Blog Roundup - 2006-09-09
* Images of the 114 IDF soldiers and 43 Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah in the last war.
* Lynn picks out a critical paragraph in Rachel Neuwirth's damning criticism of the Stockholm Conference - where nearly a billion dollars were given to Lebanon to make up for a war started by a party that has two ministers in the Lebanese cabinet, that won 10% of the seats in the Lebanese parliament, and that used their bases in Lebanese territory to launch their attack. Neuwirth points out how the participants at the Stockholm conference took evidence and suggestions that Israel should in fact have to pay reparations to give the Lebanese people justice. Lynn catalogs all this, and then discusses how the 'root causes' excuse is used by the Left as an excuse for ignoring all kinds of uncomfortable realizations that they'd otherwise have to come to grips with.
* Wow. The Muqata unearths a 1917 editorial from the Guardian about the Balfour Declaration:
We speak of Palestine as a country, but it is not a country; it is at present little more than a small district of the vast Ottoman tyranny. But it will be a country; it will be the country of the Jews... Never since the days of the Dispersion has the extraordinary people scattered over the earth in every country of modern European and of the old Arabic civilisation surrendered the hope of an ultimate return to the historic seat of its national existence... For that is what the formal and considered declaration of policy by the British Government means. For fifty years the Jews have been slowly and painfully returning to their ancestral home, and even under the Ottoman yoke and amid the disorder of that effete and crumbling dominion they have succeeded in establishing the beginnings of a real civiisation... the declaration of policy by the British Government to-day is the security for a new, perhaps a very wonderful, future for Zionism and for the Jewish race.
Today in Britain, Zionist is an epithet.
* Dave from Israel at Ground Level wants to know what snarky means in reference to Gawker's Jews: Already Over post from a couple weeks ago. In fairness to him, it's really tough to tell from that post - which was certainly not up to the usual "we can make fun of Jews because we're Jewish" Gawker standard (the full standard is "we can make fun of Jews because we're Jewish even though the only thing that makes us Jews is that we make fun of Jews. And that our mothers are Jewish, and are very disappointed in us". You can see why they abbreviate it). The only good thing about that Gawker post was that they said that they promised to vote Republican in 2008 (or as they put it, "we're not forsaking Israel" or anything). Anyway, we were talking about snark: Gawker's second "Jews Already Over" was much funnier, and made fun of idiot New York Jews who staged a die-in to protest Israel's retaliation against Hezbollah. The problem with die-ins is that they always fail to deliver (yes, of course we stole that line... no, it'll just upset you if we told you from where).
*Are we the only people on the planet who didn't know that Democrats nominated an 9/11 conspiracy nutcase in Florida? Rusty Shackleford, of Jawa report and bane-of-Reuters-photoshoppers fame, has lots of updates and stuff.
* It must be super-exciting to be at this year's Islamic Society of North America national convention. In addition to being in Chicago, they can attend panels on why it's OK to beat women (LGF).
* France rejects the War on Terror. The link is to Atlas Shrugs instead of the main news story because we really like the graphic that Pamela stuck on the story. Also because she reacts to the sanctimonious French preaching about "injustice, violence" by linking to a set of posts about France's reluctance to fight "injustice, violence" when it's directed at French Jews.
* KesherTalk defends the decision by Air Canada to kick a religious Jew off of an airplane for praying, arguing that airlines need to be suspicious. We probably agree, although we're kind of iffy on it. But just consider what would have happened if this man had been Muslim. Oh, the shakedowns and veiled threats of violence that would have followed ('actions like these only encourage Muslims to think of ordinary Canadians as opponents') - not to mention newspaper article upon newspaper article about the
* Neo-neocon on the French press using the French courts to suppress criticism of Palestinian hoaxes:
The inescapable conclusion is that the media on which we rely so heavily to shape our view of the world is either stupid or lying. There's no other possibility, and both alternatives are almost equally horrendous in their consequences. My other supposition is that we only have uncovered these particular fakes because they are so very obvious. But we can't assume that all the fakes that have been perpetrated on us over the years have been so poorly executed. Are there in fact many others that have passed muster because they are technically far more competently done?
* We were thinking of linking to Solomonia's recent posts on CAIR, but they're like four days old now and this is a blog. So here's a video he posted on Israeli tourism. NSFW.
* Andrew Bostom at the American Thinker has extensive analysis and links on Britain's All-Party Parliamentary Enquiry into Antisemitism. He links to the Times of London analysis of the report ("Muslims are over-represented") and then spends the rest of the post demonstrating the lack of perspective evidenced by this description. Along the way, he cites a poll the Times themselves published in February (37 percent of British Muslims believe the British Jews are legitimate targets for violence) and a Yale study concluding that European Muslims were nearly eightfold (i.e., 800%) more likely to be overtly anti-Semitic than European Christians. To this we have two comments: (1) go read Bostom's post (2) you know that can't be true in the US, otherwise the ADL wouldn't be spending so many resources battling Christian evangelicals.
* Meryl points out that the Times story is still better than the Guardian.
* Also from Meryl: (1) Professor pensanti-Semitic anti-Zionist missive in Arab newspaper. Meryl fisks (2) For those of you who are wondering about her post from a couple of days ago, the other 40 percent is mostly about the disengagement.
And catblogging.
* Soccer Dad has some very interesting things to point out about liberal cultural and political (!!) pressure being placed on ABC not to point out that Bill Clinton failed to destroy Al Qaeda in the 1990s. Because maybe if the mini-series doesn't air, no one will notice that big gaping hole in Manhattan's financial district. Seriously, this is the most silent we've seen the Left on one of their pet issues since every single day when we wake up and no one in Hollywood has said anything about the plight of women and homosexuals in the Muslim world.
