Goodbye "Bird"

I was truly saddened to learn of the death today in Massachusetts of Mark "The Bird" Fidrych on his farm of an apparent accident.

Many of you won't know who he was, but he was like a giant smiley face meteor that burned across the baseball, and the country's, sky, for one season in 1976.

He went 19-9 with 24 complete games (24!!) but that was not the important thing with Fidrych. He brought to the game, and the country, during a rough time for all of us, (remember the Carter Years?) an unbridled joy, and joie de vivre, to the game.

Talking to the ball, getting on his hands and knees to groom the mound and pat the dirt smooth, high fiving teamates in the middle of the field, and, getting his nickname from his uncanny resemblance to Big Bird from Sesame Street.

About talking to the ball, the Yankees' Graig Nettles tells a story about hitting against Fidrych when he was going through his routine, as usual, talking to the ball before pitching to him. Nettles said he told his bat, "Never mind what he says to the ball--hit it over the outfield fence!" Nettles struck out. "Damn," he said. "Japanese bat. Doesn't understand a word of English."

Injuries derailed him after that one glorious summer, but he was never bitter, and truly loved his one year in the spotlight.

We need more like him in sports. Or even just one more. RIP "Bird"

Another broken promise...

Funny, but when his highness was in Turkey last week, no one seems to have noticed that he explicitly broke another campaign promise.

For those that don't know, Obama repeatedly expressed that if elected he would demand that the Turks recognize finally, the Armenian Genocide.

This has a special significance for me, because Hitler used the world's amnesia with regard to the 1,000,000 Armenians killed by the Ottoman Turks to tell his generals that no one would remember the Jews.

Indeed, in the old city of Jerusalem, in the Armenian, and Jewish quarters, are the ever present posters on almost every wall noting the Armenian Genocide.

Interestingly enough, after begging the world's forgiveness for all manner of supposed American misdeeds, he also chose this moment to lecture Europe to admit Turkey to the European Union.

Good for President Nikolas Sarkozy for saying, effectively, "shut up, and mind your own business".

Obama's Dance With The Mullahs Picks Up Speed

During the race for President of the United States, Barak Obama advocated a policy of engaging the radical Islamic regime of Iran in high level talks to bring about a normalization of relations and a curtailment of Iran's nuclear program.

In the past few weeks President Obama has begun executing this game plan.

He began by delivering a holiday greeting to the Iranian people and their religious leaders. While President Obama expressed his desire to engage the Iranian leadership, human rights activists were visibly upset by his failure to condemn the serious human rights violations of the Iranian regime. (Shortly after Obama's video message Amnesty International issued a report that criticized Iran for being number two behind China on the list of nations that execute civilians -- only China executed more people.)

Obama's holiday message has been followed up with outreach to start talks with Iran on the issue of Afghanistan and Obama's encouragement of NATO starting talks with Iran.

Perhaps most disturbing is Obama's acceptance of an invitation to address the Alliance of Civilizations in Turkey. The Alliance is an arm of the United Nations and has a long record of trying to legitimize the radical regime in Iran. The Alliance was founded by a leftist Spanish government in conjunction with the overtly Muslim government of Turkey.

A Spanish foreign policy expert described the Alliance as a "counter to the war on terror."

During its relatively brief existence, the Alliance has received enthusiastic support from Koffi Anan, and members of the European Union who have been quick to criticize Israel and the United States while whitewashing Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and other supporters of international terror.

Forbes Magazine's award winning columnist Claudia Rosett has recently written about the Alliance's unsavory supporters and agenda.

Rosett begins her "unofficial history" of the Alliance with this description:

"the Alliance might more appropriately be called a U.N.-approved Slush Fund for Advancing Iranian and Other Islamic Interests. Both high profile and hard to pin down, it is first and foremost an Iranian brain child, which came to the U.N. by way of an earlier venture pitched in 1998 by Iran's then-president Mohammad Khatami for a "Dialogue of Civilizations."

Rosett concludes her expose with these thoughts:

"The Alliance has to date acquired a "group of friends" consisting of 99 members. Along with various sovereign states, these "friends" include the Organization of the Islamic Conference (or OIC), the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (set up by the OIC), the Arab League, plus the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization.

Rosett notes that "There is no representation from Israel."

"This is the U.N.-fostered outfit providing the framework Obama, the American commander-in-chief, will dignify with his present at its April 6 and 7 meeting in Istanbul.

"There are many ways one might describe this Alliance: An Iran-spawned Islamic-themed club; another U.N. exercise in equating the desires of despotic regimes with the principles of free societies; a curious vehicle for U.N. officials with odd spots in their past; a diplomatic bordello providing dark nooks for backroom deals. But an alliance of civilizations it is not."

As we have in the past, we ask why (given these facts) has Obama decided to legitimize this troublesome pack of troublemakers.?

