|
Sivan 21, 5768, 6/24/2008
Sarkozy and Land for Peaceby Steven Plaut
Sarkozy to Wife, fully clothed: Let's Move the Louvre Here! 
Perhaps the true French capital is not Paris at all, but Vichy
 Well, Sarkozy was in Jerusalem this week, and standing before the Knesset he called for Israel to agree to have Jerusalem divided, with half turned over to the savages. He also called for ethnic cleansing of the Jews living in the West Bank. These French politicians have long believed that peace could be created by turning Israel into a sort of Vichy appeasement regime. But now that they want to purchase peace with land, they may be on to something important. Never one to back down from a challenge, I have prepared a set of proposals for consideration by the French people, so they too can achieve a full, lasting, and just peace with their historic opponents.
First, we all agree that territory must not be annexed by force. Therefore, we can also agree that Germany has a moral right to demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine, for the French aggression in 1945 and its consequent occupation must not be rewarded. "A full withdrawal for full peace" should operate here. Further, France must agree to the return and rehabilitation of all ethnic Germans expelled from Alsace-Lorraine after World Wars I and II, as well as all those they define as their descendents.
But this, of course, is just the first step toward a solution, as no aggression can be rewarded—and France has much other stolen territory to return. It took Corsica from Genoa, Nice and Savoy from Piedmont; as the successor state, Italy must get back all these lands. By similar token, territories grabbed from the Habsburgs go back to Austria, including Franche-Comté, Artois, and historic Burgundy. The Roussillon area (along the Pyrenées) must be returned to Spain, its rightful owner. And Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, and Gascony must be returned to their rightful owners, the British royal family.
Not even this not enough for the sake of peace. Brittany and Languedoc must be granted autonomy at once, recognizing the Breton and Occitan Liberation organizations as their legal rulers. This leaves the French government in control over the Île de France (the area around Paris).
That, however, still does not solve the problem of the Holy City of Paris, sacred to artists, gourmets, and adulterers. The Corsicans obviously have a historic claim to the Tomb of the Emperor Napoleon, their famed son, as well as the Invalides complex and beyond. For the sake of peace, is it not too much to ask that Paris be the capital for two peoples? The French authorities must agree to prevent French Parisians from even entering the sacred tomb area, lest this upset the Corsicans.
The Saint Chapelle and the Church of Notre Dame of course will be internationalized, under joint Vatican-art historical auspices. Indeed, the French should consider it a compliment of the highest order that so many people see Paris as an international city.
The French have nothing to complain of. They will enjoy the benefits of peace and retain control of the Champs Elysées.
Actually, come to think of it, even the Champs Elysées may be too much. Recalling the French position that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, perhaps the true French capital is not Paris at all, but Vichy.
|
 
|
Sivan 17, 5768, 6/20/2008
Good Lynch, Bad Lynch - Haaretz Displays its Integrityby Steven Plaut
Suddenly, this week the "T" word appears on Haaretz' front page
AH, Haaretz, the Palestinian newspaper printed in Hebrew, the daily whose idea of journalistic "pluralism" is based on Brezhnev's Pravda, the newspaper in which Israel (and America) are always wrong and the Islamofascists are always right, the newspaper of Post-Zionism and Post-Judaism, where Israeli survival is an archaic idea whose time has past. Haaretz, or Al-Ard in Arabic, has for many years adopted the quaint custom of anti-Semitic newspapers elsewhere in referring to suicide bombers and mass murderers of Jews as "activists" and "militants." You know, like the people who march to defend the self-esteem of dolphins. Yet suddenly, this week the "T" word appears on Haaretz' front page. "T" as in terrorist. How come? Well, the news story concerns Eden Natan-Zada, a mentally ill Israeli soldier (actually a deserter) who shot up Shfaram in October 2005 and killed several Druse and Arabs. Shfaram is about 40 minutes outside Haifa. He was then attacked by locals in the crowd who lynched him, killing him. Ever since, the Israeli Attorney General's office has been mulling over whether to prosecute the members of the mob who killed the by-then-disarmed Natan-Zada. This week, the prosecution decided not to prosecute. Every second word referring to Natan-Zada in the Haaretz articles about the decision refers to him as a "terrorist." He of course was not, although he was a killer, and probably was not legally sane. This is newsworthy because there have been cases in which Arab terrorists were apprehended live after they murdered Jews and who were then summarily executed by those who captured them. In every one of these cases, those who dispatched the terrorhoids were prosecuted. The most famous incident being the Bus 300 affair. Now after the Natan-Zada incident, I called for the prosecution NOT to indict those who killed the perp. I also insisted that killing terrorists should never be considered a crime, even when Jews kill captured Arab terrorists, and that the decision not to prosecute Natan-Zada should be regarded as case precedent for ALL who kill terrorists, even when the lynchers are Jews. I thought that those who executed the terrorists in the Bus 300 affair should have been given medals. I am all in favor of lynching terrorists captured immediately after they commit mass murder. Now Haaretz is also in favor of such lynching, but only when the perp is a Jew and the victims Arabs. Haaretz is NEVER in favor of punishing Arab terrorists who murder Jews, and of course opposes the death penalty for Arab terrorists. Which brings us to the Haaretz editorial in the very same issue (June 16) in which it cheers the decision by the AG not to indict the killers of Natan-Zada. In the very same issue, it runs an editorial demanding that a Jewish farmer in the Negev who shot Arab burglars who had broken into his small ranch be indicted! In January 2007 one Shai Dromi shot two Arabs who had broken into his homestead, trying to steal his sheep, and he killed one and injured the other. The Attorney General prosecuted him. The Knesset decided to take an uncharacteristic stand against this case of prosecutorial politization and judicial tyranny by starting to pass (it already passed its "first reading") a special law, known in the media as the Shai Dromi Law, declaring that people who kill or injure burglars and intruders into their homes will not be prosecuted. The farm lobby took time off from lobbying for cheap water and subsidies to back the bill. Haaretz of course is outraged! This law would be nothing less than a " license to kill." What about their Miranda rights? I cite the editorial: 'The new law will lead to killing to no avail, and could include people accidentally harming members of their own family. True, a man's home is his castle, and he has to be granted the right of self-defense therein, but it is not permissible to shed the blood of someone who enters the house, even if he is a burglar. The place of thieves is in prison, but they must not be turned into the victims of executions. Nor is it reasonable to extend the rights granted to a person in his home to his yard, store or flock as well.' So when is it okay in Haaretz' opinion to kill intruders? When they are Jewish "intruders" in "Palestinian lands," of course!
