Picture Perfect - politics

Politics,

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:06:27 +0100

POLITICS WILL BE IN RED. Those uninterested, skip to black text.

And so the state of Israel could be destroyed shortly.

This rather dire prediction comes from me at a time when Iran is succeeding in building a nuclear device, which would effectively put it on a footing with the most powerful nations in the world. For those of you who do not know, Iran is an Islamic fundamentalist state. Israel is a Jewish state. Therefore Israel is enemy number 1 for Iran. Whilst I have slight doubts as to whether or not Iran would use a nuclear device - only slight - I have less doubt that they would give it to the likes of Hamas, or Hizbollah to use (whom they are on friendly terms with. As the saying goes, the enemy of your enemy is your friend). Have doubts? I quote verbatim from some fundamentalist in Iran:

"Islam could survive the retaliation [of a nuclear strike] but Israel would be gone forever."

But surely they wouldn't kill all those Palestinians, who are muslims themselves? Surely they wouldn't infect Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and other surrounding nations with nuclear poisons, as would inevitable happen, due to the small size of Israel?

Of course they would.
The Palestinians would be hailed martyrs, the rest of the arab nations surrounding Israel - well, arab nations never got on well with each other, except when they were harrassing Israel - so what does it matter if they get a bi of radioactive clouds in their lands? Would go in 100 years or so anyway.

And that is why I mourn the loss of the state of Israel.
There is one way to save the state, however. Simply, stop Iran making nuclear devices. I believe Israel will take action to do so. It's not really difficult for them to do so, to be honest. The Israeli intelligence agency, though mostly despised, is known to be one of the best in the world - they have to be, in view of general traditional anti-israel sentiment.

Conclusion:
For the safety of not just Israel, but the world (for Iran does want an Islamic world, don't forget, so the west isn't safe either): get rid of their nuclear making equiptment, I say!

I went to a newly opened restaurant today. It was a kosher one too. "Kosher" simply means "permitted" and refers to the foods which are "permitted" to eat, as per the bible.

I was unimpressed. I could have made the food myself and it would have tasted better. I am not here to tell you about the unsatisfactory main-course food, neither the excellent service, and no, not even the brilliant tasting bread and cakes (baked on site). Nor am I here to tell you that the restaurant sent us on the house cakes, due to finding the food yucky (what actually happened was, someone I was with told one of the waiters - who turned out to be the owner - that I didn't like the food. Despite my insistance it was fine (and it was fine. Just not nice lol [I didn't tell them that!]) they sent us the cakes) - no, I'm not here to tell you any of that. Instead, I am here to tell you of my observations of the wider world, where "wider world" is defined as the 20 pavement (sidewalk!) stones I could see from my table, and the people treading upon them.

Before I being, I must tell you about kosher shops, and other shops.
Kosher places generally display that they are kosher, along with a certificate saying that all food therein, has an eye kept upon it whilst it is being prepared/manufatured. It acts as a type of quality control in a way (though that is a by-product, not the main aim). The certificates are either written entirely in Hebrew, or entirely English, with a few Hebrew words dotted about. The latter was the case with this particular place of cuisine.

For the most part, kosher shops and places are not frequented by anyone who is not Jewish. This does not hold true for the bakeries, however, which are frequented by any and many. I believe I gravely underestimated the amount of non-Jewish customers kosher suppliers of food receive, when I was stopped on the street, and was asked "I can't buy anything! Why are all the Kosher shops closed? Is it a Jewish holiday?" (indeed it was. Why he wanted to buy kosher food, I really don't know. Although i'd imagine it's great for people with dietry problems, such as being lactose intolerant - the selection and quality of dairy-free items [such as ice creams] defy belief).

Anyway. This restaurant I went to had their little certificate in the window. It was, however, was [just] outside of the Jewish community, and therefore is catering for a large non-Jewish base. As I surveyed the world (see previous definition of "world") I saw how they were unsure as to what the place was, and puzzled over the English/Hebrew certificate. Some screwed up their noses and went on their way, whilst others walked away not knowing what to think at all. Others still, bravely and cautiously ventured inside. I was sitting there for the entire meal attempting not to laugh my head off.

The service was brilliant. As it was a new restaurant, they were conducting interviews for new staff inside the place itself (it wasn't busy). One lady turned up from America (I don't know why she did that, but she did) and was dressed in extremely revealing clothes. I can't help but laugh inside - no doubt it was done to give her every advantage. And good luck to her!

This brings us to the waitresses - for there were no waiters at all. I could type a long rambling paragraph about the service, before coming to the main point - that they were all pretty. Or, I could just tell you that they were all very pretty now, and be done with it. I don't do things in halves, and why take the easy option when a harder one presents itself? Useless rambling paragraph, here I come!

