The ramblings of a lunatic

Finished reading Mein Kampf (an English translation of it to be exact, not the one filled with notes). There's been a lot of debate among historians as to whether Hitler's policies once he became chancellor followed a careful plan or whether those policies (such as the Holocaust) emerged more spontaneously, as a reaction to changing circumstances. Some Nazi sympathizers even claim Hitler had no choice but to do what he did because of the hostility of his foreign adversaries. To me it's quite clear that everything that happened was laid out in detail in this book, written in the mid 1920s, and that no one in Germany or abroad could honestly claim they did now know what Hitler's intentions were.

Reading the book, it's obvious Hitler is bored by economics. He rants a lot about Marxism but very little about its economic implications. He sympathizes with workers and blames the bourgeoisie (and Jews) for the rise of Marxism among the working class. In his views, employers should consider the welfare of the community first and avoid excess discrepancies in wage rates. Hitler's views on capital and stock markets aren't too different from those advocated by the contemporary utopian-fascist Zeitgeist movement. In Hitler's mind, the ills of both Capitalism and Communism are fused together in the "International Jew" who seeks to destroy national economies through the stock market, thus forging some kind of a "Eternal Jewish Empire". To prevent that, national economies such as that of Germany must be liberated from "interest slavery" and the machinations of the stock market. Throughout the book, Marxism is practically considered synonymous with the Jew.

Hitler does not explicitly state any plan to exterminate the Jewish people; but then again he didn't mention anything about that even as the Holocaust was under way. Still, it's quite obvious Hitler harbored such plans early on. He believes Jews would not be content with a state in Palestine because of their supposedly international character; such a state would merely function as a base of operations for the Jews' global quest to destroy all non-Jewish nation states. Regrettably, Hitler doesn't go into detail about the roots of his antisemitism. In his childhood and teens, he was even sympathetic toward the Jewish people for all the persecutions that had taken place in the past. Then, in Vienna, Hitler seems to have been brainwashed by antisemitic literature such as Protocols and Henry Ford's (the American car industrialist) writings. Why he decided to believe such obvious nonsense remains a mystery but then again the vast majority of people on this planet believe in something stupid, be that gods, homeopathy, astrology, UFO landings or 9/11 conspiracies. In the past persecution of Jews has served the self-interests of the persecuting parties (such as the financial and religious interests of spendthrift and zealous monarchs), but if Hitler had merely wanted to use Jews as scapegoats, he probably wouldn't have murdered millions of them in secret. Quite simply, Hitler was both an idiot and a racist.

Hitler is more explicit about exterminating opposing political ideologies and their proponents, expressing regret at the missed opportunity at the end of the World War to exterminate Marxists. Hitler believes that any half-assed attempt to destroy a doctrine is bound to be counter-productive. Therefore, any attempt to destroy a doctrine must be thorough and persistent, but even then such an attempt is almost certain to fail unless combined with a "spiritual revolution" (e.g., National Socialism against Marxism): "Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain." He's also explicit about destroying parliamentarianism, even clearly stating the Nazis would participate in parliamentary institutions only to destroy such institutions for good. In this Gospel of Open and Explicit Intolerance, Hitler has, it seems, learned from the best:

"Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less willing to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."

"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion."

What is also explicitly stated is the Nazi policy of Lebensraum, that, in order to survive, the German nation must extend its frontiers at the expense of Russia and other territories inhabited by Slavic peoples. He criticizes the Second Reich for adopting a policy of trade & overseas colonies (thus putting Germany on a collision course with the British Empire) rather than of eastward conquest. This perceived necessity of soil acquisition seems to be another result of Hitler's poor understanding of economics: he believes more in Malthusian alarmism than technological progress and trade. Hitler also mentions the necessity to enslave lower races, comparing that to the exploitation and domestication of animals. What later became known as Generalplan Ost, a plan to conquer, enslave and exterminate tens of millions of people in Eastern Europe, is the core Nazi foreign policy doctrine through which everything else is viewed. In order to execute the plan, however, Germany's western front, i.e., France, the "mortal enemy" of Germany, must first be secured militarily, preferably with the aid of the British Empire. Hitler doesn't believe Germany's issues with France can be resolved through defensive strategies but instead pushes for a "final active reckoning with France". The resulting "destruction of France" would merely be a means to enable eastward expansion, not an end in itself. (Hitler seems to consider himself a realist as he emphasizes that Germany should never bother with humanitarian affairs but instead pursue the national interest vigorously, but of course his ideas come off as utopian, reckless and idealistic: Bismarck would turn in his grave. Hitler is not completely paranoid about France though; many French politicians and military leaders were calling for Germany's partition.)

Hitler is also, no surprise, extremely socially conservative. He sees women as passive beings whose job is to get married and start having children, he seems obsessed with STDs, prostitution and contraceptives, proposing early marriage as a solution. Also, like many conservative men, he drools over the idea of a teenage boy's well-trained body. Hitler makes numerous references to God, and believes his actions are guided by Fate/Providence, and sees many benefits in religions ("Precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude.") but doesn't come off as an adherent to any specific religious doctrine. He even employs God to support his racial views: if "defectives" are allowed to propagate, then in a few hundred years' time "you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty"; thus preventing these people from propagating would be "the most humane act of mankind". He also criticizes Jews on religious grounds, claiming theirs is not a religion at all: "The Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him (...) The Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world." Jesus is applauded for fighting the Jews' exploitation of religion for financial gain when he tosses them out of the Temple.

In addition to Hitler's views on the Jewish people, his views on the First World War illuminate his selective reading of history. Like many in Germany at that time, Hitler believed the war was not lost on the battlefield, conveniently forgetting the collapse of the Habsburg Empire, the constant influx of fresh American troops & supplies, and the lack of resources at Germany's disposal. While he viewed the alliance with the Habsburgs with disgust, he perceived the war as inevitable and ultimately fought for German freedom and independence. The lost territories would be regained, along with other German-inhabited regions, in due time and not through peaceful negotiations: "We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." Of course Chamberlain tried to spoil his fun by completely giving in to his outrageous, unreasonable demands. With the gift of hindsight, we know that Hitler would have none of it, for in his mind "Germany will either be a world power or there will be no Germany".

The German people empowered Hitler with absolute authority to do away with democracy, institute racial laws, attack foreign countries and kill millions of people. They shouldn't have been surprised when bombs started falling on their cities.

