Free Republic

I think that the “Quartet” nations (U.S., Russia, member countries of the EU and member countries of the UN) should evacuate from all territories they have occupied as a result of war before asking Israel to do so. Just to show us how its done.

“It is a fair to predict that France will stay consistent with its support in establishing a viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, existing side by side with a peaceful Israel.”

I have little doubt that any new “Palestinian state” would in short order become an Islamicist state. Hamas, the party that won the largest number of seats in the Palestinian Assembly in the election of February 2007, is thouroughly committed to jihad. You can read their founding statement at a number of places on the Web.

Hamas, and by extention its voting supporters, are not friendly to Israel, nor to the United States, nor to the West in general. Hamas is committed to the spread of Islam by every means possible, including force. Why France or any other non-Islamic country would be interested in sponsoring the development of an Islamicist state is difficult to understand. It may be a reflexive anti-Israel reaction - if a Palestinian government would be opposed to Israel they are therefore good.

It may be that the foreign supporters of a Palestinian state do not understand the Islamicist mentality, and make the mistake of thinking that behind their different language and un-Western dress and mores they are just like Westerners. This is wishful thinking.

You wrote:
"That shelter isn't for just anybody, a quarter of a million people is a nice number to have after a nuke and that's just one shelter that China has among many. So tell me, how many shelters does the U.S. have that size? I would bet none."

Better question: how many shelters of ANY size does the U.S. have? And if you told your co-workers at the office that you were building a shelter for you and your family just in case, how would that go over?

//"The surprise for anyone who would attempt to step on our soil in an act of war would be the folks who keep handguns in their homes.
" can imagine that they would muster together and make it a real challenge, to say the least."

Even more so those folks that have an "assault rifle" or other long arm. Every one of those will be worth ten pistols.//

Biological and chemical weapons could eliminate great numbers of partisans without putting too many of the enemy troops at risk. It's an unpleasant thought but it must be taken into account.

My websurfing often leads me to articles at LewRockwell.com, the hard-core libertarian site. For what it's worth, I am not a hard-core libertarian, and I disagree with a good deal of what I have read at that site.

Be that as it may, a recurring theme among the articles at LewRockwell.com is that "government is evil", "the state is evil". Not that government is inavoidably imperfect and a necessary evil, but it is an evil that must be done away with. This strikes me as more an anarchic attitude than a libertarian one.

Maybe the site in question uses very broad ideological filters and accepts articles from most comers, but as a supposedly leading exponent of libertarian thought, I think they are somewhat misleading in the views they present.

Anyone care to comment on this apparent linking of libertarianism and archism ? In reality, the philosophies are quite distinct, in my understanding.

It's been said before, but the news announcer does not merit as much attention as is generally focused upon them in American television. The producers would be doing us a service if they employed more neutral, generic, replaceable presenters. This would help viewers to focus on the most important element of the program, the news content - its merits and demerits.

A broadening of the geographic and economic scope of the coverage and more analysis would encourage me to watch more.

I was living in New York for a good part of Rudy Giuliani's mayoralty.

Those of you that know Manhattan know that for decades 42nd street was full of porno cinemas, live sex shows, houses of prostitution, and illicit drug sales. Giuliani cleaned up most or all of that (I didn't hang around to see). That doesn't mean there's no porno and prostitution in NY, but it's more hidden now.

He also made a point of having the police enforce "quality of life" laws, the little laws that maybe aren't the end of the world but they start the slide to disorder if ignored.

Giuliani also kept organized crime in check.

In short, he appealed to the sensibilities of the relatively conservative middle class voter.

I remember too, after 9.11 a big Saudi prince offered to donate a lot of money to the city to help with the recovery or something, but he made the donation with a tag line something like "America will hopefully examine her conscience and figure out why 9.11 happened". (I don't remember the incident precisely but it was well covered by mainstream media.) Rudy refused the check with a "thanks but no thanks, we have nothing to be ashamed of". (Again, just approximating his actual words.)