They -- oh, ok, I can't be bothered, and I have 3 other places to be right now, so, the point is, in case you missed it above: the waitresses were pretty, and kept smiling at me, so I was happy. I'll probably return there for coffee and cake and such (and, to watch the pretty ladies) but never to eat.

Did I mention there were pretty ladies in there? Heeeehe.

Post Script: I just got off the phone. I should say PHONES. I had my house line in one hand, and my mobile phone in the other - on which a conference call was taking place (not at my expense!) In short, I was speaking to a few people, ALL AT ONCE. This is insane. But it was cool. It's the most popular i've been in ages (well. Since the last conference call).

It has come to my attention pretty ladies sometimes feature heavily in a single post.
No, I am not a pervert. I just have to work hard to allay fears that I am gay. I am not gay. I AM NOT GAY!

That is all. You may go.

Politics:

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:55:00 +0100

To hear the BBC report on Gaza, click here (by DJ productions :-D)

And so the middle east situation is not really getting any better. After just under 40 years, Israel is pulling out it's civilians from the Gaza area. The move is highly unpopular amongst Israeli's. The reason is because they have lost faith - lost faith in the ability of the PA to stop terror, lost faith in any alleged cease-fire agreement - and therefore, what good will giving land to the Palestinians do? Will it stop the bombs? Whilst the more naive of you say "it's worth a try, perhaps it will" - if one looks back in Israel's short history, when did giving land to the Palestinians stop the terror?

I'll be frank with you all.
Before Israel was under Jewish control, it was an arid desert, with swamps and marshland. It hand a population of about half a million people in total - both Arab and Jewish (Jews have maintained a continued presence in the land for over 3,000 years). A few holocaust survivors came to the land. They were hard men. They had to be. And they knew the difference between success and failure; they understood what a monumental task was at hand: it can be said it is akin to transforming part of the Sahel region (almost hostile desert) into fertile, livable land. And they succeeded. Israel is a wonderful country to go to today - but just 50 years ago, you would be insane to go there. Now, tourism is it's biggest industry.

If I offered you the choice between a maroon rover (whose engine has cloncked out, and the car is currently parked in an awkward position on a road near me [thank goodness. Otherwise i'd have had a long way to walk!] - I hope it's not towed or anything) or a Rolls-Royce, which would you take? There is no doubt that the land of Israel in it's entirety is the Rolls-Royce, and any land the Palestinians would have for themselves would remain forever the Rover, without a doubt (due to corrupt leadership who would not invest in it's people, but rather bombs, to blow up other people).

The militant (recognised) terror organisations like Hamas and the PA - yes, they are terrorists too, they're just more subtle, and fund everyone else to do the dirty work for them (which is why there are numerous jokes about the PA stopping terrorists about) - realise that any Palestinian land just wouldn't compare to what Israel is. As I have said previously, and no one has challenged me on this point, the Palestinians do not just want a state. They want a state built on top of Israel. This is akin to the IRA wanting a state instead of England.

And now Palestinians are moaning about a Hamas "commander" being shot by who they assume was an Israeli sniper. Does it come as a wonder that Israel wants to kill those who mastermind terrorist bombs, ambushes, and ultimately, will be the death of the state of Israel if allowed to continue it's natural course? Equally, does it come as a surprise that Hamas wants to kill people in the Israeli army (It is a despicable and cowardly thing to terrorise civilians, who cannot defend themselves. If they want a shoot out, then so be it. But suicide bombers are the lowest of the low. These people do not deserve to have a war fought based on the Geneva convention rules - as the USA and UK is finding now to their discomfort). "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" is something often quoted at me. I am therefore highly familiar with this saying. And as I always reply: Guess what? He's my terrorist, and I will stop him.

That's right folks. When I get to Israel, Hamas are out to kill me, they want to see me dead. Therefore, I will take whatever measure necessary to ensure they do not succeed in taking my life, or that of anyone else, as it happens.

I dislike this veil of namby-pamby "political correctness" which is blinding so many to the realities of the world. Be PC, that's admirable - but not when it starts to result in the persecution of the majority by the minority. Let us not pretend that there are no sides to be taken on the middle east conflict - because there are. Let us not pretend that when speaking about the middle east, people (especially the media) are unbiased. They are highly biased. And that's ok - just don't expect me to agree with opposing views.

So yes, there ARE sides to take.

I reject the false notion that the Palestinians are fighting Zionism and not Judaism, just as I reject the view that the Israeli's are fighting for Judaism or any religious matter, but rather for their very existance as Israelis. In short, the Palestinians are fighting for religious reasons, and the Israeli's for their lives. There is no other way to explain it. Which "nation" rejects the offer of another stronger country, to give them 97% of their demands, and make up the other 3% in other concessions (when that 3% was the demand for Israel to give up Jerusalem, their current capitol)? I'll tell you who does that. A "nation" who doesn't want peace, and who doesn't want land, but who simply wants all the Israeli's out, as Judaism just does not fit with their ideology.