Misrepresenting Israel's stance on negotiations

YLE, our beloved state-controlled broadcasting company, is once again misleading the public about Israel. According to them, it's only now that Israel has agreed (article in Finnish) to negotiate peace with the Palestinians. And how have they done that? By agreeing to release a bunch of dangerous Palestinian prisoners. The Palestinian negotiators had set the release of these prisoners as a precondition - among several other preconditions such as freezing settlement constructions - for peace negotiations. Of course, Israel has been ready and willing to negotiate without preconditions for several years now. Remember the 2009 10-month settlement freeze (which did not apply to East Jerusalem, a plot of land Israel is never going to surrender)? The Palestinians stalled for months, entering the negotiations only when the freeze was about to expire, and then immediately demanded that the freeze be extended. So, if anything the Palestinians have refused to negotiate unless their conditions are met, as if they were in any position to present such demands. And, in any case, meeting any of these conditions would probably only bolster them to demand more.

Israeli offensive: long overdue

Throughout the year, Palestinians have been firing hundreds of rockets into Israel. October and November were particularly active in terms of rockets fired. In response to this escalation, on November 14 the Israelis beautifully assassinated Ahmed al-Jabari, the 2nd in command of the Hamas military wing. He had played a major role in turning Gaza into a full-blown terrorist entity and helped bring about Israel's destructive Operation Summer Rains offensive by kidnapping Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier, in 2006. You don't negotiate with terrorists like him; you kill them. Even before this assassination the Palestinians had fired about 200 rockets into Israel in the course of just a few days: on November 11 over a hundred rockets were fired into Israel. If anything, Israel's recent offensive has been long overdue as Hamas has been well able to build up its army and smuggle weapons into Gaza despite Israel's blockade. Over a thousand rockets were fired into Israel last week, an indication that Hamas has been gaining strength. Even more, a rocket recently landed near Jerusalem, indicating an improvement in rocket technology. Considering this, ending the Gaza blockade would be disastrous as it'd only embolden Hamas and other terrorist groups.

In some circles there's this popular theory that Israel doesn't even want to seek peace with Palestine, that they want Gaza to remain in a permanent state of misery while building new settlements in the West Bank, eventually leading to its annexation. Of course, it was only seven years ago that Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, dismantling its settlements there, forcibly removing hundreds of Jewish settlers. This remarkably generous act was interpreted by Hamas as a sign of weakness as they proceeded to take over the entire Gaza Strip and continued their war on the Jewish state. (Similarly, Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon didn't make Hezbollah any less popular.) Imagine if the withdrawal had worked as intended: Israel would, in all likelihood, be much more anxious to pursue a peaceful solution to the West Bank problem, having some hope that the resulting Palestinian state would not turn into just another hostile neighbor à la Iran, Southern Lebanon, Syria or Gaza. Moreover, Israel's security concerns have only multiplied in the wake of the Arab Spring that may have, in fact, emboldened Hamas to act, hoping the new government in Egypt might come to their aid. This new aspect only makes Israel's ongoing offensive even more important as they need to show Hamas that they have nothing to gain, in terms of their goal of destroying the Jewish state, from the Arab Spring.

Meanwhile Hamas continues to act like the barbarians they are. They've been doctoring images and putting civilians in the line of fire for the purpose of selling their cause to the world, and dragging mutilated bodies of "spies" on the streets of Gaza. These "people" are in charge of running the Gaza Strip, a position they seized Nazi-style by first winning some elections, then doing away with their rivals and subjecting the entire Strip to serve their cause. While it's regrettable that civilians are dying due to Israeli airstrikes, in no way should Israel be held responsible, not so long as it's the Gazans who elected Hamas to lead them and shoot rockets at Israel. And if the Palestinians do not in fact endorse Hamas' provocations but are at the same time unable to do anything about it, that leaves only Israel to take matters into their own hands.

Palestinian land grab

Mahmoud Abbas & co. are trying to stage a land grab of Israeli lands via the United Nations. Of course, the statehood bid won't go anywhere but that's not the point. To the Palestinians this is just another media stunt. The Palestinians want to make themselves seem desperate so that the world's useful idiots would sympathize with them despite the fact that the Palestinians have not only refused to negotiate with Israel as of late but have also launched several terrorist attacks in the past few months; they're defiant if anything, not desperate. At the same time Iran is building nuclear weapons and Turkey is in the process of cutting its ties with Israel in a shameful demonstration of Turkey's unfitness to ever join the civilized world. And people still expect Israel to make concessions. Israel's comprehensive 2000 peace proposal got rejected and was followed by terrorism. Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza was followed by terrorism. Lately Israel has been dismantling checkpoints in an effort to bolster the West Bank's economy, freezing new buildings in the settlements and reaching out to the Palestinians. In return the Palestinians haven given Israel nothing but rockets. If the Palestinians want a home maybe they should kindly ask Israel to kick them back to Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

Rauhankyyhkyt

Joku "laitonta miehitystä" vastustava aktivisti haluaa töhriä julkisia paikkoja Palestiina-myönteisillä piirustuksilla:

Tampereen keskustaan suunnitellun rauhankyyhkyjä esittävän katumaalauksen kieltäminen on herättänyt keskustelua. Taiteilija Juho Viitala olisi teoksellaan halunnut kiinnittää huomiota Israelin Palestiinan-politiikkaan. Koska maalaus on poliittisesti kantaaottava, maalauksen kieltoa on pidetty jopa sananvapautta rajoittavana. 

- Yritin siinä viestittää, että laiton miehitys, joka palestiinalaisalueilla on jatkunut loputtomiin Israelin toimesta, niin se ei varmastikaan ole kovin hyvä asia Suomen ulkopoliittisen linjan kanssa olla ristiriidassa niin vakavasti, puolustusministeriön materiaalihankinnat ja vastakauppasopimukset.  (YLE)

Onpa idioottimaista kuvitella, että tällä olisi jotain tekemistä sananvapauden kanssa. Kyseessä on (oletettavasti) verovaroin ylläpidetty julkinen tila. Suuri(n) osa veronmaksajista ei varmasti hyväksyisi heidän kustantamansa kävelyalueen tuhrimista poliittisilla kannanotoilla.

