good friends and supporters of Israel.

This is much appreciated since "Old Media" -- as Limbaugh calls it -- has never given Israel a fair shake and this is many more times true when it comes to the "settlers" in Judea, Samaria, and Aza. Their support has got me thinking. If Rush and Sean and others were more familiar with the communities of Judea Samaria and Aza would they not be invaluable allies? Is it yet possible to turn public opinion in America around and blunt the International Left's campaign to destroy these communities and reduce Israel to indefensible pre-67' borders?

If tens of millions of Americans could hear all that is good about the settlers and their traditional family lifestyle (certainly admirable to those that cherish Bible-based values) and all that is wrong in uprooting them only to be replaced by terrorists and missile launchers, could not a real change be effectuated?

Of course, I include the Israeli Left in the International Left.

In a revealing rant in Ha'aretz, Akiva Eldar unabashedly talks the Leftist anti-Israel and anti-Bush (read anti-American?) talk. "Time to Implement Bush's Vision" (November 15, 2004) is not only a haughty demand that Bush tow the Leftist line and jump at the new "opportunity" presented by Arafat's death -- ignoring of course all the conditions that Bush has placed on the "Palestinians" for any resumption of any "map" or "process" -- but he openly attacks Bush personally in true International and American Leftist fashion. Here's some of what Eldar said:


"Yesterday's headlines would lead one to believe that President George W. Bush was about to stop playing golf and watching westerns, and was going to let the Iraq crisis ride in order to throw himself energetically into dealing with the Israeli occupation of the territories.

...In light of the passivity the US has evinced in our area, the burden of proof concerning the fact that our place on Bush's agenda has changed, is on the US president. The attitude of the US to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be determined to a great extent by whether Arafat's death does open a new era in the region.

... Seekers of peace among the Palestinians (and the Israelis) will believe Bush is not leading them on with empty words if he appoints a senior emissary (for example, former secretary of state James Baker) to prepare the groundwork for renewed negotiations on a final status settlement. ... The participation of Europe and the UN, which cannot exactly be perceived as siding with the Israelis, in diplomatic and security processes, can serve as yet another important sign of change. .

... In his death, Arafat has given Bush a rare opportunity to prove to the Arab world that the vision of democracy for the Middle East is not a code-name for the lust for power, oil, small-minded local politics or just plain laziness."

It is worthwhile to read the whole article if you can stand it.

Meanwhile, Colin Powell has resigned and Condoleeza Rice, according to early reports, is to replace him.

That should throw some cold water on any Leftist hope of replacing the Bush Doctrine with Eldar's version of the "Bush Vision" as the centerpiece of Bush's foreign policy.

A Soldier Back From Iraq Writes to Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO: Old Media is a Mendatious Menace

Greetings K-LO!!! I served in the Sunni Triangle from July '03 untill April '04 with the Army Guard. I always knew the media was biased in the past, but it really slaps you in the face when you witness it firsthand. Let's get this straight: 1)Saddam was evil. 2)Iraqis lived in fear and with constant torture under Saddam. 3)Millions of Iraqis are incredibly grateful to the U.S. for removing Saddam. 4)Now those millions are working their butts off, and risking their lives to build a decent, modern society. These are all widely documented facts that I personally know to be true from my own experience. And yet, since I've gotten home, I am really shocked at how many people are completely unaware of these things. (maybe it's because I live in a blue state; MN) It disgusts me how many people honestly seem to think Saddam wasn't a big deal, or that we are killing more Iraqis then Saddam ever did. Many assume that since I was "Backdoor Drafted" through the Guard that I would not be proud of my service or the things we are accomplishing. How wrong they are. Actually meeting, and working with Iraqis convinces me more then anything else that they honestly are just normal human beings who have the capacity for peaceful governance, and prosperous industry like anyone else. Iraqi families DO deeply grieve for the million-plus that were murdered, tortured, or raped under Saddam's rule. It is wrong that our media so callously ignores that grief. There is such a huge contrast between actually being among a people,many of whom are missing limbs,or are covered in whip lashes, and yet have such a look of renewed hope and passion as they line up to volunteer to work for the coalition, compared to the medias' portrayal of Iraqis as bitter, and angry with Americans for upsetting their "security under Saddam". The contrast can literally make you sick. It has been my belief since I've returned home that the media really is our true adversary in Iraq. I'll support that statement: everyone admits that the terrorists in Iraq are not a serious military force, and that they simply don't have the strength to incur even a single military defeat on our forces. The only way they can win is through a political victory. They can win political victories by either forcing Iraq into sectarian civil war (which looks more unlikely with each passing day), or by the media's constant drumbeat of defeatism, and pessimism convincing a large enough portion of the U.S. that we are failing, forcing a premature evacuation. It is clear to me that the media's influence was by far the bigger of the two threats. However, I'm elated that our recent election has proven that the media has failed to persuade a majority of Americans into defeatism. This gives me true hope for the future, both in Iraq, and in America. Now, regardless of the fact that my friends and family seem to think I've been brainwashed by the military, and am secretly a paid employee of Haliburton, I can be happy about the direction our country is headed in, and proud of my service in Iraq. (By the way, I love the fact that they think I was "brainwashed", so much so that I carry a card in my wallet that proclaims me an Official Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!) Well, thanks for everything you guys are doing, and keep up the good work! You keep writing it, I'll keep reading it!!!