I say the Israeli's aren't fighting for religious reasons. No doubt, some are. But on the whole, they are not. Regretable, perhaps, to the religious. But the sad fact is, the country where Judaism, Christianity and Islam meets (albeit sometimes violently), is one of the only nations in the world not to make mention of God/gods in it's national anthem. Many Zionists are not only non-religious, but anti-religious. It is doubtful, therefore, that the average Israeli (who is most probably secular, and has about the same inkling of what Judaism is, as anyone currently reading this. Although the likes of sara may know a little more) is fighting for anything other than their own country. I am not criticizing this. Indeed, if I join the army, it is not because I dislike Muslims, but because I dislike Palestinians who attempt to kill me, and others. That's putting it mildly. There is no religious motivation in my decision to join the army, thought I am a practising Jew.

I can catagorically say that the problem in the middle east is not the settlements. It is not this piece of land, or that piece. It is not the Golan Heights, or East Jerusalem, or the Temple mount. It is not oil, or land, or water, or geography or metaphysics. The problem of the middle east is in plain sight. You know what the problem is, and so do I. The problem is that the middle east hates the Jews.

Fine. I don't care. Hate me. Afterall, I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not. Fine, Palestinians War with me. Just don't expect to go unscathed yourself.

Politics: Some more

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:25:00 +0100

The below is a news article lifted directly from the BBC, and can be found here, if you so have the inclination to read it. It was placed on the web today (Thursday, 14 July, 2005, 23:07).

Soon after the barrage, Palestinian police, reportedly acting on orders to stop further rocket fire, clashed with Hamas members in northern Gaza.

The barrage being terrorists firing rockets from Gaza, into Israel.

Five militants were wounded when police fired at their car, Hamas said.

Surely a good thing? If the London bombers were not suicide bombers and had been caught, wouldn't everyone be extatic? If they were killed during arrest, wouldn't that be some sort of justice? And just why is the press giving publicity to terrorists?

The Palestinian Authority says large numbers of Hamas activists then poured into the area, attacking a security force post and setting fire to two jeeps.

Fair enough, though slightly alarming: how did "large numbers of Hamas activists" get there in the first place, on such short notice? They were placed there? No. They live there, is how. They were probably the local unit, or something.

"We will not keep silent," Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas spokesman, told Reuters, calling the police's action "unacceptable".

This is laughable. Nowhere else in the world do terrorists call the actions of police "unacceptable" for merely enforcing the law. I laugh in the face of Israel for tolerating such things. I salute Hamas for their sheer audacity. And lastly, I weep at the world which so lacks justice.

Politics: Christians, Israel, the PA and Jordan

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:55:26 +0100

I have decided to create a new Politics section. All posts being about Politics, will have the word "politics" inside the title, and placed in this section of my blog. This way, all those who don't particularly care about politics, won't have to read half the post to find out that half the post they've just read is about a subject they couldn't care less about.

And so, my politically aware, children, without further ado, I present to you the subject of today's political rant. The middle east conflict. Yay! Passions tend to flare at discussions like these, and I generally refuse to engage in political discussion on this subject with people, due to this fact. But, this day, I am making an exception.

This particular post will revolve around something I saw recently (well, today, in fact) in the news. It is the fist fight which erupted between Christian clerics in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Greek Orthodox patron, Irineos I, has been struck off by the Church as patron. This, apparantly, has no legal effect whatsoever. A patron may only be removed from his post, if Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority all agree to his removal. "Jordan?" I hear you say, "whatever for? Surely they have no jurisdiction over Jerusalem, much less over Christians within Jerusalem!" But the anomaly is quickly solved when we realise that the cleric shepherds around 100,000 Christians in the city, most of which are Palestinian, and seeing how all Palestinians are from Jordan originally, the PA and Jordan's involvement are quickly understood.

This leads us to several other things. If the Palestinians are from Jordan, why on earth are they getting a seperate state of their own? Indeed, WHERE on earth do they want this state, as if they were from Jordan, then no Palestinian state ever existed in the first place (we must note here that "Palestine" was the name given to Israel under the Roman occupation about 2,000 years ago, in an attempt to make the natives less at home with their land, a useful tactic employed by the Romans to stop cultural differences in a vast empire, for the younger generations. The name was re-used by the British when Turkey was forced to hand Israel over to the British after they lost WW1).

But ok. I can live with a Palestinian state is it will bring peace.
I cannot, however, live IN a Palestinian state, as it will not result in anything like peace.