Obama's radical shift away from advocating human rights violations and his new set of friends should trouble everyone who supports a world based on values of humanity that supports the innocent against the despots.

Why Obama's numbers are what they are....

Very interesting. Following a link from RealClearPolitics I went to the Rasmussen Reports, the well known polling organization.

Read their latest poll article. When did we become socialists? Apparently when I wasn't looking:

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism
Thursday, April 09, 2009

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27% ) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

"It's discussion not negotiation"

So said someone on my mirror blog on my 'real' blog site.

Here is my response:

While discussion does not equal negotiation, it does equal validation.

Aren't there things that are non negotiable?
Would you discuss reducing racial rhetoric with the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan? Or would you just arrest him for hate crimes?

In addition, ask yourself have you ever considered the most simple explanation for why groups like Hamas and nations like Iran WANT to negotiate?

If they receive any compromises during negotiations, that is
1) that much less that they have to fight for and because they have no plans to adhere to any agreements, it is the equivalent of what might be called "free money".

and

2) while you are spending time "negotiating" or "discussing" they are using that same time to further their aims. In the case of Iran, furthering their enrichment process and in the case of groups like Hamas, Hizbollah, and the like, increasing weapons capacity and killing more Jews.

Obama warns Congress: Confrontation with Israel

The Democratic leadership revealed this week, off the record of course, that the administration has been systematically approaching all members of the House and Senate in the party, to expect a confrontation with Israel.

No surprise there, simply an admission of what I have been writing for some time.

The irony here is that Bibi Netanyahu is the first Prime Minister to get it right in a long time. How? By determining that the most effective way to make peace is to improve the Palestinian economy. Or rather, create a Palestinian economy.

It's tough to make peace with those that aim to kill you, when thousands upon thousands of them pour into your country every day in order to work.

It's so much easier if they have the things needed for daily life.

Yuval Steinitz, someone I know, and who is well known and respected by American lawmakers (he established the joint Knesset-Congressional committee most folks know nothing about) is the new finance minister.

Steinitz is a PhD in metaphysics and a truly brilliant, and I do mean brilliant man. More importantly, he is perhaps Bibi's closest political friend. The importance of the economic goals is shown by his appointment here, rather than to a defense, or military cabinet position, as Steinitz has become an expert in that area.

So what is Obama confronting Israel about? Dunno, I guess the failure of the Palestinians to live up to a single clause of a single agreement in 40 years.

Iran using Sudan to arm Gaza/Hamas

Israeli drones reportedly attacked Sudan convoys
From the New York Times
March 29, 2009

JERUSALEM -- Israel used unmanned drones to attack Iranian convoys in Sudan on their way to smuggle arms into Gaza, a British newspaper reported.

The long-range missiles being smuggled to Hamas in two convoys at the end of January and in the first week of February had the range to strike Tel Aviv and Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona, according to the report in the Sunday Times.

At least 50 smugglers were killed in the attacks, the Sunday Times reported.

Unnamed defense sources told the newspaper that Israel chose to use the drones, called unmanned aerial vehicles, because the convoy is a target that is on the move.

“When you attack a fixed target, especially a big one, you are better off using jet aircraft," one source said. "But with a moving target with no definite time for the move UAVs are best, as they can hover extremely high and remain unseen until the target is on the move.”

Earlier this week, Sudanese officials blamed the strike on American forces, but on Friday a Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesman said the attack "most probably involved Israel."

The January airstrike took place in a remote desert area of eastern Sudan, the officials said, according to Reuters.

Anonymous U.S. officials told The New York Times that Israeli warplanes carried out the January attack.

Though Israel has refused to confirm or deny the attacks, outgoing Israeli Prime Minister told a conference Thursday in Herzliya that "Israel hits every place it can in order to stop terror, near and far." Many interpreted it as a veiled reference to the Sudan strikes.

US Courts: Iran behind Hamas

Iran must pay $25 million to soldier’s kin

March 29, 2009

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- A U.S. court ordered Iran to pay $25 million in restitution to the family of an Israeli soldier.

District Judge Ricardo Urbina awarded the money to the mother and siblings of Nachshon Wachsman, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen who was 19 years old when he was kidnapped and killed in 1994 by Hamas terrorists. His mother and six brothers are all American citizens.

The money includes $5 million for Wachsman's lost earnings potential, as well as his pain and suffering. Urbina also ordered Iran to pay 6 percent annual interest since the date of his death.

Wachsman was held captive for six days by Hamas in an Arab village near Jerusalem and died during a failed rescue attempt.

Iran has never responded to the lawsuit, which was filed in 2006. The lawsuit blames Iran for Wachsman's death, since it trained the Hamas terrorists.

Iran, Saudis among religious freedom violators Watch Post | Post a comment

From the State Department:

Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan are back on a U.S. list of countries that severely violate religious freedoms.

