Archive for ‘Gaza’

June 30, 2009

If Andrew Sullivan is not stupid . . .

. . . he must be trying to deceive people. No alternative explanation works, when he describes me thus:

Robert Stacy McCain, a supporter of the genocide of Palestinians in Israel, in a blog-post that has to be one of the most single-mindedly bigoted diatribes I have read. And I’ve read a few.

So says the Trig-Truther impressario of The Atlantic Monthly, in honoring me with yet another “Malkin Award” nomination, my fourth since February. Earlier today, I paused for a moment to pray and Andrew may therefore be an angel unaware. God bless you, sir, for providing me this opportunity to elaborate on important principles of rhetoric.

Right-click that “genocide” hotlink up there, and choose “open in new window” from the pulldown menu so that you may read Andrew’s Feb. 20 post in a new browser window. (Alt+Tab to toggle between the two.) Andrew quoted this:

Swear to God, if [the Israelis] ever want a Gentile prime minister, my first order would be to deploy the IDF in a north-south line, facing east. My second order would be “forward march” and the order to halt would not be given until it was time for the troops to rinse their bayonets in the Jordan. After a brief rest halt, the order “about face” would be given, and the next halt would be at the Mediterranean coast.

To which Andrew replied, “Words fail.” No, sir. Perhaps your understanding fails, but words do not.

“If” is the largest two-letter word in the English language, proposing a contingency or hypothetical. If Andrew Sullivan were hung like porn star . . .

The more farfetched the hypothetical, the more we should consider what follows “if” to be hyperbole, that is to say, an expression carried to an extreme. Argument by hypothesis always involve the risk that some dullard will fail to grasp the point being expressed and incorrectly suppose that one actually desires the scenario described.

Therefore, it becomes unfortunately necessary to reveal that my campaign to become the first Gentile prime minister of Israel was intended as a jest. Furthermore, my tactical plan for Palestinian “genocide” (actually, Andrew, it would be mere ethnic cleansing, since they’d have the opportunity to flee the advancing IDF bayonets) was a hyperbole, a sort of verbal clue that the reader had reached the punchline.

There is truth in humor, of course, and anyone who wishes to read the entirety of my Feb. 20 post may attempt to discern what truth I meant to express. The title and first paragraph:

Glenn Greenwald: ‘No anti-Semite could
possibly hate me worse than I hate myself’

Well, that’s the subconscious meaning of his latest column in his ongoing effort to win the Nobel Prize in literature with his wicked satire of a stereotypical self-hating Jew. . . .

Greenwald is one of these people who has never seen a fight between a Jew and an Arab for which he did not blame the Jew. My Feb. 20 post begins by discussing a category of critics of the U.S.-Israel alliance that includes some of my paleocon/libertarian friends, remarking that one cannot dismiss all such critics as anti-Semites: “The world is more complex than that.”

Being notorious myself, I hesitate to attach the evil stigma of anti-Semitism, an implicit accusation of mala fides, on those who are attempting to offer serious comment on serious matters of policy. Whether it’s James Pinkerton, Pat Buchanan or Taki Theodoracopulos, only conclusive evidence of irrational and irredeemable Jew-hatred will suffice.

Perhaps I am too tolerant in this regard, just as I am too patient in hoping that David Frum will reconsider his “Unpatriotic Americans” anathema against Robert Novak, et al. Similarly, I may perhaps be too hopeful that there is still within Andrew Sullivan’s soul some shred of conscience that would cause him to retract the accusation that I am an advocate of “genocide.”

This essay will be extended over the next several hours. I had other things I meant to do today, but it seems the angels meant otherwise. So if you’ll do me a favor, refresh this post in a couple hours. Meanwhile, the waitress has arrived with your check. (Click the link, buddy. She’s a hot redhead.)

UPDATE: My buddy tipped the waitress in a respectable manner, but a certain resident of Connecticut — maybe Ed’s got a thing for redheads — doubled that tip. My gratitude to both these gentlemen, and to the several others who know how To Insure Prompt Service. Hope you’re all enjoying this latest spectacle, which now continues . . .

Kathy Shaidle is the Only Canadian Who Matters, a woman of such excellent character that I am tempted to forgive the Northern Menace for foisting Neil Young upon us. Lead me not into temptation.