A Revealing Rant From the Israeli Left -- Venting Over Bush's Win

Haaretz - Israel News - Time to implement Bush s vision:

"In order to convince the young men of the Tanzim to lay down their arms and win the elections, Abu Mazen and Abu Ala must provide a 'political horizon.' The key was and still is in the door that slammed shut when Bill Clinton left the White House. When Bush sought to help Sharon win on the disengagement issue, he omitted from the Clinton plan of December 2000, on purpose or by accident, the June 4, 1967 lines. If Bush wants to help Abu Mazen win the elections, he should find an opportunity to balance his recognition of the 'demographic reality' (the blocs of settlement) with support for the principle of exchanging territory.

Even the excuses that use of the two-state vision will bring down the right-wing coalition in Israel and that dismantling of the settlements will bring about 'civil war' have been shelved thanks to disengagement.

In his death, Arafat has given Bush a rare opportunity to prove to the Arab world that the vision of democracy for the Middle East is not a code-name for the lust for power, oil, small-minded local politics or just plain laziness. "

China and Russia are Source of N.Korean and Iranian Missiles

MissileThreat :: News Item for November 11, 2004:

"If Schmucker is right, then the focus of the efforts to prevent missile proliferation must change. No more concentrating only on pressuring Iran and North Korea. The focus must be shifted to applying pressure on Russia and China. Only the agreement of presidents Putin and Hu Jintao to stop the assistance and technology transfer could significantly curtail North Korea's and as a result, Iran's program.

Ha'aretz goes on to conclude that if Russia and China were to stem their proliferation, that the problem of Iranian missiles might cease. While it is true that this would help, it may also be that it is too late."

Ashkelon Now WIthin Missile Range

Arutz Sheva - Israel National News:

"The Yasser has a range of 15 kilometers (9 miles), putting the populous Israeli city of Ashkelon within striking distance of Gaza-launched missiles. It is said to be almost ready for activation."

Abu Mazen Survives Assasination Attempt

Arutz Sheva - Israel National News: "Assassination Attempt
20:36 Nov 14, '04 / 1 Kislev 5765


(IsraelNN.com) It is becoming increasingly apparent that the gunfire between rival factions at the Gaza mourning tent a short time ago was in actuality an assassination attempt against Abu Mazen, the likely successor to Yasser Arafat, and senior security official Mohammed Dahlan. Both Abu Mazen and Dahlan are reportedly uninjured.

Two persons were killed including a bodyguard of Abu Mazen. In addition, an unspecified number of persons were wounded."

Caroline B. Glick on Arafat's Death

Caroline B. Glick: Plus ca change?:

"When Hamas and Islamic Jihad came out with their warning that they would not tolerate Arafat's lieutenants trying to tell them what to do, they were essentially making the same statement as Screamin' Suha. Arafat, they claimed, had legitimacy with their organizations because of his importance as a 'symbol' of the Palestinian people. Since none of Arafat's cronies has been elevated to the level of 'symbol,' they have no reason to listen to them or accept their leadership. So all of Arafat's men in the PLO, again, began a mad dance of explaining that Arafat's legacy is their legacy and that they won't depart from his path.