Joining the "Countries of Particular Concern" cited by the State Department are Burma, Eritrea, North Korea, the People's Republic of China and Uzbekistan.

The list was made just before President George W. Bush left office, but was released this week in response to an inquiry by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The same eight countries received the designation in 2006.

The president is required to encourage improvements in the countries using a range of measures, including sanctions, although a waiver can be provided if the president believes it is in U.S. interests. Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan received waivers.

The designation is for countries engaged in or tolerating “particularly severe” violations of religious freedom that are systematic, ongoing and egregious, including acts such as torture, prolonged detention without charges, disappearances or other "flagrant" denials of "the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.”

The commission said it was disappointed that no countries were added to the list -- it had recommended Pakistan, Vietnam, Turkmenistan and Iraq -- and that Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan received waivers.

“Religious freedom conditions in Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia are appalling and a specific U.S. government response is required.” said commission chairwoman Felice Gaer.

Gates breaks with the administration....

Gates sees sanctions as best bet on Iran

March 30, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. defense secretary said economic sanctions would be more successful than diplomacy in dealing with Iran.

"I think frankly from my perspective, the opportunity for success is probably more in economic sanctions in both places than it is in diplomacy," said Robert Gates on the television program "Fox News Sunday," referring to both Iran and North Korea. "Diplomacy -- perhaps if there is enough economic pressure placed on Iran -- diplomacy can provide them an open door through which they can walk if they choose to change their policies, and so I think the two go hand in hand. But I think what gets them to the table is economic sanctions."

Gates' remarks came a little more than a week after President Obama launched an effort to diplomatically engage Iran, sending a videotaped message to the Iranian people.

The defense secretary also said on the program that Iran has "enough low-enriched uranium" to give it the capacity to make a weapon "should they enrich it more highly." But he said the United States does not believe that Iran has the capability yet.

How to Express the Level of Outrage?

[I]As bad as what follows below, is the apparent fact that Obama is apparently ready to announce the US attendance at the Durban II Jewish Hate fest.
[/I]
[B]Obama Joins Human-Rights Charade[/B]
The United States is participating in a risible U.N. sideshow.

By Anne Bayefsky

Pres. Barack Obama has announced that the United States will seek a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council for the first time. The formal election of new members is in May, but the result is a foregone conclusion. The human-rights abusers who dominate the Council and use it to protect themselves, to eliminate universal standards, and to demonize their democratic foes are already celebrating.

This is a surrender of American values unlike any other. The spectacle of this particular president legitimizing a lethal weapon for the defeat of human rights will haunt him until the end of his term.

The Council was created in March 2006 after the U.N. Human Rights Commission became too much of an embarrassment even for the U.N. The General Assembly rejected a U.S. proposal requiring that states actually protect human rights as a condition of Council membership. As a result, the United States voted against the Assembly resolution that gave it birth.

The Bush administration also refused to use taxpayer dollars to pay for the Council. Obama's move will reverse this policy. It is, therefore, important to appreciate exactly what American tax dollars will now be purchasing. Here is a sample of what the Council has "accomplished" over its short history.

The Council has adopted a formal agenda of ten items that governs all its meetings. One agenda item is reserved for condemning Israel. This item is called the "human-rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories"; the human rights of Israelis are deliberately omitted. And one agenda item is assigned to the human rights of the remaining 99.9 percent of the world's population. By taking a seat on the Council, the United States will be agreeing to this agenda and to the resulting apportionment of the Council's time.

Every morning throughout the Council sessions, all U.N. member states meet to strategize and share information in one of the U.N.'s five regional groups. All that is, except Israel. At the Council, Israel is denied membership in any regional group, including the amalgam of Western states to which the United States belongs. The United States is, therefore, about to attend a continuous stream of meetings through doors effectively marked "no representatives of the Jewish people allowed."

The Council has had ten regular sessions concerning human rights worldwide and five special sessions to condemn Israel.

The Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all the other 191 U.N. member states combined.

The Council has terminated human-rights investigations of such paragons as Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Liberia.

The last time the Council took action on Sudan was seven months ago. The resolution on that country "acknowledges . . . the steps taken by the Government of the Sudan to strengthen the human-rights legal and institutional framework, principally in law reform." (The Sudanese criminal code prohibits homosexuality, makes adultery a capital offense, and provides for flogging, amputation, stoning, and crucifixion.)

The Council has just terminated every investigation of consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms." Under this heading, it has discontinued investigations of the likes of Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Even the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission had investigations under way every year since this process began in 1974.

The Council president has made a procedural ruling that any commentary connecting the practice of Islam to human-rights violations is out of order.

The Council has sabotaged the key resolution in the U.N. system on freedom of expression. The resolution now requires investigation of "abuses of the right of freedom of expression" . Most Council members do not permit freedom of expression, much less suffer from the abuse of it.

