Inside Israel 2:42 AM 12/11/2013
Inside Israel 1:13 AM 12/11/2013
Middle East 4:45 AM
Ask the Rabbi
News & Call-In with Tamar Yonah
What has happened to George W. Bush?
In his address at the UN on Tuesday, the president spent more time talking about the need for creating a Palestinian state than he did about the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran.
Just take a look at the speech, which is filled with mealy-mouthed boilerplate taken straight out of the State Department's files, and you'll see what I mean.
Indeed - three huge paragraphs in the text are devoted exclusively to Israel and the Palestinians, as though that were the central problem facing the world today.
In fact, Bush devoted more verbiage to the Palestinian issue than he did to Iraq, Afghanistan and Darfur combined!
There is no mention of sanctions on Iran should they continue to pursue nuclear weapons, no talk of isolating them diplomatically, economically or militarily, and not one line – not one single line! – explaining the danger that nuclear-armed mullahs in Teheran would pose to the future of the world.
But perhaps the most astonishing part of the speech was this: "The leaders of Hamas campaigned on a platform of ending corruption and improving the lives of the Palestinian people, and they prevailed. The world is waiting to see whether the Hamas government will follow through on its promises, or pursue an extremist agenda."
Sorry, George, but no one should still be "waiting to see" whether Hamas will pursue an "extremist agenda" – for that is exactly what they have been doing since the very first moment they came into existence.
Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel from Palestinian-controlled territory, they are smuggling in arms and ammunition, and they are holding abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit incommunicado since kidnapping him back in July. Isn’t that extreme enough?
Perhaps the President was just having a bad day on Tuesday, or maybe by accident he pulled up a speech from the Clinton era and used it instead of his own.
But if his statement at the UN truly reflects his policy agenda, then the world is in deeper trouble than it realizes.
Call it "the news not deemed worthy of reporting".
Several days ago, Palestinian terrorists in Gaza resumed firing rockets into Israel, and they have been doing so on a daily basis – but you won't read much about it in the international press.
Indeed, just this morning, three Qassam rockets landed in Israel's western Negev region. One of them hit the town of Sderot, leaving one person lightly wounded and two others requiring treatment for shock.
And so, a familiar pattern repeats itself – the Palestinians launch unprovoked rocket attacks against the Jewish state which are ignored by the media, so that when Israel finally does take action to defend itself, the international community inevitably views Israel as responsible for starting the violence.
That is what makes "alternative" media such as this website - Arutz 7 Israel National News - so important, because if you rely only on outlets like the New York Times to get your information, you just won't be getting the whole picture.
From the streets of Ramallah to the caves of Afghanistan, terrorists around the world were celebrating this week, as they commemorate the anniversary of not just one - but two - of their biggest coups against Israel and the West.
This past Monday, of course, was 9/11, the day upon which Osama Bin-Laden declared war on America. With a few sharp instruments in hand, and a lot of fanatical determination, Bin-Laden's henchmen succeeded in carrying out the largest act of mass murder ever committed on US soil, killing over 3,000 innocent human beings.
They set a chilling new standard for international terrorism, both in terms of the audacity of their assault, as well as the insolence of their aim: to undermine the very pillars of Western civilization. For that alone, Bin-Laden and his cohorts have earned a central place in the annals of infamy.
But September 11 is not the only significant occasion appearing on the terrorists' calendar this week.
There is another date as well, one that embodies just how crafty the practitioners of terror have become. It is 9/13, the date on which Yasser Arafat stood on the White House Lawn 13 years ago and signed the Oslo Accords, professing peace even as he was pursuing war.
With just a pen and a smile, Arafat succeeded in fooling the government of Israel and much of the West into believing that he had cast aside his boundless hatred and replaced it with a newfound yearning for reconciliation and peace.
Arafat's ultimate goal, as the ongoing Palestinian terror campaign has amply demonstrated, was no less lethal nor depraved than that of his Saudi-born colleague: to kill as many people as possible, all in the hopes of bringing his foes to their knees.
Though different in form and in substance, 9/11 and 9/13 do share one important trait in common: they both exemplify the danger of Western inaction when confronting an implacable enemy.