And here we get to the crux of the issue. Arafat's men, from Qurei to Abbas to Farouk Kadoumi and even to Israeli Arab leaders like Knesset member Ahmed Tibi owe their positions in the world to the fact that they were integral parts of Arafat's kingdom. It wasn't just Arafat that Israel insanely brought into Judea, Samaria and Gaza (and Israel) in 1994, but the entire terrorist and corrupt regime of the PLO. Though Arafat's death has finally been announced, his kingdom remains intact.

In their usual vacuous and ridiculous style, pundits, experts and politicians in Israel and from around the world have been mouthing off over the past week about Israel using the opportunity of Arafat's death to strengthen the 'reformist' elements in the PA. Fat chance of that working. There are no 'reformist' elements in the PA. And anyone inside the PA who would dare speak of making changes to the way things are done would immediately be attacked, if not murdered, for daring to question Arafat's legacy.

We have only to look to Nabil Amr, the PLO member and former PA propaganda minister who dared to attack Arafat in July for the PLO's corruption. He was shot in the leg and is now getting fitted for a prosthetic limb in Europe. And this happened while Arafat was still in charge. Imagine what will happen now that the "Martyred President" has finally been buried. ...

There is only one glimmer of hope in all of this. And it comes from Washington.

In his first press conference after being reelected, US President George W. Bush referred not to the road map, but to his speech from June 24, 2002, as the basis of his Middle East policy. In that speech, Bush said, "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty."

The president went on to call for economic transparency and an end to official corruption of the PA. If Bush intends to stand by his statement now that Arafat is dead, then so long as Israel's Left doesn't wreck his plan, there is for the first time an opportunity to change the way things are done around here. The only chance this has, however, is if there is a true Palestinian regime change and the PLO goes the way of Arafat."

Column: Good News!

Bush won!

For many reasons that's good news for us over here. For one it means the Bush Doctrine will ensure the continuation of the WOT in the only way that it can be fought effectively, by focusing not solely on chasing down Osama bin Laden -- a myopic approach that ignores the issue of state sponsorship of terrorism -- but by taking preemptive action against terrorists and their state sponsors and then promoting the spread of democracy where terrorists will know no safe harbor.

The alternative would have been costly for everyone. America cutting and running from Iraq under Kerry would have emboldened the Islamofascists enormously -- especially when coupled with Sharon's planned "disengagement" from Gaza.

Instead, Fallujah is about to fall to the Marines just as two hundred years ago Tripoli fell to them in America's first war as an independent nation -- signaling the end of four hundred years of Islamic, state-sponsored, piracy on the Mediterranean Sea -- that's right, four hundred years of Europeans paying tribute and/or being murdered, raped, converted, robbed and enslaved by the Barbary Pirates.

Even before the operation in Fallujah began, the Bush Doctrine was immediately at issue in the post-election press conference. But President Bush made it absolutely clear to all those in the media and on the left that there would be no retreat -- quashing their hopes to bring him to some more "moderate" stance as if the "arguments" made by Kerry had enough weight to demand reconsideration. Bush would have none of it.

The most relevant "argument" was that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 and that Bush was lying when he said he was. The fact of the matter is that Bush never said anything of the like. He simply presented the Bush Doctrine and identified Saddam as a state sponsor of terrorism -- without regard to whether or not there was specific evidence of a tie to 9/11 -- and based on the Doctrine decided to remove Saddam.

Looking forward a bit, I heard this on the radio a few days ago: The mullahs of Iran are behind the "insurgents" in Iraq to a greater extent then almost anyone is aware -- that from the eyewitness account of a soldier who was in the field. They have a tremendous stake in the outcome in Iraq as democracy threatens to dethrone them at home. As he put, "We are already fighting Iran in Iraq but I was asked by my officers not to say too much about it."

Meanwhile, Arafat is brain dead in Paris. Almost certainly his death will bring a violent power struggle in its wake as the "Palestinians" seek to crown their next billionaire, tyrant, murderer. Attempts to avoid these developments are likely to offer some fleeting hope of a peaceful and peace focused transfer of power. It won't happen.

Daniel Pipes said this recently on the subject in a piece for FrontPage magazine.com:

"Situation on the ground: There will be no successor to Yasir Arafat – he made sure of that through his endless manipulations, tricks, and schemes. Instead, this is the moment of the gunmen. Whether they fight for criminal gangs, warlords, security services, or ideological groups (like Hamas), militiamen grasping for land and treasure will dominate the Palestinian scene for months or years ahead. The sort of persons familiar from past diplomacy or from television commentaries (Mahmoud Abbas, Ahmed Qurei, et al.) lack gunmen, and so will have limited relevance going forward."