The Council regularly adopts resolutions on the "defamation of religions,"an overt attempt by Islamic states to stymie free speech of individuals in the name of protecting "religion."

The Council has made repeated efforts to circumvent universal principles. It has spawned numerous entities charged with searching for "normative gaps" — with the intention of filling them with sharia exemption clauses.

The Council has created an investigator charged with reporting on respect for "cultural diversity" (read: the refusal to hold Islamic states to universal standards of human rights). Not surprisingly, this plan was spearheaded by some of the worst human-rights abusers on the planet: Iran, Syria, Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela, and Belarus.

The Council's one new device — the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) — was heralded as introducing a careful examination of all U.N. states without discrimination. What actually happens is that a series of human-rights abusers congratulate one another, avoid any serious scrutiny, and then denigrate the democracies that agreed to the travesty in the first place.

It is true that some human-rights groups are willing to admit there is a problem with the Human Rights Council. But they still insist that Obama's decision to participate in this sham raises the prospect of change from the inside. They are mistaken.

Serious reform of the U.N. Human Rights Council is impossible. The United States failed to win over a majority of U.N. members to the idea of minimal preconditions for Council membership because the majority of U.N. members are not fully free democracies and have no interest in introducing democratic hurdles for anything they do. On the Council itself, the majority of seats are held by the African and Asian regional groups, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has a majority in both of these groups. That means the OIC holds the balance of power. The more time the Council spends demonizing Israel, the less likely it becomes that it will ever get around to condemning genocide in Sudan, female slavery in Saudi Arabia, or torture in Egypt.

[B]President Obama's decision to bring the United States into the Council is a gift for his political adversaries. The Council and its many subsidiary bodies meet almost year round, and many of their proceedings are webcast. Every time the president makes a speech about human dignity, the welfare of minorities, the equality of women, or an end to torture, his critics can circulate another picture of the hapless American representative to the Council glued to his chair during the adoption of yet another decision trashing human rights — with the United States paying the bill.[/B]

Human-rights victims will rue the day that the United States legitimized this morally bankrupt institution. President Obama will, too.

European Socialists to Obama: ENOUGH!!!

That's right, at the G-20, Britain's Gordon Brown, the same Gordon Brown that simply nationalized his nations banking system, and Nicholas Sarkozy both told Obama enough is enough with the governmental takeover of business.

Can you imagine? This is after Obama gave away the right for American corporations to run themselves.

That's right, the G-20 now has the right to regulate salaries, disclosure, and other facets of corporate life here in the US.

This of course, after Obama said to the world, mea culpa, it's all our fault.

What the fuck are you people thinking with this guy?

How far left have we swung? Part 1

So far that the Labor Party in Israel, which was founded, like all "Labor" Parties around the world, as essentially socialist (in Israel, it was not essentially, but in fact, socialist), are now described by the wire services, and the New York Times, as "centrist".

When Socialism is centrist, you know the pendulum has overreacted.

How far left have we swung? Part 2

So far, that the NY Times is complaining that the government is not going far ENOUGH to intervene in business.

Can you say - totalitarianism?

Is Michael Steele insane?

Leading up to this past Sunday's morning shows, I held a fairly low opinion of Michael Steele. I simply didn't know what he had ever done to justify being the head of the RNC, but more importantly, he had never particularly impressed me, either as a candidate (Lt. governor?) or as an intellect.

But this past Sunday, he went off on such tangents, and had the bizarre look in his eyes like a mild schizophrenic. It was really frightening. His "President Obama has something personal against me" immediately after stating that they had never met, was truly bizarre.

Why are the Republicans so desperate to have a black man lead them that they put this empty suit, in charge?

If he reminds me of anyone, it is Nancy Pelosi, another truly empty suit.

The GOP is really in trouble.

Did you sign up for this?

I simply do not know anymore, how to express my absolute shock at what is going on in this country.

When the Bush administration bailed out the banks, it was bad enough, but that was all done roughly within the confines of existing systems, i.e. the promises through existing government "insurance" programs and what had been come to be called the "implied AAA" rating of institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But is anyone paying attention here?

His royal highness is now the acting CEO of Chrysler and GM.

They are setting the boards of directors of these companies. Determining the Presidents and CEO's.

Chief Tax cheat Geithner goes in front of Congress and says that he needs authority to take over any company that they determine should be taken over.

Huh?

The administration has told employees that they have to accept GM stock in replacement for their retirement plans.

Can you say Enron? Isn't that what the last financial disaster was about?

The next few posts will go into some of the literally impossible to believe actions going on that are just flying over the heads of the American public.

I am just stunned that this is happening without a word of protest.

This EXACTLY what we were bitching about with Vladimir Putin over the last few years.

Oh, and btw, did anyone notice the 2 for exchange of troops foing from Iraq to Afghanistan? You know the troop withdrawal designed by the Iraqis in conjunction with Bush, that Obama adhered to, just as I said he would, but is now sending double these numbers to that death zone.