It was she, the diminuitive Canadian, who seized upon the “Ransom Note Method” as the key to understanding a certain species of ad hominem by which the Left cuts-and-pastes various remarks and assembles them into a dossier of distortion, like a kidnapper gluing together a ransom note.

The primary purpose of such an attack is to depict the target — among others, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have both received this treatment — as a person of such despicable sentiments, guilty of such vile hatreds, that no respectable person can view them as anything but a bogeyman, a demon, an agent of evil.

For decades, the “Ransom Note Method” has been employed against the Left’s enemies, living and dead, and has repeatedly achieved not only its primary purpose, but also its secondary purpose: To intimidate and confuse the Right, to cause them to ostracize those conservatives who are most dangerous to the Left, and to discourage other conservatives from engaging in direct confrontation with the ideological foe.

Kathy don’t scare easy. To quote our hero J. Coddington Van Voorhees VII (“Coddy,” to his friends), I like the cut of her jib. And now that a few people have begun to discern the methods and objectives of the Ransom Not Method, the method’s effectiveness has been permanently impaired. It will soon be destroyed entirely and the Left will be deprived of one of its most reliable weapons.

You assholes picked a fight with the wrong Canadian. Kathy was called a “racist” for her full-throated criticism of Canada’s Orwellian political correctness, so that the book she co-authored cannot even be purchased via Amazon. But she has friends, among them Mark Steyn, and with friends like that, she can handle as many enemies as may come against her.

Welcome to the Camp of the Saints. Hit the tip jar, and come back in an hour or two, because I aim to make sure you get your money’s worth, folks:

“My God, Scarlett O’Hara!” said Tony peevishly. “When I start out to cut somebody up, you don’t think I’ll be satisfied with scratching him with the blunt side of my knife, do you? No, by God, I cut him to ribbons.”
Gone With The Wind

UPDATE 4:05 p.m.: James Joyner is an extraordinarily insightful writer, and when he calls me “perhaps the most skilled attention whore in all the blogosphere,” my instinctive reaction is, “Perhaps?”

Dr. Joyner began blogging in January 2003, when the ‘sphere was as tiny and helpless as little Trig Palin, and his excellent Outside the Beltway blog has grown along with it. The Good Doctor therefore may not appreciate the difficulties confronting a writer who got 6,000 visitors in March 2008 — his first month of full-time blogging — and who did not aim to fail at this new endeavor.

“Attention whore”? Heh. This implies that I would compose a quite risky 1,500-word analysis of anti-Palinism merely to gain attention. (Check the gazongas on that redhead!) Yet it is a fact, one which too many journalists fail to appreciate, that there is no point writing something if no one is reading it.

Dr. Joyner comes from an academic background where entire careers are devoted to that sort of writing. If my prose style is . . . engaging, this is surely no sin in the realm of commercial writing. But I did not come here to argue with my dear friend James, rather to eviscerate Andrew Sullivan. (Just a figure of speech, a metaphor, a bit of engaging imagery to whet the appetite of the reader who is encouraged to suspect that Sully’s intestines will be displayed in the next update, in about an hour.)

UPDATE 4:52 p.m.: Before that interruption, I was discussing principles of rhetoric, namely, if you’re going to attack a man, destroy him.

Don’t shilly-shally around. Don’t snipe or gossip or kibbitz or damn him with faint praise. Be a man about it, and take him head-on, determined that when you finish, there shall be nothing left of his reputation except a smoldering crater and the hushed awe of the spectators.

To do otherwise is to advertise yourself as a soft target. That this principle could be applied to Israeli’s response to rocket attacks from Gaza might make Andrew Sullivan pause, if he were a thoughtful man. Or hung like a porn star.

Ken Layne’s attack on Sarah Palin, involving her son Trig, was astonishingly sadistic. I saw it at Professor William Jacobson’s blog — the Professor quotes it in full, so that you don’t have to click over to Wonkette to see it — and immediately forgot whatever it was I had planned to do before I saw it.

What could motivate Layne’s wanton viciousness? What did Sarah Palin ever do to him to deserve that? Rather, what could anyone ever do to provoke such cruelty? Nothing. Layne’s attack was a raw specimen of undiluted evil.