Also of import:

Sharon's unilateral disengagement -- and I use the word unilateral in its strictest sense -- may yet be thwarted. The National Religious Party has quit the government (they should tonight). Sharon will have a mere minority government of 54 and this number includes 17 who are actively opposed to the "disengagement" plan. Sharon's government could easily fall over the budget or "disengagement." Alternatively, Labor could join the government or support it from without – in exchange for budget changes and/or early elections; or Sharon could dissolve the government and call for early elections.

Important development that is well under the radar:

There exists the likelihood that the Jewish Biblical claim to the Land of Israel will be heard more and more over the next years as the election brought the Evangelical community in America to new strength. It is well known that the Evangelical community often sites the Bible in Israel's defense and in its support of Israel's right to all of the Land of Israel. Israeli politicians and activists have taken note of the ascendancy of the Evangelicals and I would expect the Biblical Claim will push its way slowly into the arena of international debate.

Hillary is Gettin' Religion

She says that as a first step she is scrapping her previous plans of changing the name of the oval office to the oral office!

FrontPage magazine.com :: Jihadi Rap by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

FrontPage magazine.com :: Jihadi Rap by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross:

"Expressions of jihadist sentiments and Islamist-style paranoia cross religious lines in the world of hip-hop. Many conservatives have previously expressed worries about a possible convergence of interests between the far left and radical Islam. Regardless of the degree to which this phenomenon generally is occurring today, we can see a clear example of it in the hip-hop world. Far-left rap outfit The Coup famously had to change the cover artwork on its album Party Music after the September 11 attacks, because the original artwork (planned prior to the terrorist attacks) featured frontman Boots Riley and sidekick Pam the Funktress partying in front of an exploding World Trade Center, with Riley holding a detonator. Although the band allowed its record label to change the cover art, The Coup�s far-left outlook never wavered. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Boots Riley commented, �What I want to do is tell you that the blood that happened on [September 11] is on the hands of the U.S. government.�
"

Barbara Lerner on Iraq & Coalition on National Review Online

Barbara Lerner on Iraq & Coalition on National Review Online:

"In Israel, both the leaders and the people from all spheres except the small and shrinking Left are breathing a big sigh of relief. Most American Jews are still too lost in puerile fantasies about the fake peace of Oslo to understand the hope of real peace and security that George W. Bush brings to the region, but almost all of Israel's Jews get it, and are grateful. And, although I am on record as being much less sanguine than our president about the possibilities for anything like democracy in the rest of the Middle East in his lifetime, there are handfuls of freedom lovers scattered about, even here, and they, too, are celebrating, although most are forced to do so in secret."

ORTHODOX JEWS [Jonah Goldberg ]

"As I mentioned in today's USA Today piece, Bush picked up an enormous number of votes from Orthodox Jews on election day. Orthodox Jews have been trending more conservative, politically for a while (as Peter Beinart noted in this interesting op-ed before the election). But, even so, few could have predicted this much of a gain. Figures on what Bush got in 2000 vary -- from as low as 29% to as high as 40% (and remember Lieberman was on the Democratic ticket). In 2004 Bush got 69% of the Orthodox Jewish vote, which apparently helped Bush in certain areas of Ohio and Florida.
From what I hear, one person who deserves an enormous amount of the credit for these gains is my very old friend Tevi Troy. A policy guru on the campaign and before that in the White House, Tevi also worked tirelessly reaching out to the Jewish community as a liaison. Bush's victory has many and morre obvious authors of course (Though wouldn't it be fun to watch the reaction in certain quarters -- Middle Eastern, Liberal Jewish, paleo-whatever -- if Bush's margin were attributable to the Jewish vote?). But this is an important trend -- Orthodox Jews are only about 10% of the Jewish population, but they are the fastest-growing segment because they have so many kids -- and Troy played an enormously important part in accelerating that trend.
Update: Ahem, the trend I was referring to here wasn't the increase in the Orthodox population, but in its Republican vote. Though Tev is a good family man. "

BREAKING NEWS... [Jonah Goldberg]

"Al Jazeera -- Until now, most observers have suspected that the long drama around Yassir Arafat's death has centered around confusion about how to handle the transfer of power in an already divided Palestinian community. But sources close to the scene confirm that there is another concern. Apparently, even the Great and All-Powerful Allah has been unable to recruit even a fraction of Chairman Arafat's promised 72 virigins. Apparently word has come from on-high to keep Mr. Arafat on a respirator for as long as possible while every measure is taken to find willing virgins for the symbol of Palestinian nationalism.
Posted at 10:40 AM"

William F. Buckley Jr. on Iran

William F. Buckley Jr. on Iran and James Fallows on National Review Online:

WFB on war game scenarios and the Iranian threat.