Anyway, back to the economy. The government is now guaranteeing the cars?

Right, when was the last time the government micromanaged successfully? Come on people, wake the fuck up!!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! ..................... oooops, sorry!

Funny that no one noticed the irony of Obama's Nooruz message to the Iranian people, and more importantly, the government, last week.

Did anyone tell the imperial leader that the holiday that he was sending greeting for is illegal in Iran?

Ha, ha, funny joke right? Nope.

Nooruz is a Persian holiday, which, although still celebrated surreptitiously in Iran, is illegal according to the Sharia Law under which the country operates.

Also not noticed by the mainstream press was the immediate letter sent by the leading dissident/democratic movement in Iran, to his royal highness Obama.

It practically begged him to change course, describing his stated change in course as being potentially disastrous for hopes of change in Iran.

Adding to the humorous, (well, it would be humorous if you didn't live in Iran, and weren't one of the ones beheaded) nature of the President's buffoonery, was the almost simultaneous release of the State Department's report on the suppression of religious freedom around the world.

The two most repressive nations, as found by Obama's State Department? Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Funny, but at the same time, the report noted the fact that these two nations also lead the world in beheading religious dissidents.

Oooops, sorry, my bad!! Says OHHH!!Bama

Hey ma, what's on TV?

A report was prepared for the Canadian parliament by Palestinian Media Watch, an organization run by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, a Canadian.

If anyone is interested, you can send me a message and I will send you the full PDF, or the link where you can read it.

Palestinian Media Watch

Special Report - March 25, 2009
Canada and the Palestinian Authority

Canada's Foreign Policy Misled by PA:
Canadian funding conditions consistently violated

More than a year after the Annapolis conference,
the Palestinian Authority continues to mislead donor countries.
In English, it talks peace, but in Arabic, it:

# denies Israel's existence

# incites hatred

# promotes terror and glorifies terrorists


By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Executive Summary
The Annapolis Conference in November 2007 created hope for the renewal of a peace process after years of Palestinian Authority (PA)-supported terror. PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas assured Israel and the world in English that there had been a sincere change.
However, in Arabic the Palestinian Authority, Fatah leaders and the Abbas-controlled official PA media are no more peaceful towards Israel than they were during the Arafat era. In fact, during the 12 years of PMW's existence, there has never been a period of such intense demonization of Israel, continuous hate promotion, terror glorification, and open denial of Israel's existence by the PA (Fatah) and the Abbas-controlled media than what we have witnessed in 2008 - 2009.

Canadian Funding of the Palestinian Authority
Canada halted funding for the Palestinian Authority after the January 2006 Palestinian Authority general elections led to the formation of a Hamas government:

"Canada became the first donor to suspend aid to the Palestinian Authority on Wednesday, saying the new Hamas-led government had failed to give assurances that it would recognize Israel's right to exist." [Reuters, March 29, 2006]

Canada reinstituted funding for the PA in July 2007 after the split between Fatah and Hamas. On Dec. 17, 2007, at the Conference of Donors for the Palestinian Territories, Canadian Foreign Minister Bernier announced:

"Canada is increasing support to the peace process through additional assistance to Palestinian reform and development... Canada will commit $300 million over the next five years to build security, governance and prosperity."

This commitment included a clear stipulation of specific expectations:

"Our funding is not unconditional," said Minister Bernier... "This contribution will be conditional on progress in negotiations and Palestinian reforms. In every facet of our work, we will devote special attention to the issues of hatred and incitement of violence."
(News Release, Dec. 17, 2007 Website of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada International.gc.ca)

To this day, Canada continues to fund the Palestinian Authority based on the English- language assurances by PA leader Abbas that he accepts Israel's right to exist, rejects terror, and does not incite to hatred and violence.

This report shows that in its own Arabic media, aimed at a Palestinian audience, the Palestinian Authority violates all these conditions.

1. Denial of Israel's existence, calls for Israel's destruction:
Examples:
a. Muhammad Dahlan, a senior PA official, stated plainly on official PA TV: " I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today." [PA TV March 17, 2009]

b. A PA TV educational geography program has been broadcast regularly since August 2007, and most recently in January 2009, teaching there is no Israel and all of Israel is "Palestine: "
"... another section in Palestine ...Ashkelon in the south, until Haifa, in the Carmel Mountains. Haifa is a well-known Palestinian port... To its north, we find Acre. East of Acre, we reach a city with history and importance, the city of Tiberius, near a famous lake, the lake of Tiberius [Kinneret- Sea of Galilee]. Jaffa, an ancient coastal city, is the bride of the sea, and Palestine's gateway to the world."