It reminded me of similar specimens of evil, also involving the governor and her infant son. Motherhood is among the many institution our society once revered, but which are now widely mocked and derided. As I pondered what sort of response Layne might deserve, I thought about that: Why is it Sarah Palin’s maternal qualities that Layne and others like him choose to attack?

A horror and hatred of . . . the “birth canal”?

UPDATE 5:44 p.m.: Hate to repeat myself, but . . . Heh. No point knocking yourself out, eliciting accusations of being a “single-minded bigot,” if nobody’s going to read it.

“Attention whore” or not, as I contemplated Layne’s attack on Palin, the exposed flank was clear. Like others, he seemed offended by motherhood.

Q. What manner of person would do this?
A. A vicious cocksucker.

Now, I have occasionally remarked on the forms of misogyny characteristic of gay-male culture. Others have made similar observations. There is a type of woman that gay men typically venerate — The Diva, e.g., Cher, Bette Midler, Liza, Madonna — and there are types of women that gay men typically despise, perhaps none more than that unglamorous stereotype, the frumpy housewife. If you add the descriptor “Christian” to “housewife,” it’s like chumming the waters near the Great Barrier Reef.

Why is this so? In Principles of Logic thirty years ago, our professor warned against any statement containing “all” or “always,” “none” or “never” (a danger that is best illustrated by Venn diagram). Nevertheless, one might describe the general attitude toward women in gay-male culture, without fear that this description could be fairly characterized as applicable to every gay man. Therefore . . .

Gay men have mother issues — and all that proceeded from there. And having written that and put it on the Internet, now I see that Andrew Sullivan finds fit to accuse me of advocating Palestinian “genoicide.” As Dana Carvey’s Church Lady might say, “How convenient.”

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful . . .

This essay can be extended and, if you refresh this page in about an hour, I think it will be. Do you really think I’m merely an “attention whore”? Or do you suppose that there is some reason I wanted your attention? Let the wise consider, and please hit the tip jar.

UPDATE 6:42: Referencing my discussion of gay culture’s influence in the fashion industry, a conservative blogger left a link to this:

Ladies, a question. Why did you allow gay men to become the arbiters of feminine beauty? Seriously, I want to know. Letting Penis Hilton judge a beauty pageant is like me asking Rosie O’Doughnuts for advice on how to be a real hunk . . .
Ladies, before I hear any more whining about society’s horrendous standards of beauty, consider who sets them, and consider who lets the deciders decide. . . .

Indeed, the artificial standards of the fashion industry are . . . unmerciful, you might say. Look at the ads in Cosmo. How many hetero guys consider anorexic 6-foot-tall heroin addicts to be ideal? Show of hands. Anyone?

Perhaps no skill is more important to survival than the ability to distinguish between a friend and an enemy. An honest enemy is less to be feared than a false friend. Military aircraft carry a signal device known as IFF (“Identify Friend or Foe”) the purpose of which is to prevent friendly-fire incidents, and to enable pilots to know that the enemy in their sights is indeed an enemy.

Women who turn to Cosmo seeking friendly advice are fools, as I explained years ago. And one of the basic problems in politics is quite similar. Republicans are forever listening to “friendly” advice from people who aren’t really their friends.

Ask Sarah Palin about that. She joined Crazy Cousin John’s campaign last year and found herself surrounded by arrogant know-it-all “advisers” whose advice struck her as wrongheaded, and now those same advisers appear as anonymous “campaign insiders” in vicious hit-pieces aimed at destroying her future viability as a candidate.

If Andrew Sullivan wants to be my enemy, this is his choice. I pity him too much to hate him, and his animosity harms me not at all. I wish he wouldn’t accuse me of genocide, but this ludicrous accusation hurts his credibility, not mine.

There were other things I might have added here, and perhaps I’ll add more later. But I’ve got to read this Vanity Fair article and see if I can deduce the identity of the sources. Then a nap, maybe, before preparing for my trip to Alabama.

Please tip your waitress. (Look at those gazongas!)

UPDATE 7:05 p.m.: If you criticize Somali immigrants for harassing a gay man, is your hatred of homophobia perhaps a form of xenophobia? Or is it just regular racism?