So, I thought quite well of Mr. Giuliani at the time. I don't know if he's changed since then. I am a bit embarrassed at his well-publicized drag-queen escapades on stage, but in general I think America could do much worse than electing Rudy Giuliani to the presidency

What part of "Death to America" doesn't Dr. Paul understand?

Not to say that there isn't reason to exercise caution. For one thing, President Ahmadinejad is tight with Hugo Chavez. In the event of an American or Israeli assault on Iraq I would expect Chavez to take retaliatory economic action, perhaps to the extent of interrupting Venezuelan petroleum exports to the U.S.

Why hasn't Noam Chomsky, for example, been drummed out of academia? Because "academia" in the United States, to paint it with large brush strokes, is leftist, quite sympathetic to Marxism, and "hates" the culture - American culture - on which it lives.

Add to this that Israel, because of its history and purpose, is naturally identified with the Jewish religion, regardless of the personal beliefs of this or that individual Israeli. Marx was for the elimination of religion. He wrote that only with the elimination of Judaism can Jews be "free" (see Marx's "On the Jewish Question"). Indeed, he believed that no religion had any proper place in public life. This would explain academia's acceptance of Chomsky, and some of the Left's hostility to Israel.

Paradoxically, the Left has embraced Islam - not in a personal, religious sense but as a convenient tool to help with the deconstruction of Western culture. According to Marxism, before a society or a nation can become communistic, it must be broken down, leveled. Only then will it be ready for the construction of the communist edifice.

Islam's ultimate goal for America is different, of course - namely, the construction of an Islamic state. On the way to this goal, however, they can be useful to the leftists by upsetting current social norms and alienating non-Muslims from their society.

One would hope that Muslims in the West would recognize that their common interests with Christianity and Judaism far outweigh their differences, when considered against the leftist goal of a completely secularized society where religious practice is looked down upon if not forbidden entirely.

[quote]"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."[/quote]

Sadly, what most of the general Arab community and the largest Palestinian Arab political groups have made clear by unambiguous words and deeds is that they will not consent to peace until Israel is no more and all Jews have been eliminated from Palestine, Mr. Carter's opinions notwithstanding.

Carter wants a new, armed Islamic extremist state bordering on Israel and Egypt? This says much about his strategic vision or lack of such. He's more likely to see such a state bordering Rome or Athens first.

Regarding the tag "the Chosen People", people might not be so jealous if they understood that it means chosen to receive and obey God's commandments. There's at least 613 such commandments, or "mitzvas", as my rabbi explained to me, including Sabbath observance, dietary restrictions, and so on.

As some other posters have stated, the hatred in itself may not be so unique. The fact that the Jewish people has survived may be more unique.

Regarding the cause of that hatred, part of it could be because we do not fulfill our religious responsibilities sufficiently well (including yours truly, no argument there). The hatred may be a sort of divine retribution for that.

Persecution serves to keep a Jew's identity as a Jew alive for him, strengthens his identity with the group. It may be a spiritual/social alarm system to keep him from forgetting who he is.

Hatred can be motivated by fear. Jewish customs are different in many ways from those of non-Jews. This provides fertile ground for schoolyard imaginations to run wild and breathe new life into age-old lies that are retained even into adulthood.

Jews are identified with the Torah (which Christians know as the "old testament"). The Torah contains a lot of very definite statements about what is right and what is wrong. Jews and Christians differ in their understanding of those statements, but it is clear that the Torah does not support the idea of moral relativism, "if it feels good, do it", and so on. The idea that there are absolute moral guidelines disturbs and even angers many people who do not believe in an absolute morality. I think this unconsciously motivate many individual's hatred of Jews and of Israel.

Here's a link to an article that discusses, among other things, the difficulties faced by Christians living in Arab-ruled areas of Israel, including Bethlehem.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26147

Violence against Christian Arabs in the Arab-ruled areas has increased since Hamas took the "National Assembly" and the "Prime Ministry" in last February's elections. Hamas has declared that Jews and Christians will not be permitted to live in their dreamed-of future Palestinian Arab and Islamic state, except as dhimis (second-class citizens with limited rights and protections).