Jos Viitalalla pitäisi olla oikeus esittää poliittisia kannanottoja tällä tavalla, niin kai hänen mielestään olisi täysin hyväksyttävää, että joku Israelia kannattava taho kävisi poliittisena mielenilmaisuna suttaamassa ko. katumaalauksen, kyseinen tila kun kuuluu tietenkin yhtä paljon Israelia kannattaville kuin Israelia vastustavillekin.

The New Anti-Semitic Alliance

Benjamin Netanyahu:

“There is a new boiling anti-semitism of radical Islam that sweeps Europe as a whole, and there’s a strange fusion – it’s the only word I can use to describe it — a fusion with the anti-semitism of the radical far far left,”

“This is the strangest union you could possibly contemplate,”... “because radical Muslims: they stone women, they execute gays, they are against any human rights, against feminism, against whathaveyou. And the far left is supposed to be for these things.” (Washington Times)

I wonder when the left wakes up to this reality.

Israel Remains Vigilant

Another reminder of why Gaza is under blockade and why Israel has no choice but to intercept ships heading for the region:

The Israeli navy has intercepted an Egypt-bound ship carrying a large delivery of weapons off Israel's Mediterranean coast. It said the arms had been sent by Syria to Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

The Victoria is German-owned, operated by a French shipping company and had been sailing under a Liberian flag, the military said. German, French and Liberian authorities have been notified of the seizure. (Guardian)

Here's what they found.

Despite this, Europeans are becoming increasingly delusional about Israel:

Asked to respond to the statement that “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians,” 47.7 percent of the study’s participants in Germany expressed agreement – the highest number in Western Europe....

The statement “Considering Israel’s policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews” met with 35.6% affirmation in Germany, while 35.9% of British respondents were in agreement. In the Netherlands, 41.1% favored the assertion, as did 55.2% in Poland, 45.6% in Hungary and 48.8% in Portugal. France declined to participate.

Whatever happens, Palestinian terrorists can always rely on their European allies.

Suomen ja Israelin asekaupat

Vasemmistolaiset idealistit (Tuomioja, Hautala, Hassi, Kaurismäki jne.) ovat allekirjoittaneet vetoomuksen, jossa "Suomea vaaditan lopettamaan asekaupat Israelin kanssa". Tällainen sinisilmäinen "vaikuttaminen" perustunee oletukseen, että Lähi-idän ongelmat loppuvat, kunhan Israel laskee aseensa, aivan kuin Lähi-idän konfliktin historia olisi täynnä instansseja, joissa Israelin rauhaneleet oltaisiin palkittu jollakin muulla kuin Israelin siviileihin kohdistuvalla väkivallalla.

Erkki Tuomioja sanoo allekirjoittaneensa asekauppaa vastustavan vetoomuksen siksi, ettei Israelia enää voi eikä pidä kohdella asekaupoissa normaalina kumppanina.

"Ei niin kauan kuin se jatkaa siirtokuntien laajentamista ja laitonta miehitystään palestiinalaisalueilla eikä osoita uskottavia merkkejä aidosta pyrkimyksestä kestävään rauhansopimukseen."

Onpa yksipuolista. Viittaukset palestiinalaisalueiden miehityksen laillisuuteen ovat typeriä, YK:n päätökset kun ovat perinteisesti sotineet Israelin valideja turvallisuusintressejä vastaan. Jos Tuomioja haluaisi edistää miehityksen lakkauttamista, hänen tulisi vedota palestiinalaisiin, Israel kun miehittää palestiinalaisalueita vain siksi, että sen on pakko.

Suomi tietenkin myös hyötyy Israelin kanssa käytävistä asekaupoista, kuten nimimerkki "Moskovan arkistonhoitaja" Helsingin Sanomien uutisartikkelin kommenttiosiossa kertoo:

Suomi on samantyyppisessä asetelmassa kun Israel. Pieni demokraattinen valtio selkä merta vasten totalitaristisen ja äärimmäisen väkivaltaisen historian omaavassa väestöllisesti monikymmenkertaisessa ja maantieteellisesti sitäkin suuremmassa ja historiassa hyvin epävakaaksi osoittautuneessa ympäristössä.
Suomessa on Israelista paitsi sotilaallisesti myös teknis-taloudellisesti opittavaa, onhan Israel korkean teknologian johtavia maita kun siellä on yhdistynyt miljoonan orjuudesta exodukseen paenneen entisen neuvostoinsinöörin osaaminen amerikkalaisen kapitalismin maaperään tuottaen erinomaisia tiedon ja taidon jaffahedelmiä.

Why there's a blockade

BBC:

Militants in Gaza have vowed to step up attacks against Israel, following the first direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders since 2008.

"We declare that the actions of resistance have gone into a new and advanced stage of co-operation in the field at the highest levels in preparations for more effective attacks against the enemy (Israel)," the [Hamas] spokesman was quoted as saying by Reuters.

This is the backdrop against which the Gaza blockade should be viewed. The ruling entity of Gaza is waging an open war against Israel. Meanwhile in Europe, useful idiots are setting up demonstrations against Israel, calling for an end to the blockade, an end that'd only make it much easier for Hamas to obtain weapons and continue its xenocidal war against Israel. And as these acts of terror are attributed to Islamist extremists such as Hamas, "mainstream" Palestinian politicians display their moderatism by attending the funeral of a mass-murdering extremist. The Palestinian "culture of death" is on display in the streets of Gaza as well, with Gazans celebrating the deaths of four Israeli civilians three days ago.

And some people want to make it easier for these people to obtain weapons...

Maahanmuutolla "pelottelu"

Porissa järjestetyn SuomiAreena-keskustelutilaisuuden aikana uutisissa joku ihmetteli, miten suhteettomasti maahanmuuttokysymykset olivat keskusteluissa esillä. Haastateltu mies viittasi Suomen suhteellisesti alhaiseen maahanmuuttajamäärään verrattuna muuhun Länsi-Eurooppaan ja esitti, että tällaisessa tilanteessa on "epärehellistä pelotella maahanmuutolla".