Whatever happened to multiculturalism, for crying out loud?

How dare you try to impose your values on those Somalis?! This is eliminationist rhetoric!

Advertisements
January 18, 2009

Ceasefire in Gaza

Israel runs out of fish in the barrel:

Israel called off its three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, saying Hamas was “badly beaten,” but the Islamist group vowed to fight on in a war that has killed 1,200 Palestinians in the coastal enclave.
Within minutes of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announcing that a unilateral ceasefire would start three hours later at 2 a.m. (0000 GMT) on Sunday, several missiles struck southern Israel.
“Conditions have been created whereby the goals set at the launch of the operation have been more than fully achieved,” Olmert said in a televised address from army headquarters.
He said Hamas’s ability to fire rockets at southern Israeli towns also had been severely limited.

Noah Pollak at Commentary:

Hamas is responding to the announcement with fresh barrages of rocket fire. Israel has recently been under immense international pressure to stop the offensive, including substantial pressure from the U.S. The unilateral nature of the cease-fire should be read in the context of Israel’s (and Egypt’s) desire to avoid direct Israeli negotiations with, and thereby the legitimization of, Hamas. By acting unilaterally, Israel affirms this policy of diplomatic isolation.

The timing of the ceasefire — two days before Obama’s inauguration — tends to confirm my original gut-hunch feeling that the Gaza war was Israel deciding to give Hamas a good ass-whupping before the beginning of a U.S. administration that Israeli leaders view as pro-Palestinian.

Which is not quite the same as “I question the timing,” however. I’m not suggesting anything conspiratorial, just summarizing the most obvious geopolitical considerations involved. And, yes, “ass-whupping” is a phrase you don’t see often enough in discussions of geopolitical strategy.

UPDATE: Ehud Olmert:

“Hamas did not foresee Israel’s determination and its seriousness in bringing about a change of the reality in the region,” he said. “Hamas’s leaders did not believe that Israel would launch an operation of this scope on the eve of the elections. Hamas did not foresee the strength of the military attack, and more than anything else, it did not foresee the results,” he said.

The results? An ass-whupping for Hamas.

UPDATE II: Hugh Hewitt: You know who this ceasefire is good for? Mitt Romney Benjamin Netanhayu.

UPDATE III: Linked at Cold Fury.

January 6, 2009

Gaza update

Jules Crittenden suspects Glenn Greenwald of self-parody, although Greenwald’s latest is actually one of his more rational exhalations. Perhaps his encounter with Hugh Hewitt steadied him. Or maybe he saw the light via the Sonny Corleone analogy. At any rate, there is no shortage of cruel irony in the latest news:

At least thirty people were reportedly killed and 53 wounded in an explosion in a UN-run school in the town of Jabalya in the northern Gaza Strip, according to Palestinians. The IDF issued a statement saying the school grounds were used by terrorists to fire mortar shells at the troops.
Troops inside Gaza The infantrymen returned mortar shell fire into the school grounds, the army said. Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school triggered the secondary explosions which killed scores of Palestinians on the site.

So, the United Nations builds a school in Gaza, which Hamas converts into a mortar base. (Michelle Malkin shows that this has been going on for months, and Ace has related thoughts.) As good an argument for defunding the U.N. as I’ve heard lately (of course, there are no bad arguments for defunding the U.N.). Other recent items:

Muqata has comprehensive coverage.

January 5, 2009

Sonny Corleone in Gaza

From my latest column at Pajamas Media:

By going into Gaza in Sonny Corleone fashion, Israel aims to ensure that the Hamas attacks — as cowardly as Carlo’s battering of Sonny’s sister Connie — are permanently ended.
Of course, Hamas being Hamas, they will never stop trying to kill Jews. Fans of The Godfather will recall that Carlo, being Carlo, chose a coward’s revenge by betraying Sonny to rival mobsters, so that at last Michael Corleone assigned Clemenza to deal decisively with Carlo.
If this analogy can be stretched a bit more, then, where does Glenn Greenwald fit? He’s Connie pleading frantically on behalf of her abusive husband: “It was my fault! … I started a fight with him. … Sonny, please don’t do anything. Please don’t do anything.” This is what the Blame Israel First crowd always says whenever Israel responds to repeated attacks by striking back against the terrorists. Always the demand is that Israel should make concessions, always condemnation is reserved for Israel’s defenders who are, Greenwald assures us, “guilty of insufficiently weighing the deaths of Palestinian innocents.”