Remember: 9/11 was the second, not the first, attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in Manhattan. In 1993, a truck bomb exploded underneath one of the towers, killing six Americans. Had the Clinton Administration reacted as it should have, and launched its own war on terror, had it hunted down the perpetrators and refused to rest until Osama Bin-Laden was behind bars, who knows how much pain and suffering and even death might later have been averted?
Once Bin-Laden had joined the ranks of international terrorists, he should have been treated accordingly. But the sad fact is that he wasn't, and on 9/11, we all learned just how shortsighted and deadly that decision proved to be.
The same can be said for Israel's willingness in 1993 to sign an accord with Yasser Arafat, treating him as a lofty statesman rather than a lowly killer. Brushing aside three decades of PLO terror, the government of Israel handed Arafat the keys to Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and allowed him to create a corrupt, authoritarian terrorist entity straddling the Jewish state's narrow boundaries.
It was a sad exercise in self-delusion. The desire to appease the enemy led Israel's leaders to think that yesterday's murderer could serve as today's peace-partner.
Instead, had Israel acted as it should have, arresting Arafat and trying him for murder, rather than transforming him into a head of state, who knows how much turmoil and bloodshed might have been prevented?
All told, over 1,000 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian terrorists since the signing of the Oslo Accords, which is nearly twice the number that were killed in the 25 years that preceded the agreement. Clearly, the decision to accommodate Palestinian terror, rather than eliminate it, has proven to be a grave and fateful error on Israel's part.
The lesson, then, of this week's two anniversaries should be clear: the only way to get rid of terrorism is to get rid of the terrorists.
Apathy and appeasement may buy a few years of quiet. But in the end, the price of refusing to respond forcefully to terror is, inevitably, still more terror, and on a much larger scale.
With a little more foresight, and a lot more courage, the events of 9/11 and 9/13, and the destruction that was wrought as a result, might never have come to pass.
Let us hope and pray that Washington and Jerusalem will at last act to ensure that they never again recur.
Jacques Chirac has done it again.
The man who sought to protect his buddy Saddam from being toppled from power, has now stepped into the fray in an effort to salvage the terrorists of Hizbullah.
After taking the unusually cooperative step of producing a draft resolution together with the US, Chirac has now back-tracked, insisting that revisions be made to the text in order to satisfy Arab demands.
Speaking on Wednesday after meeting with some of his cabinet ministers, Chirac was critical of the US, saying that it would be "most immoral" not to impose an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon.
Since when is it "immoral" to hunt down terrorists and eliminate the threat they pose to civilization?
Essentially, France wants to try to save Hizbullah by forcing Israel to stop its assault against the terrorist group. Motivated by a desire to please its Arab friends (and business partners), France is once again taking the lead in providing diplomatic cover to terrorists.
Indeed, France has long been one of the main opponents of designating Hizbullah as a terrorist organization and has blocked the EU from doing so.
So, once again, Jacques Chirac has tried to earn a few cheap political points domestically by "standing up" to the US and asserting France's contrarian view – even if it means allying himself diplomatically with the aggressors and the terrorists.
It's not surprising, nor unexpected, but it is disappointing nonetheless. Will the French leadership ever learn?
The world became a whole lot safer yesterday, after the US took out Iraqi terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Israel eliminated his Palestinian counterpart, Jamal Abu Samhadana.
In both instances, solid intelligence backed by a healthy dose of airpower neutralized these two evil men, whose daily regimens consisted of trying to figure out how to murder as many innocent human beings as possible.
Samhadana was far less well-known in the West than al-Zarqawi, but that does not take away from his heinous record of bloodshed, which included attacks on Israeli soldiers and involvement in the October 2003 bombing of a US diplomatic convoy in Gaza.
Both these men deserved what they got, and got what they deserved, and we should all be grateful to the US and Israeli military forces for a job well done.
Not surprisingly, the Palestinians came out into the streets to protest – not just against the killing of Samhadana, but also of Zarqawi too.
The fact that they identify with that ruthless thug, and mourn his passing, should be proof enough that they neither warrant nor merit Western understanding or support.