On totta, että Suomessa on vähän (islamilaisia) maahanmuuttajia verrattuna esimerkiksi Ruotsiin, mutta nimenomaan tästä syystä maahanmuuttokysymykseen tulee puuttua nyt eikä vasta sitten, kun meillä on jokaviikkoisia mellakoita ja koulunpolttajaisia ranskalaisten lähiöiden tai Malmön tyyliin. Maahanmuuttajien määrän kasvaessa heidän poliittinen valtansa myös kasvaa, mikä vaikeuttaa maahanmuuttokysymysten ratkaisua. Koska moni maahanmuuttaja on riippuvainen valtion tuista, hyvinvointipalveluita ajava vasemmisto vahvistuu. Näin syntyy antisemitistinen allianssi. Samaan aikaan lisääntyvät ongelmat vahvistavat (ääri)oikeistoa. Äärimmilleen vedetty polarisaatio voidaan välttää, jos maahanmuuttokysymykset nostetaan esille heti.

Islamilaisen maahanmuuton järkevyyttä on siis syytäkin miettiä nyt, kun muiden eurooppalaisten valtioiden idealistisen maahanmuuttopolitiikan vaikutukset ovat kaikkien nähtävillä. Suomi on tämän takia hyvässä asemassa, kun taas esimerkiksi Malmössä on jo liian myöhäistä miettiä, kannattaako niitä rajoja pitää auki. Siellä mietitään pikemminkin, että voisivatko muslimit hoitaa asiansa sharia-tuomioistuimissa ja että voidaanko kouluissa opettaa evoluutioteoriaa muslimilapsille. Jos suomalaiset haluavat joutua pohtimaan samanlaisia asioita, niin pidetään suut kiinni maahanmuuttokysymyksistä ja rajat auki. Perussuomalaiset eivät ole nousseet siksi, että suomalaiset olisivat yhtäkkiä alkaneet pitämään ahdasmielisestä populismista, vaan siksi, että suomalaisten mielestä maahanmuuttokysymyksistä tulee käydä korkean profiilin keskustelua.

The legality of Israel's actions

Michael Halila is trying to make a case (here and here) against Israel by making it seem that the illegality of the flotilla interception is clear. Of course, I'm no legal expert, so I don't know whether the interception was illegal or not but, contrary to the tone in Halila's post, the issue seems far from clear.

Moreover, the issue of legality is not important - at all. If international law prevents Israel from defending the lives of her citizens, she should have every right to violate such a law. Similarly, if any law prevents an individual from acting in self-defense, the law should rightfully be ignored. The issue that does matter is that the flotillas - sponsored by the IHH, a radical islamic organization with ties to terrorist groups - were headed toward Gaza which Israel had placed under an embargo due to valid security concerns. Israel is at war with Hamas - a terrorist group whose aim is the destruction of the Jewish state - and Hamas is in control of Gaza. Legal technicalities are just that - legal technicalities. Israel was right to act.

And while Michael calls the defenders of Israel "useful idiots", he better remember that his reaction to the incident is exactly what the "activists" set out to bring about.

And now that another ship, MV Rachel Corrie, is headed for Israel, the "humanitarians" on board better take note that their aid wouldn't reach Gaza anyway:

Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.

Taas viedään Israelia

Israelin vihollisilla on helppoa: huolimatta siitä, mitä he tekevät, maailman mielipide on aina heidän puolellaan.

“If the ships reach Gaza, it’s a victory for Gaza,” Haniyeh [Hamasin poliitikko] told some 400 supporters on Saturday, after touring Gaza City’s small fishing harbor where several smaller vessels breaking the blockade have docked in the past. “If they are intercepted and terrorized by the Zionists, it will be a victory for Gaza, too, and they will move again in new ships to break the siege of Gaza.” -Jerusalem Post

Israel julisti Gazan saartoon kaistaleen luisuttua Hamasin, juutalaisvastaisen terroristiryhmittymän, hallintaan. Saarron tavoitteena on eristää Hamas ja estää aseiden päätyminen sen käsiin. Saarto mahdollistaa turvatarkastukset, joilla nämä aseet pidetään juutalaisvaltion vihollisten ulottumattomissa.

"Ihmisoikeusaktivistien" pyrkimyksillä ajaa saarron läpi "avustusaluksilla" ei ole tietenkään mitään tekemistä humanitäärisen avustuksen kanssa. Kyseessä on alusta pitäen ollut tarkoitushakuinen pr-temppu, jolla taas saataisiin maailman mielipide mahdollisimman juutalaisvastaiseksi. Tempauksen järjestäjät tiesivät tasan tarkalleen, miten Israel reagoisi ja miten "kansainvälinen yhteisö" vuorostaan reagoisi. Tällä yleisöllä Israel ei yksinkertaisesti voi voittaa. Israelin YK-lähettiläs:

Although the flotilla was portrayed in the media as a humanitarian mission, it was anything but. If that were truly the case, the organizers of the mission would have accepted weeks ago Israel’s offer to transfer the aid brought on the flotilla through the Israeli port of Ashdod and through the established Israeli procedures. Much material and merchandise was entering Gaza daily through those mechanisms.

Israelin kommandot suorittivat iskun sen jälkeen, kun "avustusalus" oli jatkuvasti jättänyt huomioimatta Israelin laivaston kehotukset saattaa tarvikkeet perille turvallisuustarkastusten kautta. Kommandojen laskeutuessa heidän kimppuunsa hyökättiin puukoin ja metalliputkin. Alla olevasta videosta näkyy, miten rauhanomaiset aktivistit vastaanottavat kommandot: juutalaisiin käydään kiinni kuin sika limppuun.

Näin kävi, koska Israel ei ollut valmistautunut voimankäyttöön mutta heidän vihollisensa olivat. Alukselle laskeutuessaan kommandoilla oli käytössään värikuula-aseet (selvästi nähtävissä IDF:n kuvaamilla videoilla), joita heidän tulisi käyttää, jos dialogi ei tehoaisi. Mitään dialogia ei tietenkään ehditty käymään verenhimoisten antisemitistien raakamaisesti ja tarpeettomasti hyökätessä kommandojen kimppuun. Kun värikuulapanokset eivät purreet, kommandot tekivät sen, mitä ketä tahansa vastaavaan tilanteeseen joutunut olisi tehnyt ja avasivat tulen. Mitä muuta he olisivat voineet tehdä?

Netanyahu said the right things

Israeli Prime Minister Binyami Netanyahu made some important points in his major speech. Anyone interested in discussing the conflict in a civilized way should first acknowledge its root cause: the Arab refusal to recognize the state of Israel. Netanyahu specifies by reminding that it was the Jews who accepted and the Palestinian Arabs who overwhelmingly rejected the partition plan of 1947 or any proposal that'd have established a Jewish state of any kind in the Holy land. He also states that violence against Jews in Palestine began long before a Jewish soldier set a foot on West Bank.