Note that all of these are Israeli cities, spread over the entire country.

c. Official PA schoolbooks describe a Middle East without Israel:
"Coastal states differ in terms of their access to water sources, such as...: states located on sea coasts with accesses to two seas, for example: Palestine and Egypt to the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea."
[Physical Geography and Human Geography, Grade 12, p. 105]

"Palestine has a long coast facing the Mediterranean sea and a short coast on the Gulf of Aqaba."
[Health and Environment Studies, Grade 8 (2003), p. 130]
Note that the Israeli city of Eilat is on the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba).

"... The Tiberias Lake [Sea of Galilee], in Palestine"
[Physical Geography, Grade 5, p. 25]

Israel is painted over in the colors of the PLO flag in PA government Census Bureau announcements. These announcements were aired on PA TV (Fatah) - often several times a day - during and after the Annapolis conference at the end of 2007. Maps similar to this one continue to appear on official web sites in 2009 [see below].

2. Hatred is actively promoted as policy for children and adults. Hate videos, libels and lies remain a backbone of PA TV.
Examples:
a. The official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, has propogated a long-standing blood libel against Israel, falsely accusing Israel of conducting horrific Nazi-like medical experiments on Palestinian prisoners:
"Many of the male and female inmates received injections from needles they had not seen before, and which caused their hair and facial hair to fall out permanently ... others lost their sanity, or their mental condition is constantly deteriorating... and some are suffering from infertility." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 4, 2008]

b. Another wild accusation concerns the deployment of "supernatural rats" against Arab residents of Jerusalem's Old City:
"... [Israeli] settlers have been bringing chests filled with rats and releasing them in the Old City's [Arab] neighborhoods... the [Arab] residents' efforts to counter this infestation have failed, especially since cats run away from these rats because of their size and ferocity... All of the conventional efforts to kill them have not succeeded... which compels Jerusalem's [Arabs] today to face the dangers of settlement and the infestation of rats..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 18, 2008]

c. PA TV has been broadcasting a music video from 2007 to February 2009, with the repeated refrain, "My enemy, my enemy." Israel is called a "snake, coiled around the land." The hate video denies Israel's right to exist and anticipates Israel's destruction: "You have no choice, O enemy, but to leave my country."

3. The PA openly glorifies not only past but current terrorists, venerating terrorist murderers - even those who have murdered since Annapolis.
Examples:
a. The suicide terrorist in the Israeli city of Dimona, the killer of the eight Jerusalem yeshiva students, arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyeh and other terrorists were all glorified as Palestinian heroes in official PA newspapers and television in 2008.

b. In February 2009 the PA glorified the terrorist who murdered three civilians and seven Israeli soldiers in a 2002 ambush. The terrorist and his action were praised as "the hero of the Intifada... [doing] what tens of brigades and platoons, and hundreds of missiles and heroic stories, failed to do."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 17, 2009]

c. On March 11, 2009, PA TV broadcast a special program commemorating and celebrating the 30th anniversary of the most deadly terror attack ever carried out in Israel - a bus hijacking that left 37 civilians dead. The program opened with the narrator glorifying this attack as "one of the most important and most prominent special operations, executed by the Palestinian revolution by sea, on the coast between Haifa and Tel Aviv. This operation, carried out by a team of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi... ."

4. Far from distancing itself from earlier Arafat ideologies, the PA leadership continues to advocate Israel's destruction.
Example:
PA Fatah MP: "It doesn't mean that we don't want the 1948 borders [i.e. destroy Israel], but in our current political program, we [Fatah] say we want a state on the 1967 borders..."
[PA TV Aug. 25, 2008]

Contrary to the perception that Hamas alone preaches terror, violence and denial of Israel's right to exist, this PMW Special Report documents that the PA-Fatah leadership and media promote the same message. In contrast to the moderate message that it conveys to the English-speaking world, the Palestinian Authority's Arabic-language world continues to be imbued with hate promotion and promises of Israel's expected destruction.

Canada is directly funding
the responsible government frameworks.

The report

1. Denying Israel's right to exist, rejecting Israel's existence and advocating its destruction
2. Hate promotion and demonization for children and adults - PA Hate Media
2.1 Libels and lies
2.2 Hate through videos and demonization
3. Honoring and glorifying terror
3.1 Murderers since Annapolis deemed heroic
3.2 Other past terrorists - likewise deemed heroic
3.3 PA lauds terrorist-mass murderers as heroes
4. PA Political and Religious Leaders - hatred in Arabic
4.1 PM Mahmoud Abbas - in Arabic
4.2 Other PA political and religious officials (MPs, party leaders, etc.)
5. Conclusions

For those of you who still doubt my fears. And don't understand that the daily conversation about the Middle East has turned into a totally backward, anti semitic hate fest remiscent of 1930's Germany, the following cartoon appeared, not on some Neo Nazi website, or on the pages of The Egyptian Daily, but on the web site of the NY Times.

It was drawn by Pat Oliphant and was titled "Jack Boot Justice".
The clear reference to Nazism is obvious.