Please read the whole thing. Video of the famous encounter between Sonny and Carlo:

January 4, 2009

Greenwald vs. Goldfarb

UPDATED & BUMPED: Ace of Spades weighs in:

The idiot Sullivan even calls Greenwald “fearless” for taking an anti-Israel position which not only won’t lose him any readers, but is common wisdom among the liberal establishment.

Read the whole thing. I borrowed Ace’s shtick today and got an Instalanche with it, so if you don’t read the whole thing, the terrorists win.

UPDATED (AGAIN): Reliapundit delivers a barrage of facts with Black Hawk minigun ferocity.

PREVIOUSLY: Glenn Greenwald today accuses Michael Goldfarb of bloodthirstiness in the death of Nizar Ghayan (or Nizar Rayan, as some have it). Goldfarb’s offending post was not a mindless advocacy of violence, but rather a reflection on the fundamental difficulty of fighting a fanatical enemy:

The fight against Islamic radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it’s not clear that they are rational, at least not like us. But to wipe out a man’s entire family, it’s hard to imagine that doesn’t give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel under the current conditions. Or maybe not, and the only way to stop Hamas is to eliminate its capacity for violence entirely. Or Israeli leaders can just try to find a diplomatic solution — as a majority of Democrats apparently favor. It worked so well with the last cease fire.

The notion that the obliteration of Ghayan’s entire family might “give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause” is enough to inspire 1,500 words of Greenwaldian gibberish, including a shot at Glenn Reynolds for displaying a “wretched mindset” by suggesting that the Israelis are “civilized people and not barbarians.” One mercifully brief slice of moonbat pie:

If you see Palestinians as something less than civilized human beings: as “barbarians” — just as if you see Americans as infidels warring with God or Jews as sub-human rats — then it naturally follows that civilian deaths are irrelevant, perhaps even something to cheer. For people who think that way, arguments about “proportionality” won’t even begin to resonate — such concepts can’t even be understood — because the core premise, that excessive civilian deaths are horrible and should be avoided at all costs, isn’t accepted. Why should a superior, civilized, peaceful society allow the welfare of violent, hateful barbarians to interfere with its objectives? How can the deaths or suffering of thousands of barbarians ever be weighed against the death of even a single civilized person?

Wait a minute: Who is ultimately responsible for the plight of Gazans? Has it been non-stop misery since 1967? Or at some point over the past four decades, did the Palestinians in Gaza actually have a better life under Israeli occupation than they have had under Hamas rule?

This war was not caused by any genocidal ambition of the Israelis, but by the genocidal ambition of Hamas. Excuse me for repeating myself:

You cannot negotiate with a shark. To the extent that Hamas represents any coherent political philosophy, that philosophy can be summed up in two words: Kill Jews.

And, to further repeat myself, the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas by a landslide majority. The Gazans fully intended that there should be consequences to their election of genocidal terrorist leaders and their only disappointment is that the consequences are not (yet) what they intended, namely the death of every Jew in Israel.

You will perhaps be surprised (or perhaps not) that Greenwald imagines it is supporters of Israel who need a lecture about “excessive tribalistic identification.” Sending suicide bombers to obliterate Shiri Negari and 18 other passengers on bus 32A — that’s not “excessive,” eh?

UPDATE: “Jihad to its maximum degree” — Right. Like they haven’t been trying hard enough to slaughter the infidels. There is kind of a “Black Knight” quality to this.

UPDATE II: Fausta Wertz has a post showing how the genocidal Hamas mentality has spread to the streets of America. “Death To All Juice!”

UPDATE III: At NRO, Gregory McNeal notes that IAF is delivering phone warnings to targets, compared to the 15 seconds of “Code Red” warnings for Israeli civilians targeted by Hamas:

Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom has related thoughts.