But the big news is Netanyahu's willingness to see the birth of a Palestinian state assuming it is demilitarized. Understandably, this is in Israel's interests. Israel cannot afford to have a sovereign state next to it that threatens her very existence like Gaza, a terrorist state that supports and is supported by Hezbollah and Iran. Without a military Palestine would not be able to establish military pacts with Israel's enemies. Of course this isn't a very pragmatic proposal since the Palestinians would never agree to demilitarize. That is their problem, however. It's their society that has been on the verge of collapse for years now.

Netanyahu slams the silly idea that Palestinian refugees should have a right to return to Israel. Such a right would only mean slowly turning Israel into a non-Jewish state quite likely ruled by Islamic laws. As for Jerusalem, Netanyahu says it should remain a part of Israel, a united city that tolerates all religions. This is much better than allowing Jerusalem to be turned into a city where atheism and homosexuality is punishable by death.

As for the settlements in the West Bank, Israel is in no rush to leave although Netanyahu doesn't support expanding the settlements. Netanyahu notes that their Gaza withdrawal was for nothing. It did not stop violence, but merely turned Gaza into a Hamas-controlled entity that fires rockets into Israel on an almost daily basis. In other words: the assumption that disbanding the West Bank settlements would bring peace is based on nothing. Israel is done with concessions that only lead to more demands and violence against Israelis.

Moreover, there can be no peace and no Palestinian state until there's a "public, binding, unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people" and that the Palestinian people must decide "between Hamas and peace".

Meanwhile in the United States, former President Jimmy Carter has asked the Obama administration to remove Hamas from the American list of terrorist groups. It seems that Hamas certainly has a way to appreciate Carter's pro-Palestinian stance:

a Palestinian source told FOX News that the group had discovered two roadside bombs planted near a crossing between Israel and Gaza on a path Carter's convoy took to meet with the group's leaders. According to the source, the bombs were intended to hit Carter's vehicle as he exited Gaza.

Israeli tennis player denied entry to Nazi-UAE

What a fucking disgrace to United Arab Emirates and sports:

In February, [Shahar] Peer was prevented from playing at the Dubai Tennis Championships after she was denied entry into the United Arab Emirates, a country that does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. A number of players among which Venus Williams, condemned the action to not grant Peer a visa, and WTA chief Larry Scott said that he had considered cancelling the tournament, but chose not to after consulting Peer. Tournament director Salah Tahlak said that Peer was refused on the grounds that her appearance could incite anger in the Arab country, after she had already faced protests at the ASB Classic over the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The WTA said that it would review future tournaments in Dubai. Due to the action, the Tennis Channel decided not to televise the event and The Wall Street Journal dropped its sponsorship. (Wikipedia.)

She says canceling the tournament wouldn't have been fair to other players. So why didn't the players withdraw from the tournament as a sign of protest? An excellent ESPN article argues that particularly the Williams sisters should have taken a stand:

This was a rare opportunity to make a significant stand. If anyone should have accepted the challenge and taken up Peer's fight, it should have been the Williams sisters, whose immense success always has been intertwined with the underlying tension created by their race and gender.

It didn't matter that Peer said it would have been unfair to the players if the event were canceled. The two biggest icons in women's tennis should have boycotted anyway, instead of offering their colleague surface-level support and shallow rationalizations.

At least some sponsors had the guts to do the right thing and withdraw their support. Also, Andy Roddick, an American tennis player, withdrew from the men's tournament.

Dubai is not of course the only crap country with anti-Israel lunatics. Shahar faced protesters, led by an "anti-racist" asshole, in New Zealand earlier this year.

Pe'er, by the way, serves in the military (worth extra points in my books) and is cute.

Österman Israelista

Ei ole mikään ihme, että Lars "Monetary Crank" Östermanin blogista löytyy tällaista läppää Israelista. Tuon talousdemokratia-aatteen mukana nähtävästi annostellaan yleensä roima annos salaliittoteorioita sun muuta. Joskus on vaikea erottaa fanaattisia Ron Paul -faneja näistä crankeista. Molemmista leireistä löytyy kaikenlaisia höyrypäitä, joiden mielestä juutalaiset hallitsevat USA:n ulkopolitiikkaa (joidenkin mielestä koko maailmaa), USA:n tiedustelupalvelut junailivat 9/11-iskut ja niin edelleen.

Tässä humoristisessa kuvasarjassa viljellään sitä uskomusta, että juutalaiset olisivat varastaneet palestiinalaisten maata. Varsinkin tuossa ensimmäisessä kuvassa annetaan ymmärtää, että vuonna 1946 oli olemassa jonkinlainen Palestiinan valtio. Näin ei tietenkään ollut, eivätkä juutalaiset varastaneet maata, vaan hankkivat sitä laillisesti perustaen asumuksia lähinnä tyhjille seuduille ja vuokraamalla maata. YK:n jako vuodelta 1947 perustui siihen, että juutalaiset saisivat ne alueet, joissa he ovat enemmistönä eli suurin piirtein tämän mukaan. (Tuo eteläkärki, joka ehdotettiin kuuluvaksi juutalaisten alueeseen, on Negevin aavikkoa.) Kuten on aiemminkin tullut mainittua, ei sillä olisi ollut mitään väliä, vaikka arabeille oltaisiin tarjottu 90 prosenttia Palestiinasta. Arabit olivat jo vuonna 1937 tyrmänneet tämän ehdotuksen. Kyseessä oli puhtaasti periaatteellinen syy vastustaa mitä tahansa juutalaisvaltiota Palestiinassa. Kehitys, joka näkyy tuon kuvasarjan kahdessa viimeisessä kuvassa, onkin sitten arabien oman peeloilun ansiota. Yleenä sodan aloittanut ja vielä hävinnyt osapuoli menettää jotain, kuten kuuluukin.

Kun muuten otetaan huomioon palestiinalaisten silloiset suhteet natsien holokaustimasiinaan, tuo YK:n jako oli arabeille aivan liian antelias.