This is such a perversion of actual events (just like the quickly debunked stories of IDF soldiers purposely killing innocents) such a blatant, and disgusting anti semitic call to arms that no one can now deny it.

Obama getting ready to recognize Hamas?

March 22, 2009
Hamas's Free Lunch
By Caroline Glick

Today Hamas stands on the cusp of international acceptance. It may take a week or a month or a year, but today Hamas stands where Fatah and the PLO stood in the late 1980s. The genocidal jihadist terror group is but a step away from an invitation to the Oval Office. Two events in the past week show this to be the case.

First, last Saturday, The Boston Globe reported that Paul Volcker, who serves as President Barack Obama's economic recovery adviser, and several former senior US officials have written a letter to Obama calling for the US to recognize Hamas. As one of the signatories, Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser under president George H.W. Bush, explained, "I see no reason not to talk to Hamas."

Scowcroft further argued, "The main gist is that you need to push hard on the Palestinian peace process. Don't move it to end of your agenda and say you have too much to do. And the US needs to have a position, not just hold their coats while they sit down."

Congressional sources claim that Obama has selected Scowcroft to replace Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council.

The second reason that it is becoming apparent that the Obama administration is poised to recognize Hamas is that on Thursday, Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman held talks at the State Department with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and enjoined the administration to support the reestablishment of a Hamas-Fatah unity government to control and reunify the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and Judea and Samaria.

This is significant because it is becoming apparent that top administration officials only meet with people who tell them what they want to hear.

Case in point is IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi's trip this week to Washington. Ashkenazi went to the US to brief top administration officials on Iran's progress toward a nuclear bomb. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Ashkenazi's counterpart, Adm. Michael Mullen, both managed to be out of town. Defense Ministry sources say that Ashkenazi only met with National Security Adviser James Jones, who reportedly wished to speak exclusively about the Palestinians, and with Clinton's Iran adviser Dennis Ross, whose role in shaping US policy toward Iran remains unclear.

Hamas, for its part, prefers the unconditional recognition recommended by Scowcroft and Volcker and their colleagues, (who include unofficial Obama advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton), over the option of forming a government with Fatah. After all, why should Hamas agree to share power with Fatah to gain international acceptance if Washington power brokers close to the administration endorse unconditional recognition of the terror group?

Scowcroft's statement that recognition of Hamas is necessary because "you need to push hard on the Palestinian peace process" is indicative of how
Obama's milieu views the peace process. For them, pushing hard on the peace process is more important than determining or even caring if the Palestinians involved in the said process are genocidal terror groups or not, or determining or even caring whether the said peace process has any chance whatsoever of leading to peace.

AND THE Obama view is not particularly new. After Hamas won the 2006
Palestinian elections, in the interest of the peace process, the US and the
EU placed certain conditions on Hamas which they claimed it would have to meet before the West would recognize it.

The US and Europe said they would recognize Hamas if it announced that it forswore terror, accepted Israel's right to exist, and committed itself to carrying out previous agreements signed between the PLO and Israel. The Americans and the Europeans undoubtedly viewed these conditions as a low bar to cross. After all, the PLO crossed it.

The West's conditions were given with a wink and a nod. Everyone understood that the only thing it wanted was for Hamas to say the magic words. They didn't have to be true. If Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh would just tell the US and Europe what they wanted to hear, all would be forgiven. Hamas -like the PLO before it - would be removed from the US and European terror lists. Billions would pour into the bank accounts of Hamas leaders in Gaza and Damascus. The CIA might even agree to train its terror forces.

It is obvious that all that the West wanted was for Hamas to lie to it, because that is all it ever required from the PLO. After Yasser Arafat said the magic words, the Americans and the Europeans were only too happy to ignore the fact that he was lying.

When immediately after signing the initial peace accord with Israel on the
White House lawn on September 13, 1993, Arafat flew to South Africa and gave a speech calling for jihad against Israel, no one cared.

When Arafat destroyed the free press in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and transformed the Palestinian media into propaganda organs calling for the eradication of Israel and the Jewish people, the world yawned.

When he launched his terror war against Israel and his US-trained forces began plotting and carrying out bombings of Israeli civilians, the US announced its chief goal in the Middle East was to establish a Palestinian state.

And when Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, announced that Fatah didn't accept Israel's right to exist and considered terrorism against Israel legitimate, he was declared the indispensable and sole legitimate Palestinian leader. Indeed, when his US-trained forces surrendered to Hamas in Gaza without a fight, the US showered an additional $80 million on Fatah forces.

ON TUESDAY, Fatah strongman and the West's favorite son of Palestine
Muhammad Dahlan tried to explain the facts of life to Hamas.