UPDATE IV: The Times of London:

Israeli troops fought heavy battles with Hamas fighters in two densely populated Gaza towns today as the Army sought to split the strip into three sections to cut off the Islamist group’s supply lines. . . .
The Israeli strategy of splitting Gaza into north, central and southern sections mirrors a similar tactic employed when settlers used to come under attack in the strip.
It enables the military to stop Gaza City being supplied from the south, stops Hamas movements and gives troops distinct areas to clear.
Israeli troops also took up positions in the old Jewish settlement of Netzarim which controls the main north-south road.

Hmmm. It’s almost as if the Times were suggesting that Israel’s erstwhile policy of territorial settlement was vital to the embattled nation’s self-defense. Nah, couldn’t be . . .

UPDATE V: A pro-Israel rally . . in France? Somewhere, a French intellectual is muttering to himself, “If only we could have kept the Vichy for another few months . . .”

UPDATE VI: MK Ham: “The Guardian is now eulogizing terrorist leaders in official ‘obituaries’ chock-full of euphemisms and moral equivalence. Not news stories, but obituaries.”

January 4, 2009

Israeli air strikes kill cute kittens and Hamas terrorist leaders

But mostly Hamas terrorist leaders:

Senior Hamas terrorist Hussam Hamdan, who was in charge of Grad-type rocket launches into Beersheba and Ofakim, was killed in an IAF strike on Khan Yunis on Sunday afternoon.
Another senior Hamas terrorist, Muhammad Hilo, was also killed in the same airstrike. Hilo was in charge of the Hamas special forces in Khan Yunis.

Via Memeorandum, with a hat-tip to Ace of Spades for the headline style.

UPDATE: From the Israeli military Web site IDF Spokesperson:

  • Between Israel’s evacuation of Gaza and the election of Hamas (Aug. 15, 2005 – Jan. 25, 2006), there was an average of over 15 rocket and mortar attacks a month.
  • Between Hamas’ election and Hamas’ forceful takeover of the Strip (Jan. 25, 2006 – June 14, 2007), there was an average of over 102 attacks per month — an over 650% increase.
  • Between Hamas’ takeover and the start of the Tahadiya (State of Calm), (June 14, 2007 – June 16, 2008), there was an average of over 361 attacks per month — an increase of an additional 350%.
  • On Nov. 4-5, Israel launched Operation “Double Challenge”, targeting a tunnel Hamas was building as part of a plan to kidnap Israeli soldiers.
  • From the end of Operation “Double Challenge” until the end of the Tahadiya, (Nov. 4 – Dec. 19, 2008) a period of only a month and a half, there were 170 mortars, 255 Qassams, and 5 Grads fired upon Israel’s civilian population centers.
  • Since the end of the Tahadiya (Dec. 19, 2008) until the beginning of Operation “Cast Lead,” (Dec. 27, 2008) a period of little more than a week, there were approximately 300 mortars and rockets fired onto Israel.

Which is to say, Hamas deserved an ass-kicking.

UPDATE II: Utterly predictable Hamas response:

Hamas officials called on Palestinians to rise up against Israel with suicide attacks and vowed to make Gaza “a graveyard” for Israeli soldiers.

Right. Holed up in their bunkers, Hamas leaders vow to fight to the last Palestinian civilian.

UPDATE III: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Professor Reynolds gets an additional mention in the related post, Greenwald vs. Goldfarb.

UPDATE IV: Linked by Lawhawk at LGF. Thanks.

UPDATE V: Thanks to commenter Mike for pointing out the secondary explosions caused by cute kittens in Gaza:

UPDATE VI: Yes, DoublePlusUndead, I am a moron. And, in related news, don’t mess with Sonny Corleone’s sister.

UPDATE VII: Linked by the Smallest Minority and MacsMind. Thanks.

UPDATE VIII: Also linked at Pirate’s Cove, A Blog For All and Random Thoughts. Thanks to all.

UPDATE IX: Linked by The Sundries Shack, which reports that sheep are sleeping easier in Gaza tonight.