En todellakaan ymmärrä niitä joiden jokapäiväseen mantraan kuuluu " mutta onhan israelilaisten saatava puolustaa itseään raketti-iskuja vastaan". Kyseiset raketit ovat lähinnä kellareissa koottuja ruudilla täytettyjä peltiputkia joita voi verrata isomman luokan ilotulitteisiin ja joiden osumatarkkuus on naurettavan huono.

Hah hah!

Ja jos Gazalaiset ampuvatkin jotain järeämpää niin eiköhän se ole vähintäinkin oikeutettua huomioiden miten vihollinen on vienyt alueita alkuperäisasukkailta.

Keneltä ihmeen alkuperäisasukkailta? Palestiinan alue on ollut pilkottuna muun muassa egyptiläisten, syyrialaisten ja ottomaanien vallan alla ja sitä ovat kansoittaneet kaikenlaiset paikasta toiseen liikkuvat paimentolaiset.

Helsingin Sanomat liittyy anti-Israel-kuoroon

Suomalainen media jatkaa Israelin vastaisten fiilisten ilmaisua. Ensin Olli Kivinen syyttää Israelia Gazan kurjuudesta, sitten vaaditaan sotatoimien lopettamista pelkästään sillä perusteella, että sodassa kuolee siviileitä. Varsinkin tuossa jälkimmäisessä artikkelissa kannattaa kiinnittää huomiota siihen, miten Helsingin Sanomat näyttää nojaavan gazalaisiin lähteisiin Israelin puolustusvoimien sijaan. Kirjoituksessa kerrotaan räikeästi, miten Israel säälittä pommittaa ja ampuu siviileitä, nähtävästi ilman mitään syytä.

Toiseksi viimeisessä kappaleessa sanotaan näin:

Hamas kantaa oman vastuunsa siitä, että se ilmoitti jatkavansa raketti-iskuja huolimatta YK:n turvallisuusneuvostossa torstaina lopulta hyväksytystä päätöslauselmasta, jossa vaaditaan välitöntä loppua myös raketti-iskuille. Tämä ei vähennä Israelin vastuuta siitä, millaisia keinoja se käyttää omassa sotimisessaan.

Ei sanaakaan siitä, miten Hamas systemaattisesti käyttää siviilirakennuksia (sairaaloita, kouluja jne.) tukikohtinaan. Ehkä Helsingin Sanomien toimittajien kannattaisi lukea esimerkiksi Jerusalem Postia, josta heti löytyisi hieman perspektiiviä:

Hamas is using Gaza's Shifa Hospital as a meeting place and even distributed salaries to its operatives there over the weekend, Public Security Minister and former Shin Bet head Avi Dichter said Monday morning.

"Shifa Hospital has long ago ceased to be just a hospital, just as the UNRWA humanitarian and health services in Gaza long ago ceased to be just humanitarian services providing food and medical services."

"UN schools in Gaza long ago stopped being just schools," the minister said. "All these services and places are refuge for Hamas terrorists and commanders."

Ministerin mukaan Israel on päättänyt jättää kyseisen sairaalan rauhaan "ilmiselvistä syistä". Toisaalta Hamas näyttää käyttävän sairaalaa turvapaikkanaan samoista ilmiselvistä syistä. Myös Ynetnews-saitin uutisannista selviää, että terroristit säilöivät runsaasti aseita erääseen kouluun ja olivat virittäneen koulun räjähtämään. Tämäkin on jäänyt HS:n artikkelin kirjoittajalta nähtävästi huomiotta, mikä tosin ei ole mikään ihme, kun huomioidaan objektiivisuuden taso kyseisessä sanomalehdessä.

Myös maailmalla Israelin toiminnan tuomitseminen jatkuu. YK:n alaisuudessa toimiva Human Rights Council äänesti Israelin sotatoimia vastaan. Ranska haluaa sotilastarkkailijoita valvomaan tulevaa tulitaukoa. Ranska on todennäköisesti unohtanut, miten vastaavanlainen operaatio Libaononissa johti Hezbollahin aseistautumiseen sotilastarkkailijoiden nenien edessä. Italiassa ammattiyhdistysliikkeet ovat palanneet ajassa 70 vuotta takaisinpäin kannattaessaan juutalaisten pitämien liikkeiden boikottia. Näitä juutalaisvastaisia boikotteja tosin löytyy vähän joka paikasta.

Vasemmisto ja islamofasistit ovat jälleen löytäneet toisensa kaduilta. Atlas Shrugs -blogissa on hyviä kuvia nats... palestiinalaisia kannattavien mellakoista (1, 2, 3). Joukkoon mahtuu myös muutama, todennäköisesti uskonnollisten hörhöjen järjestämä pro-Israel-mielenosoitus, mutta eipähän näy ketään potkimassa kauppojen ikkunoita säpäleiksi. Taidanpa hankkia jostain tuollaisen komean Israelin lipun.

Huumorina vielä lopuksi video ajalta ennen Gazasta vetäytymistä, jossa israelilaispoliitikot argumentoivat vetäytymisen tuovan kaikkea hyvää. (Via The Muqata.)

The Finnish media keeps pounding Israel

A major Finnish newspaper is calling Israel's campaign in Gaza a genocide. Not only that, but it compares operation Cast Lead to the First Chechen War (during which maybe even a hundred thousand civilians died). I may be wrong, but isn't the comparison quite disproportionate? The article then states that those in Finland who're backing Israel are mostly the kind of people who're doing it for religious reasons. (Israel is a very secular country by the way, which is quite an achievement in the middle of all that religious extremism.) In other words, those who support Israel in Finland are apparently idiots. So, I take it the smart ones don't support Israel?

The article then claims that Israel is an artificial creation. But if Israel is an artificial creation, then what is Palestine? And how exactly is Israel any more artificial than, say, Finland? Just as we, the Finns, have our roots in Finland, a region historically occupied and settled by Finns, so do the Jewish people have their roots in Israel. Hell, the Jews had a culture and a history in Israel long before we even existed as a people.

Of course Muslims have their roots in the "Holy Land" as well. When the UN proposed to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into two states the idea was that both Jews and Muslims could settle in and around an area that has such a huge historical meaning to both groups. Muslims rejected the plan out of principle simply because they opposed the idea of Jews acquiring any piece of that land. Seeing how many Muslim leaders sided with the nazis only a few years before the plan I could go even further and argue that Muslims simply hated Jews.