Egypt's minority Coptic Christian community has also had many difficulties. Over 200 Coptic Christians have been killed in the past two years and an unknown number wounded by attacks by illegal Islamic militias. It is illegal for the Coptics to build a new church or make any repairs to an existing church without a government permit, which can be very difficult to obtain.

All of the above are the continuation of trends that existed way before the latest U.S. intervention in Iraq. Difficulties faced by non-Muslims in the Middle East are part and parcel of historical Islam, not a new phenomena that suddenly sprung up with the downfall of Saddam Hussein.

As long has he continues to ignore these facts, I'm sure Archbishop Williams will be given VIP treatment on his next fact-finding mission to the Arab-occupied Israeli territories.

Tzipi is short for Tzipora.
The name is based on the word "tzipor", which means "bird" (a small, feathered, flying creature).
In the Bible, Moses' wife's name was Tzipora.

Carter, by using the term apartheid, seems to be reviving the charge that "Zionism is racism".

Anyone who has ever visited Israel or knows something about Jewish culture and history knows that there are Jews of all shades of skin color and from most every ethnic group, from blue-eyed blond Norwegians to dark-skinned black-eyed North Africans and Indians, and everything in between.

Jewish nationality is not based on race, but on a shared culture and religion, and what the sociologists call "endogenous marriage patterns"; that is, we marry within the group – Jews marry Jews. It's not only frowned upon but is actually a violation of Jewish religious law for a Jew to marry a non-Jew.

Carter may not realize or may disapprove of the fact that the Jewish idea of nationality isn't like the American one. In simple terms, the American ideal say "come one, come all, join the party, as long as you accept the Constitution and are willing to pull your own weight we don't care what your religion is."

Jewish culture says "if you're willing to accept Jewish law and tradition, including religious law, then you may join us; if not, you may not join us". It's not the American approach, but it is what has kept us alive, what has allowed us to survive as a people for thousands of years without being swallowed up and absorbed by a larger culture.

Carter seems to have a problem with Jewish distinctiveness. This is no surprise – many people have this problem. This has been the cause of much persecution of Jews over the centuries. The ancient Romans and Greeks, among others, also objected to our distinctiveness, and tried in various ways to suppress it, by forbidding religious practices and instruction and encouraging intermarriage with non-Jews. Hannuka, which we're celebrating now, has its origins in a revolt against such oppression.

By his use of the term "apartheid", Carter seems to be implying that if we Israelis would only accept Muslim and Christian Arabs as our brothers and sisters, live, eat, and party together, and intermarry, everything will be all right. Well, we work fairly well together in many cases but the reality is that Jews, Muslims, and Christians in the Holy Land each value their own religious and cultural heritage and prefer to remain ethnically and religiously distinct rather than to blend together in an idealized "melting pot". There's sort of a "tribal" ethic here, as in the rest of the Middle East. I say that with no implied criticism or dismay. People are tribal by nature, Jews too.

The American ethos, until recent times, has been that one should divest oneself of one's ancestral history and become "American". I think Jimmy Carter may be viewing the Middle East and Israel in particular though an American prism.

I'm not planning on buying Carter's book right away; I remember him as a friend and adviser of Yassir Arafat. From one review I've read, the book seems to present the lopsided view that the Arabs have wanted peace all along; only Jewish intransigence has prevented peace. Such a position is a distortion of history. Maybe if I see the book second hand, or if it comes out as a low-cost E-book I'll give it a peek, if only to provide a more knowledgeable criticism of his errors.

Here's a link to a short book that presents a quite different version of history than that expounded by Jimmy Carter:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/BigLies.pdf

Michael Medved wrote an apologetic column regarding this incident, which I can't find a link to at the moment. It seems he knows the rabbi in question.

As a Jew, I was dismayed to hear about such poor judgement, and quite surprised to hear it involved the Lubavitch organization. Orthodox rabbis in general and the Lubavitch movement in particular have a history and reputation for tending to their flocks and avoiding controversy.

I'd say the incident is illustrative of a number of things, among them:

1) The litigious nature of American society.