|
|
Iyar 22, 5768, 5/27/2008
Haaretz Streetwalks for Neo-Nazi Norman Finkelsteinby Steven Plaut
The funniest thing in the Israeli media this week has got to be the editorial in Haaretz criticizing the decision by Israeli intelligence not to allow Neo-Nazi Norman Finkelstein to enter Israel. Haaretz thinks he should have been allowed in, you know - all in the name of political pluralism. 
Finkelstein lecturing behind new Haaretz banner draped on podium Finkie is a professional anti-Semite. I mean that quite literally. His profession is being an anti-Semite. He was fired last summer by DePaul University due to his complete absence of academic research publications and has been unemployed ever since, living off you know who. Finkie churns out "books" devoted to bashing Jews and Israel. He is best known for his "book," The Holocaust Industry, which claims that Holocaust survivors are frauds, liars, and hoaxsters, who extort Germany. Finkelstein is widely regarded as a Holocaust Denier, maintains intimate ties with Holocaust Deniers, has repeatedly declared himself a great fan of Holocaust Denier David Irving, and claims Zionists exaggerate the scope of the Holocaust in order to oppress Arabs (he always writes "Six Million" with quote marks). He also is an infantile vulgar buffoon. He commissioned a cartoon by Brazilian Neo-Nazi cartoonist Latuff showing Prof. Alan Dershowitz masturbating while watching Lebanese civilians die. Finkelstein is also for all intents and purposes a spokesman for the Hezbollah, and was in Lebanon during the war two summers back, cheering on Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel. The reason the SHABAK gave him the bum's rush from Israel last week was not because he was anti-Semitic. No shortage of leftist anti-Semites enter Israel all the time, and some even have tenure at Ben Gurion University (which, unlike DePaul, gives its anti-Semitic pseudo-academics tenure; BGU's Neve Gordon has devoted much of his career to promoting and praising Finkelstein). Rather, the bum's rush was because of Finkelstein's ties to Hezbollah terror. The US a while back denied entry to Tariq Ramadan, a radical Islamist professor in Geneva, for exactly the same reason - namely, proof of ties to terrorists. There is no entitlement for anti-Semites to enter Israel. And Finkelstein, who should not be regarded as a Jew at all, would not be able to enter Israel under the Law of Return (Haaretz insistence to the contrary notwithstanding) for the same reason that Meyer Lansky could not. Now what should we make of Haaretz, the Palestinian daily published in Hebrew (my colleague Arnon Sofer dubs it al-'Ard), suddenly getting all weepy-eyed about political pluralism? It would be touching, if not for the fact that Haaretz thinks pluralism is great everywhere except in Haaretz. The paper is less pluralistic than Pravda was back in the days of Brezhnev, and is less pluralistic than many papers in Arab countries. At Haaretz there is only a single opinion that may be expressed - the far-leftist Post-Zionist opinion of its editors. The Haaretz editorial bemoans Finkie getting the bum's rush, and says this is hypocritical because Israel does not prevent "Kahanists" from entering Israel. Of course, Finkie is a Neo-Nazi with documented ties to terrorists who openly demands that Jews be murdered in escalated terrorism and that Israel be annihilated. The main sin of the Kahanists is the expressing of opinions of which Haaretz disapproves. The very fact that Haaretz sees the two matters as morally and politically equivalent tells you volumes about the newspaper. And the fact that Haaretz has never come out against the silly arbitrary selective denial of freedom of speech in Israel to Kahanists also tells you a great deal about the newspaper's ideas of political pluralism, democracy, and freedom of expression.
|
|
Back to Sanity
by Arutz 7 Analysts
This is how we return to sanity - by listening to good people.
Insightful and analytical, passionate and authentic, with biting wit and masterful writing - our bloggers are a source of crystal clarity in this time of confusion. |