In all fairness, there is a mention in the article that some of Israel's actions may be justified on the grounds that Hamas has launched more than 7000 rockets over the border to Israel during the past two years. The article also states the fact that Hamas wishes to see Israel destroyed. However, since the article condemns Israel's campaign against Hamas I'm not sure what the writer thinks should be done. There is a proposition that the international community should arrange a ceasefire but as I argued earlier, a ceasefire is simply a way for Hamas to catch a breath and rearm.

After this the article goes on to repeat the usual "both sides are wrong" and that "violence won't solve a thing" arguments.

But violence has solved things for Israel. With these "excursions" into Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank Israel can keep herself safe while waiting for a change in the Middle East that'd push the region forward. No doubt Hamas, Hezbollah and others will continue to attack Israel from time to time but considering the alternative, the destruction of Israel (not by Hamas or Hezbollah but by Iran, Syria and others who'd love to see Israel severely weakened), this is something Israel can manage. After all, despite all the recent attacks on Israel it is still a relatively safe country to live in.

So, the media has been at it again. In case you're a European, keep your eyes on Israellycool (and vote for it as the best Middle East blog) for a comprehensive account of the situation including links to relevant articles, Youtube videos and so on. The fact that Israel is mostly backed by religious nuts in Finland is no doubt a result of the never-ending media campaign against Israel and the fact that most people, even those with an access to the internet, rely on local newspapers.

What's with the blockade?

Some say the latest Israel-Hamas ceasefire ended because Hamas was forced to act as a result of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Let's see why such a blockade was justified.

As a result of a short civil war between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza in summer 2007 Fatah was ousted. Hamas, a terrorist group built on the idea that the Jewish state should be destroyed, has ever since the civil war been in charge of security in Gaza. They also found and are now using weapons supplied to Fatah by the United States. The whole security apparatus of Gaza is now in the hands of Hamas. This includes intelligence information provided to Fatah by the West.

If this is not a proper reason to seal Gaza then I don't know what is. If Gazans suffer as a result of this, one only needs to ask who told them to vote for Hamas who, after their election victory, violently ousted a rival party.

Israel is still taking laudable measures to protect the Gazan civilian population from harm. They're dropping fliers from planes, calling Gazans to warn them in advance, using sound bombs to clear civilians from buildings designated as targets, supplying humanitarian aid and so on. Only about a fifth of all casualties so far are civilians. This is a tragedy of course but as I argued previously, Hamas is responsible for every single casualty. Israel has every right and reason to protect its borders and population.

Meanwhile, I'd like to see editorials like this or this in Finnish newspapers. Instead, we get crap like this and this.

(See Israellycool for more detailed information on the past day of the conflict.)

Arabimaat, YK ja Satakunnan Kansa: Israelilla ei oikeutta itsepuolustukseen

Haaretz:

Hamas ended its six-month cease-fire with Israel on December 19 - a day before it was due to expire - and the number of rockets fired at Israel from Gaza, which had dwindled significantly, returned to pre-truce levels. Dozens of Qassams and mortars had been launched almost daily at Israeli communities near the Gaza border since Hamas declared the truce over.

Niin sanotun tulitauonkin aikana Israel on melkein päivittäin joutunut sietämään rakettitulta Gazan suunnalta. Nyt kun viimein näyttää siltä, että Israel on tosissaan lähtemässä kitkemään Hamas-järjestöä Gazan kaistaleelta, antisemitistinen YK on ensimmäisenä tuomitsemassa Israelin iskut. Samalla YK tuomitsi Hamasin raketti-iskut, mutta miksi vasta nyt? Miksi YK heräsi vasta Israelin tehtyä jotain puolustaakseen kansalaistensa henkeä juutalaisvaltiota vastustavilta terroristeilta?

Uhreja on jo satoja. Vastuu on Hamasin ja heitä äänestäneiden palestiinalaisten. Kuten aina, Israel pyrkii välttämään siviiliuhreja. (Israelin puolustusvoimat ovat jopa jättäneet viestejä gazalaisten puhelimiin varoittaen näitä iskuista.) Ne, jotka ehdottelevat erikoisjoukkojen lähettämistä Gazaan ohjusiskujen sijaan, ovat nähneet liikaa toimintaelokuvia. Terroristeilla on myös sivistynyt tapa sijoittaa harjoitusleirejä ja tukikohtia keskelle asutuskeskuksia:

The first wave of air strikes was launched by 60 warplanes, which hit a total of 50 targets in one fell swoop. The IAF deployed approximately 100 bombs, with an estimated 95 percent reaching their intended targets. Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives.

Immediately following the first wave, some 20 IAF aircraft struck 50 Palestinian rocket launchers in an effort to minimize Hamas' retaliatory strikes.

The IDF emphasized that civilians located in areas whence Palestinians launch rockets and who quarter Hamas operatives in their homes are liable to be hurt.

The targets that were hit included training camps and installations as well as police stations, some of whom were located in civilian buildings.

(Israel myös tuhosi Al Aqsa tv-aseman, joka on tunnettu veikeistä lastenohjelmistaan.)

Israelilla ei ole hirveästi vaihtoehtoja. Rauhanomainen ratkaisu ei voi syntyä, kun toisen osapuolen viralliseen ideologiaan kuuluu two state -ratkaisun vastustaminen. Kun Israel pyrki yksipuolisesti rauhaan vetäytymällä Gazasta, "demokraattisesti" valittu Hamas palkitsi tämän kaappaamalla lopunkin vallan Fatahilta ja kiihdyttämällä Israeliin kohdistuvaa rakettitulta.

Huonoon jamaan ajetut terroristit voivat tosin aina luottaa YK:n ja muun maailman (USA:ta lukuunottamatta) tukeen:

Yle:
Hätäistunto hyväksyi Venäjän luonnosteleman ei-sitovan lausunnon, jossa vaadittiin Israelin ilmaiskujen lopettamista. Lisäksi palestiinalaisjärjestöjä vaaditaan lopettamaan raketti-iskut Israeliin.

Aloitteen hätäistunnosta teki Libya, joka on tällä hetkellä ainoa arabimaa turvallisuusneuvostossa. Neuvosto kokoontui suljettuun hätäistuntoon varhain lauantaina Suomen aikaa.