2) The freedom of expression that is part of the American ethic, and that this freedom can be taken to extremes.

3) The freedom enjoyed by Jews and other minority groups in America, that can sometimes be taken for granted and even abused.

For those American Jews that are strongly attached to their Jewish identity, I suggest you to consider living in Israel, from where I'm writing this. Such a move is not for everyone, but you know who you are. We can always use good men and women in business and finance, as technicians, in the health services industries, as educators, as parents. The Hanuka lamps seem to burn brighter here.

Happy holidays to all.

The progressive's creed takes as a given the belief that Israel is the cause of Middle East unrest, if not the cause of all of the world's problems.
Ms. Royal has demonstrated courage by daring to differ from leftist orthodoxy.

Glancing at French demographic figures, I see that the France's population of about 61 million (excluding overseas territories and dependencies) includes 5 million Muslims, 1 million Protestants, and 600-700,000 Jews.

Thanks for posting the article, Shrinkermd. I'll be keeping an eye on Royal between now and April. I must read up a bit on the rest of her policies, foreign and domestic. Considering all of the unrest in France of late, this should be an interesting campaign. The results will be interesting, too.

"Or might it have been a lesson in tolerance, an example of the state not interfering in nonviolent society, and, in the absence of the sky falling, a reminder that letting other people be 'other' isn't the end of the world?"

Yes, gcruse, tolerance is very important. But so is respect, and discretion. Jerusalem is not New York, it is not Amsterdam. The prevailing sensibilities are quite different. Nothing justifies actions that, in the eyes of its residents and in the eyes of millions of believers throughout the world, would be perceived as a gross insult to the history and sanctitity of the city.

The vast majority of Israeli's saw the planned parade as a bad idea, pushed on us by an extremist civil court system. While Israeli's as a whole are quite tolerant, the general tenor of society is much more conservative than that of urban America or Europe. There is a thin, highly Europeanized layer at the top of society, but the bulk of the social layer cake is made from more traditional ingredients.

Would any homosexual group stage a blatant "march of love" in Mecca or Medina, for example? Of course not. They would not want to offend the Islamic world.

Jerusalem deserves no less respect.

As of this writing, the homo-exhibitionist parade formerly scheduled to take place in Jerusalem today, Friday, has been cancelled. The "homo-lesbian community" has opted for an assembly in Jerusalem's Teddy Stadium.

The change in plan was in large part due to the strong opposition expressed by the city's ultra-orthodox community. There were worries about the possibility physical clashes between the homosexual marchers and residents opposing the parade.

These types of parades in other venues and in other countries usually include at least some marchers scantily clad or in various stages of undress. Open and shameless expression of homosexual "love" is also part of the usual program of such assemblies. [I'd like to see them try that in Mecca.]

Palestinian Arabs are planning to stage demonstrations today in Israel in protest for the death of several civilians in Gaza on Wednesday. The cause of death may have been due to errant mortar fire from the IDF in their attempt to hit those responsible for launching rockets against Israeli targets. The matter is under investigation.

Israeli police chiefs were concerned that they would not have enough manpower to ensure public safety at both the homosexual parade and at the Arab protests. This was also a factor in the parade's cancellation.

Messages of opposition from others, such as the Pope's, and from Islamic leaders in Jerusalem, also no doubt helped the parade's sponsors and Jerusalem's government come to their senses.

At a time in history when the U.S. and other Western governments are attempting to convince Middle Easterners of the benefits of democracy and separation of church and state, a flagrant homosexual parade in "Islam's third holiest city" would have been quite counterproductive. Let's hope that a lesson has been learned and that we don't have to go through the same process next year.

Nice photos, RedStates.

Far from me to criticize someone for wearing religious-oriented apparel; I've been known to wear a colorful knitted skullcap (yarmulke) now and again myself.

If Mrs. Clinton's cross is a symbol of religious devotion, I would encourage her to familiarize herself with the facts about persecution of Christians in the Middle East. This issue has been written about by the journalist Brigitte Gabriel, among others. Here's a link to a short video on the subject.

http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/media/Christian_Persecution2.wmv