* Lynn picks out a critical paragraph in Rachel Neuwirth's damning criticism of the Stockholm Conference - where nearly a billion dollars were given to Lebanon to make up for a war started by a party that has two ministers in the Lebanese cabinet, that won 10% of the seats in the Lebanese parliament, and that used their bases in Lebanese territory to launch their attack. Neuwirth points out how the participants at the Stockholm conference took evidence and suggestions that Israel should in fact have to pay reparations to give the Lebanese people justice. Lynn catalogs all this, and then discusses how the 'root causes' excuse is used by the Left as an excuse for ignoring all kinds of uncomfortable realizations that they'd otherwise have to come to grips with.
* Wow. The Muqata unearths a 1917 editorial from the Guardian about the Balfour Declaration:
We speak of Palestine as a country, but it is not a country; it is at present little more than a small district of the vast Ottoman tyranny. But it will be a country; it will be the country of the Jews... Never since the days of the Dispersion has the extraordinary people scattered over the earth in every country of modern European and of the old Arabic civilisation surrendered the hope of an ultimate return to the historic seat of its national existence... For that is what the formal and considered declaration of policy by the British Government means. For fifty years the Jews have been slowly and painfully returning to their ancestral home, and even under the Ottoman yoke and amid the disorder of that effete and crumbling dominion they have succeeded in establishing the beginnings of a real civiisation... the declaration of policy by the British Government to-day is the security for a new, perhaps a very wonderful, future for Zionism and for the Jewish race.
Today in Britain, Zionist is an epithet.
* Dave from Israel at Ground Level wants to know what snarky means in reference to Gawker's Jews: Already Over post from a couple weeks ago. In fairness to him, it's really tough to tell from that post - which was certainly not up to the usual "we can make fun of Jews because we're Jewish" Gawker standard (the full standard is "we can make fun of Jews because we're Jewish even though the only thing that makes us Jews is that we make fun of Jews. And that our mothers are Jewish, and are very disappointed in us". You can see why they abbreviate it). The only good thing about that Gawker post was that they said that they promised to vote Republican in 2008 (or as they put it, "we're not forsaking Israel" or anything). Anyway, we were talking about snark: Gawker's second "Jews Already Over" was much funnier, and made fun of idiot New York Jews who staged a die-in to protest Israel's retaliation against Hezbollah. The problem with die-ins is that they always fail to deliver (yes, of course we stole that line... no, it'll just upset you if we told you from where).
*Are we the only people on the planet who didn't know that Democrats nominated an 9/11 conspiracy nutcase in Florida? Rusty Shackleford, of Jawa report and bane-of-Reuters-photoshoppers fame, has lots of updates and stuff.
* It must be super-exciting to be at this year's Islamic Society of North America national convention. In addition to being in Chicago, they can attend panels on why it's OK to beat women (LGF).
* France rejects the War on Terror. The link is to Atlas Shrugs instead of the main news story because we really like the graphic that Pamela stuck on the story. Also because she reacts to the sanctimonious French preaching about "injustice, violence" by linking to a set of posts about France's reluctance to fight "injustice, violence" when it's directed at French Jews.
* KesherTalk defends the decision by Air Canada to kick a religious Jew off of an airplane for praying, arguing that airlines need to be suspicious. We probably agree, although we're kind of iffy on it. But just consider what would have happened if this man had been Muslim. Oh, the shakedowns and veiled threats of violence that would have followed ('actions like these only encourage Muslims to think of ordinary Canadians as opponents') - not to mention newspaper article upon newspaper article about the
* Neo-neocon on the French press using the French courts to suppress criticism of Palestinian hoaxes:
The inescapable conclusion is that the media on which we rely so heavily to shape our view of the world is either stupid or lying. There's no other possibility, and both alternatives are almost equally horrendous in their consequences. My other supposition is that we only have uncovered these particular fakes because they are so very obvious. But we can't assume that all the fakes that have been perpetrated on us over the years have been so poorly executed. Are there in fact many others that have passed muster because they are technically far more competently done?
* We were thinking of linking to Solomonia's recent posts on CAIR, but they're like four days old now and this is a blog. So here's a video he posted on Israeli tourism. NSFW.
* Andrew Bostom at the American Thinker has extensive analysis and links on Britain's All-Party Parliamentary Enquiry into Antisemitism. He links to the Times of London analysis of the report ("Muslims are over-represented") and then spends the rest of the post demonstrating the lack of perspective evidenced by this description. Along the way, he cites a poll the Times themselves published in February (37 percent of British Muslims believe the British Jews are legitimate targets for violence) and a Yale study concluding that European Muslims were nearly eightfold (i.e., 800%) more likely to be overtly anti-Semitic than European Christians. To this we have two comments: (1) go read Bostom's post (2) you know that can't be true in the US, otherwise the ADL wouldn't be spending so many resources battling Christian evangelicals.
* Meryl points out that the Times story is still better than the Guardian.
* Also from Meryl: (1) Professor pens
And catblogging.
* Soccer Dad has some very interesting things to point out about liberal cultural and political (!!) pressure being placed on ABC not to point out that Bill Clinton failed to destroy Al Qaeda in the 1990s. Because maybe if the mini-series doesn't air, no one will notice that big gaping hole in Manhattan's financial district. Seriously, this is the most silent we've seen the Left on one of their pet issues since every single day when we wake up and no one in Hollywood has said anything about the plight of women and homosexuals in the Muslim world.