In an interview on PA television, Dahlan became the first senior Fatah official to openly admit that Fatah has never accepted Israel's right to exist. Dahlan denied reports that in the negotiations toward a Hamas-Fatah government, Fatah representatives are pressuring Hamas to recognize Israel.
In his words, "I want to say in my own name and in the name of all my fellow members of the Fatah movement, we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so because Fatah never recognized Israel's right to exist."

Dahlan went on to explain how the fiction worked. Arafat was the head of the PLO but also the head of Fatah. While as chairman of the PLO he recognized
Israel and pledged to end terrorism and live at peace with the Jewish state, as head of Fatah he continued his war against Israel. Dahlan even bragged that to date, Fatah has killed 10 times more Palestinians suspected of cooperating with Israel's counterterror operations (the same operations the PLO committed to assisting) than Hamas has.

Dahlan explained that all Hamas needs to do is to follow in Fatah's footsteps. It should say that the PA government accepts the West's terms, but in the meantime, those terms will remain inapplicable to Hamas as a "resistance group." In that way, Dahlan explained, Hamas will be able to receive all the West's billions in financial assistance.

As he put it, "Do you imagine that Gaza's reconstruction is possible under the shadow of this bickering between us and the international community?
[Gaza reconstruction] can only be dealt with by a government... that is acceptable to the international community so that we can... benefit from the international community."

Not surprisingly, Dahlan's statement went almost completely unnoted. Only
The Jerusalem Post and one or two other Jewish publications and a few anti-jihadist blogs made note of it. The US, European and pro-peace process Hebrew media all ignored it. No government spokesman anywhere in the world commented on it.

Unfortunately, though, for the likes of Dahlan and his admirers in the West, Hamas isn't interested in joining Fatah's fiction. It refuses to say those magic words. So now the West looks for ways to lower its bar still further.

THE WEST'S nonresponse to Dahlan's statements, like its growing eagerness to treat with Hamas despite Hamas's unabashed refusal to even lie about its intentions, tells us something important about what the West is actually doing when it says that its paramount interest is to advance the so-called peace process. It tells us the same thing that the West's courtship of Damascus and Teheran tells us about what the West means when it speaks of peace processes.

Syrian President Bashar Assad this week told Italy's La Repubblica newspaper that he and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were just a stone's throw away from a peace deal last year. Last week Assad participated in what was supposed to be an anti-Iranian conference in Saudi Arabia.

Both of Assad's gestures were meant to make the Americans feel comfortable as they renew their diplomatic relations with Syria, cast aside their backing for the UN tribunal set up to investigate Syria's assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, begin pressuring Israel to surrender the Golan Heights, and recognize Hamas.

And just as Arafat understood that after he said the magic words the West would ignore his bad behavior, so Assad knew that Washington and Paris would pay no attention when upon returning from Riyadh he announced that Syria's relations with Iran will never be weakened. He knew they will never question his false account of his indirect negotiations with Israel. He and Olmert couldn't have been a stone's throw away from a peace accord, because Assad refused to have any direct contact with Israel.

If Damascus is the state equivalent of the PLO, then Teheran is the state equivalent of Hamas. Today, as the mullahs sprint toward the nuclear finish line, the Obama administration is pretending that the jury is still out on whether or not the Islamic republic wants a nuclear arsenal. As with Hamas, so with Teheran, the Americans have dropped even the pretense of requiring a change in Iran's rhetorical positions as a precondition for diplomatic recognition. The US now pursues its diplomatic reconciliation with Teheran with the sure knowledge that this peace process will lead to Iran's emergence as a nuclear power.

So the question is, if the American and European pursuits of peace with Fatah, Hamas, Syria and Iran have not caused them to change their behavior one iota, what are the Western powers talking about when they say that it is imperative to push the peace process or engage the Syrians and the Iranians? After all, Western leaders must know that these processes are complete farces.

Sadly, the answer is clear. Western leaders are not pursuing peace in these processes. They are pursuing appeasement. They call this appeasement process a peace process for two reasons. First, they know their countrymen don't like the sound of appeasement. And second, by claiming to be championing the noble goal of peace in our time, they feel free to attack anyone who points out the folly of their actions as a warmongering member of the Israel Lobby.

New Proof of the myth of land for peace

In his exit interview for the Prime Ministership of Israel, Ehud Ohlmert has revealed just how far he went to make peace with the so called Palestinians.

How far? Farther than ANYONE, American, or Israeli has ever gone.

He promised them EVERYTHING. Every land request they had.

The 1967 lines? No. Ohlmert offered to pull back to the 1948 lines, thereby making Israel a sitting duck.

Not only did he offer these obscene territorial concessions, he even offered to build a bridge, or tunnel, whichever THEY preferred, linking Gaza to the West Bank.

And surprise surprise, just as every other time any Israeli leader made similar offers, the answer was an unhesitating NO.

Without "the right of return" there would be no peace. In other words, without allowing the so called Palestinians taking over all of Israel, there is no peace.

Land for Peace? Sure, when Israel disappears.