January 3, 2009

‘Destroy the Hamas terror infrastructure’

Israel launches its ground war in Gaza:

“The objective is to destroy the Hamas terror infrastructure in the area of operations,” said Israel Defense Forces Major Avital Leibovitch, a military spokeswoman, confirming that incursions were under way. “We are going to take some of the launch areas used by Hamas.” . . .
Large numbers of forces are taking part in this stage of the operation including infantry, tanks, engineering forces, artillery and intelligence with the support of the Israel Air Force, Israel navy, the Shin Bet security service and other security agencies. Meanwhile, the cabinet has authorized an emergency call up of tens of thousands of IDF reservists.

Meanwhile (via Ace), in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., hundreds of pro-Hamas protesters show their humanitarian civility:

UPDATE: Little Miss Attila is not amused.

UPDATE II: Meanwhile, via Zombie, a little bit of Gaza comes to San Francisco:

January 2, 2009

‘We will remain on the path of jihad until the end of days’

At the funeral of murderous Hamas leader Nizar Ghayan, the demand for bloodshed is renewed:

The Islamist group vowed that its attacks, which have lasted for years and which finally provoked the massive Israeli campaign, would not stop.
“I call on the resistance to continue pounding Jewish settlements and cities,” said Sheikh Abdelrahman al-Jamal at the funeral of a hardline Hamas political leader killed, together with his four wives and 11 children, in an Israeli air strike on his home.
“We will remain on the path of jihad until the end of days.”

I hate to keep repeating myself:

You cannot negotiate with a shark. To the extent that Hamas represents any coherent political philosophy, that philosophy can be summed up in two words: Kill Jews.

The alternatives facing Israel were not to choose between peace and war, but rather to choose between fighting back or allowing Hamas to kill Israelis with impunity. There is no option of peace so long as Hamas exists. War against Israel is the raison d’etre of Hamas, and if Israel wishes to survive, it must fight Hamas “until the end of days.”

January 2, 2009

Death of a killer

Can any reasonable person mourn the death of a man who sent his own son on a suicide attack?

Earlier Thursday, an Israeli aircraft killed a high-ranking Hamas official in Gaza along with nine women, including at least four wives, and 11 of his children. . . .
The assassination of Nizar Ghayan left dozens of people from neighboring buildings injured and brought up the body count on the Palestinian side to 425 people since the start of the campaign.
The IDF Spokesman said that Ghayan’s house had served as a weapons silo and a war room for Hamas. Under the house, according to the IDF, was a tunnel which was meant to serve as an escape route in case of an Israeli attack. . . .
A lecturer at Gaza’s Islamic University, Ghayan, 49, had mentored suicide bombers and would sometimes go on patrol with Hamas fighters. He was known for his close ties to the group’s military wing and was respected in Gaza for donning combat fatigues and personally participating in clashes against Israeli forces. He sent one of his sons on an October 2001 suicide mission that killed two Israeli settlers in Gaza.
He was also an outspoken advocate of renewing suicide bombings against Israel. Hamas said Israel would pay a “heavy price” for his death. Ghayan was one of the most extreme opponents of Fatah, and supported violence against Fatah’s men during Hamas’ seizure of power. (Emphasis added.)

What a piece of work, eh? This is why Israel can’t negotiate with Hamas:

You cannot negotiate with a shark. To the extent that Hamas represents any coherent political philosophy, that philosophy can be summed up in two words: Kill Jews.

Ghayan was a leader of Hamas specifically because he was such a bloodthirsty Jew-killer. It was his enthusiasm for killing Jews, and nothing else, that made him a Hamas leader. So good-bye and good riddance, Nizar Ghayan, your four wives, and the rest of the Jew-killing Ghayan family. The world is a much better place without you.

December 31, 2008

Sound and fury, signifying nothing

Roseanne Barr’s idiot tale:

Israel is a NAZI state. The Jewish Soul is being tortured in Israel. The destruction of the jews in Israel has been assured with this inhuman attack on civilians in gaza. Hamas is the street gangs—this is equivilent [sic] to los angeles attacking and launching war on the people of watts to attempt to kill the bloods and the crips.

Call me old-fashioned, but if someone wishes to put their thoughts into writing, I don’t think it is too much to ask that they pay attention to spelling, capitalization and punctuation. Coherent logic is optional; grammar and orthography are not.

(H/T: Omri Ceren via Hot Air Headlines.)