"Resolved: 1) Israel can't handle the challenge. 2) The U.S. can't abjure military action, there must be the threat that we will act. 3) Gaining time does not necessarily enhance our leverage.

So? What happens is going to depend on a quick judgment by the President of the United States.
What we can learn from Iraq is that he needs to be counseled on the consequences of alternative actions. He needs to avoid such as what we are contending with in Iraq."

Yossi Sarid From Way Out in Left Field

Haaretz - Israel News - Kerry s wild geese:

Sarid throws his hat in with the anti-war crowd and surprises no one. His advice to Kerry? You should have ran as the true multilateral EU/UN-phile Leftist that you are, Comrade.

"It is certainly not easy to oppose a war looming on the horizon. Who would not want to avenge the Twin Towers? Who would not want to get rid of a bloodstained dictator? And most particularly, who would not want to look the perfect patriot, whose heart is with the soldiers willing to sacrifice their lives on the battlefield?

But in spite of temporary difficulty, a leader has no choice but to stand up and be counted, in 'real time' and not in hindsight, which is a poor and even a contemptible form of wisdom. And if we are going to vote for someone who is for war, let's stay with the one who started it, not a stand-in. Most of the world prefers the real thing and avoids imitations.

That is the main reason why Tony Blair will win the upcoming elections in Great Britain, and the leader of the Conservatives, Michael Howard, will lose. Most of the British public has been awakened from its illusions about the war in Iraq, and it does not appreciate, to put it mildly, seeing its prime minister allowing the American president to wag him like a dog's tail. And still, the British will not put their faith in Howard because he too jumped on Blair's bandwagon speeding eastward. Howard therefore cannot be an alternative, since he is a pale version of the original."

Arafat Status Joke

Actually, he's been dead all night. There just waiting for Kerry to concede it!

Wild Prediction That You Heard Here First

Arafat's death will be announced when the Temple Mount is filled to capacity with tens of thousands of Arabs on this Ramadan Friday. What happens next? They refuse to leave the Mount until Arafat is flown back. The rest I don't want to talk about.

Pertinent:

(IsraelNN.com)

"In light of the precarious situation surrounding Yasser Arafat’s imminent demise, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has implemented restrictions on Islamic males wishing to take part in Friday Ramadan prayer services on the Temple Mount.

Only males fifty or over, with the “special permit”, will be permitted onto the Mount. No restrictions were announced for women."

Brain Dead in Israel -- Radical Leftist Avneri on Arafat's Impending Death

Arutz Sheva - Israel National News:

"Radical left-winger Uri Avneri, who once spent time with Yasser Arafat in his Ramallah compound to act as a human shield against IDF troops, told Kol Yisrael Radio this morning that Arafat's death will be a tragedy for Israel. There is no substitute for Arafat.

Avneri stated Arafat is the only Palestinian leader who was willing to make historical compromises and work towards peace.

Like Moses, Arafat brought his nation to the gates of the promised land, added Avneri. "

Arafat Deathbed Jokes

Braindead in Paris ... Sound Familiar?

Final PLO tribute to Arafat ... Blow up his ashes!

Column: On the Morning of Election Day

As I write this it's very early morning Election Day in America. Maybe it's just me but it feels really quiet here -- a sense of anticipation in the air. I just looked online to see what, if anything, Arutz 7 and Haaretz are saying about the election -- not much there. Also, I noticed nothing there on bin Laden's poor excuse of a threat. The Jerusalem Post, does have a good piece online with a summary of different positions of note, including Sharon's new found neutrality.