Sivistyneiden valtioiden tulisi erota tästä niin sanotusta maailmanjärjestöstä. Lähi-idän tulitauot ovat turhia: ne ainoastaan tarjoavat palestiinalaisterroristeille mahdollisuuden uudelleenaseistautua, kerätä voimiaan ja suunnitella uutta iskua. Tämä on nähty miljoona kertaa.

Puolustusministeri Ehud Barak FoxNews-kanavan haastattelussa (via Yle):

- Pyydätte meitä tekemään tulitauon Hamasin kanssa. Se on sama kuin jos teiltä pyydettäisiin tulitaukoa al-Qaidan kanssa. Tämä on asia, jota emme voi hyväksyä.

Jopa Egypti tajuaa, että Hamas on vastuussa tilanteen räjähtämisestä. Egypti on myös syyttänyt Hamasia avustustyön vaikeuttamisesta. (Jokainen palestiinalainen siviiliuhri on hyvää peeärrää Hamasille. On siis loogista, että Hamas pyrkii maksimoimaan palestiinalaissiviiliuhrien määrää.)

Tämänpäiväisen Satakunnan Kansan pääkirjoitus oli otsikoitu Rauhan juhla päättyi pommitukseen. Tämän jälkeenkin syytetään Israelia joulurauhan rikkomisesta. Pääkirjoituksessa toistetaan sitä samaa meemiä, että Israelilla ei oikeastaan missään tilanteessa ole mitään oikeutta tehdä yhtään mitään muuta kuin olla tekemättä mitään:

Oikeutettuja (Israelin kostoiskut) eivät ole millään muotoa. Palestiinalaisten tunkeminen tarkoin vartioidulle alueelleen Gazaan ilman todellisia mahdollisuuksia parempaan elämään ja yleensäkään ihmisarvoiseen elämään on raakaa sortopolitiikkaa.

Tällaista roskaa satakuntalaiset joutuvat lukemaan. Palestiinalaiset tietenkin rikkoivat rauhan jo yli viikko sitten. Gaza joutui Israelin miehittämäksi arabimaiden aloittaman kuuden päivän sodan jälkeen vuonna 1967. Sodan jälkeen arabimaat kieltäytyivät neuvottelemasta Israelin kanssa rauhasta. Israelin Gazaa koskevat intressit ovat turvallisuusintressejä eli mitään "sortopolitiikkaa" ei ole. Gazalaisia ovat sortaneet lähinnä palestiinalaiset, Egypti ja muut arabimaat käyttäessään Palestiinan kysymystä poliittisena aseena.

Pommitukset ovat ilman muuta oikeutettuja aivan kuten Suomella oli oikeus puolustaa itseään talvisodassa. Tosin kun itsepuolustuksen pukee ovelasti kostoiskuksi, on helpompi argumentoida Israelin politiikkaa vastaan.

Israelilla ei ole ainoastaan oikeutta, vaan velvollisuus puolustaa kansalaistensa henkeä, kuten jenkkikongressin edustaja Howard L. Berman toteaa:

Israel has a right, indeed a duty, to defend itself in response to the hundreds of rockets and mortars fired from Gaza over the past week. No government in the world would sit by and allow its citizens to be subjected to this kind of indiscriminate bombardment. The loss of innocent life is a terrible tragedy, and the blame for that tragedy lies with Hamas.

Satakunnan Kansa jatkaa:

niin kauan kuin Israelilla on Yhdysvaltain rajaton tuki, sen toimiin Lähi-idässä on mahdotonta puuttua. Vasta Yhdysvaltojen tiukka puuttuminen asiaan voi palauttaa edes jonkinlaisen rauhan Lähi-itään.

Pelottaa edes ajatella, mitä tällä tarkoitetaan. Bill Clintonin "tiukka puuttuminen" ei johtanut mihinkään, sillä Yasser Arafatia ei kiinnostanut rauha. Vai tarkoitetaanko tiukalla puuttumisella sitä, että USA:n tulisi painostaa Israelia pidättäytymään kaikenlaiselta itsepuolustukseen tähtäävältä toiminnalta?

Israellycool jatkaa tavalliseen tapaan konfliktin yksityiskohtaista bloggaamista.

A devastating end to the Second Lebanon War

Two years ago a group of Hezbollah terrorists invaded Israel and attacked an Israeli army patrol. This casus belli for the war resulted in eight Israeli soldiers killed in action and two captured by Hezbollah thugs. Hezbollah's aim was to exchange the captured soldiers for several Muslim terrorists in Israeli jails, including Samir Kuntar, a nice guy:

Kuntar turned his attention towards the 4 year-old. He took his rifle and then swung it across the toddler's head, knocking her to the ground. Kuntar then dragged the toddler a couple of feet to the closest rock he could find and laid her head down on a rock, with the intention of crushing it with the butt of his rifle. Einat, instinctively covered her head with her arms, Kuntar struggled with the toddler until he finally managed to clear her arms out of the way. Once her arms were out of the way, Kuntar repeatedly beat her on the head with the butt of his rifle and stomping on her body, until blood rushed out of her ears and mouth. Then, to ensure she was dead, Kuntar continued beating her over the head until her skull was crushed and she was dead.

Today, Israel agreed to exchange Kuntar and several other prisoners for the remains of the captured Israeli soldiers. Kuntar's return to Lebanon was celebrated. Only a few weeks ago I wrote how different cultures react differently to vicious acts and here we have another perfect example of how little the Islamic culture appreciates life: a child murderer was celebrated as a hero. They showered him with flowers for God's sake!


(Copyright AP)

The five (released prisoners) — including Samir Kantar, who had been serving multiple life terms in Israel for a grisly 1979 attack — were brought home in International Committee for the Red Cross vehicles and received a red-carpet welcome in this coastal border town.

A giant red carpet was rolled out along a road next to the seashore on the Lebanese side of the border, next to dozens of yellow Hezbollah flags whipping in the breeze.

Hezbollah supporters set up a makeshift stage in Naqoura, where a brass band awaited the returning prisoners. On the platform stood a large photograph of a weeping Israeli woman. A nearby sign read, "Israel is shedding tears of pain."

"Lebanon is shedding tears of joy," read another.

And yet some people keep on insisting that cultures are equal and that Israel is no better than her enemies. But if cultures are equal then why is Israel releasing well fed, living prisoners instead of their remains? And why is Lebanon celebrating a subhuman like Kuntar?