Benny Elon is quoted in the Post article and what he says is on target:

"Bush is a much more loyal friend of Israel than any previous American president," said Elon, who attended the Republican Convention. "He was raised on the Bible; he's connected to Evangelical Christians who love Israel; and no one can take away from him the leadership he displayed in leading the international fight against Islamic extremists."
'
The Post reported: "Elon said that fears Bush would abandon Israel as a second-term president are unwarranted, because his loyalty to Israel was never connected to American Jewish voters, who did not support him in the first place. He said American Jews who are upset about the disengagement plan should blame Sharon, not Bush."

"You can't ask Bush to be more Catholic than the pope," Elon said. "Sharon convinced Bush to support a Palestinian state and back disengagement, so you can't blame him. Bush is more loyal to Israel than many of my colleagues in the Knesset."

I could turn on the local radio and listen for coverage but I won't. I really don't want to hear the sound of the voices of the likes of Yossi Sarid (is afraid of Bush's religiosity), Shimon Peres (he's actually hedging his bets and keeping quiet), and Yossi Beilen (has he actually said something?) -- no more than I want to hear the voices of Dan Rather, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, George Soros or Chris Heinz.

I'll read about it all over the Internet -- at a safe distance -- and listen to talk radio over the Internet too (would that there was real talk radio here).

Talking about talk radio; here is something worth mentioning that I heard while listening to 77WABC -- live from NYC. It was suggested that the liberal media in America is about to find out how tired Americans are of their voice, as a surprisingly large number of people will be voting not only for Bush/Cheney but against Dan Rather -- the "guy" who as Jay Leno put it; "put the BS in CBS!" I found myself nodding enthusiastically as someone here who long ago grew weary to death of the local leftist media stew.

Actually, when asked on occasion as to how I learned Hebrew, I often joke that I listened to a lot of radio so as to absorb the language like a child -- by being surrounded by it -- and that when I began to understand I shut it off for good.

Back to Yossi Sarid and his fears of Bush's religiosity. Here's what he had to say:

"Bush runs the world on the basis of calls from the heavens," Sarid said. "The fact that this man runs the world gives me goose bumps. Sharon should be careful because Bush could hear a new voice from the heavens and change his mind about supporting Israel."

Typically, Sarid sees monsters hiding in the heart of every person of faith because for him, it seems, separation of church and state must necessarily take on a Marxist hue. What can he do? That's who he is. He's afraid of people who study the Bible and believe in G-d and pray to Him even if they have never shown anything but friendship to Israel -- unless they are Muslims -- in which case, like most of the radical left, he knows no fear even if they are sworn to our annihilation.

Sarid should take note that not enough religion and Bible study can be dangerous. Take Stalin and Mao for example, or more recently, and for obviously different reasons, George Soros.

I am talking about this that Soros said:

"If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble," Soros once wrote. When asked to elaborate on that passage by The Independent, Soros said, "It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of God, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out."

Since I Began to Live it out?!

See Frontpagemag.com for the articles "The Man Who Would be Kingmaker" by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Shawn Macomber -- it is quite a read on Soros -- and Kerry.

Well, it's gonna be a long night. Let's hope for the best.

My Very Own Kerry Concession Jokes

Kerry can't concede the election! It's not his line of work! Want a concession? Give him a war and he'll concede in one second!

Kerry: Never saw an election he could lose or a war he could win!

Concede?? ... the election.... never.
Sovereignty?? no problem!

Bill and Hillary are trying to find him to force him to concede.
They can't find him!
He went hunting!

The truth is he just can bring himself to end the Vietnam War!

He called George Soros to ask him what to do. Hillary hung up on him!

He called Jacques Chirac. Arafat is feeling better. Kofi sends his condolences. Saddam is depressed. Osama is going into hybernation.

Bin Laden and His Lame Threats

WorldNetDaily: Bin Laden to states: Don't vote for Bush:

"Analysis of the speech by MEMRI's president, Yigal Carmon, reveals the absence 'of common Islamist themes that are relevant to the month of Ramadan, which for fundamentalists like bin Laden is the month of Jihad and martyrdom. Noticeably absent from the Al-Jazeera tape was his usual appearance with a weapon, and more importantly the absence of references to Jihad, martyrdom, the Koran, the Hadith (Islamic tradition), Crusaders, Jews, and the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad on the duty to wage Jihad against the infidels.'

Thus, for al-Qaida's followers, bin Laden's speech sends a regressive and defeatist message of surrender, concludes Carmon, as seen in the move from solely using Jihad warfare to a mixed strategy of threats combined with truce offers and election deals. "