And this is the aim of the PA, and all their cronies.
No doubt, the vast majority of the world have not read the PA mission statement, which effectively states they wish to create a "Palestinian" state on top of the Israeli one. This effectively means there will never, ever be peace in the middle east between Israel and the Palestinians, unless one (or all) of three things happen:

1) The Israeli state is removed
2) The Palestinian people are absorbed back into Jordan, or intergrated into Israel (the latter of which they rejected back in the '70s - or, more like, told to reject by their alleged leaders. The former was rejected by all Arab states. Apparantly the vast Arab dominions have no room for about a million other Arabs.)
3) The Palestinians are actually educated and governed by a pro-democratic, peace-loving, educated man.

Unfortunately, what with the dissolution of the "occupied areas" we are closer to the first option than the other two.

I do so enjoy the rediculous perspective of people who incredulously reject the idea that the Palestinians would be better of either as Israeli citizens, or re-establishing their Jordanian citizenship, and yet propose that Israelis should find themselves without a homeland, by dissolving the Israeli state. A sad, misguided attempt to bring peace.

Furthermore, I am continually astounded that the people to break the cease-fires are never the Israelis, but invariably the Palestinians. It is always the sound of another suicide bomb which shatters the silence of peace. For years, Israel's representation have been telling the world "terrorism isn't just a phenomina here. It will one day happen world-wide, unless we are successful in stopping it here." Some call it karma. Some call it justice. Some call it "sods law." But guess what? The countries who have continually repremanded Israel for attempting to deal with it's own terrorists have been struck by terrorists themselves. The USA, and now London have had a taste of terrorism recently, and it is now widely agreed that the London bombings were indeed suicide bombings, making it the first of their kind to happen on English soil.

G8. That recent "glorious" meeting between the 8 richest nations in the world, in an attempt to partially solve the problem of poverty in Africa. 3 billion is going to be given to the Palestinians in form of aid. This is simply 3 billion more which is going to be spent on bombs to blow up Israeli civilians. The same holds true for all african nations: the money is being given to corrupt officials, who will use most of the money for their own ends. Whilst it is a noble gesture by the G8, it is also a foolish policy, especially when aid could be given in other forms (such as pens, notebooks, etc. in an attempt to increase education, or bread, well-making tools, and the like, to decrease hunger and water shortages. Actual materials, not money).

But back to the Palestinians. It is my belief that Israel's critics are governed by what is called "the 3D's" which are:

1) Double-standards

Just why is a suicide bombing called "terrorism" in London and not in Israel? If the world is to learn a lesson, it should be now, and it should be that a) terrorism can happen to you as well, (b) perhaps they should look at places like Israel with a new perspective, rather than what they have been doing up until now.

I was proud, but outraged, to learn that Israel continues to send in ground troops to Palestinian settlements when attempting to oust terrorists. Outraged, because it risks the lives of the men, and proud because it spares the lives of Palestinian civilians, who will have little risk of getting killed, compared to carpet bombing tactics employed by the USA in Afghanistan. It is interesting that people shout "helicopters against guns, guns against stones!" in relation to Israel's conflict with groups like Hamas, but utter a word or two of mild objection to America's indiscriminate killing in Afghanistan. I suppose having the largest economy in the world helps.

Other such examples of double standards exist, they are not hard to see, and the disctinction of double standards was made by a 10 years old Jewish girl, who featured in this blog not long ago, with the verbatim quote, which I have used previously, which I have used here, and which I will continue to use in the future: "Why is it called terrorism in London, and not Israel?"

2) Distortion

"4 Palestinians were brutally murdered following a suicide attack where 5 Israelis were killed, and several more injured."

Zipping over to the Israeli press, I quickly find that 2 of the "4 Palestinians brutally murdered" were suicide bombers themselves. Yes. Did you know suicide bobmers are included in the Palestinian death count? "Brutally murdered" generally means Israeli security forces were patrolling an area, when some Palestinians jumped out behind bushes and began engaging the forces in gun fights.

"5 Israelis killed" - what mild terming, in relation to the former part of the new report. This number never includes those who die in hospital of course, only those who die outright. "several more injured" can mean anything from "he has a slight cut" to "his head fell off, and his brains are currently oozing out in front of him" and can be any amount of people between 2-10.

This is a pretty basic example of distortion. If the media distorts information, then the people who read the newspapers will have no idea what is actually happening.

A few people will recall the female BBC reported who reported how "I was moved to tears to watch the body of Yassir Arafat (the late Palestinian leader, ironically born in Cairo, Egypt) be taken upon a helicopter....." and who was repremanded for not remaining impartial - that is to say, being blatantly biased in an attempt to affect the way in which the readers perceive the story. In her case, she was being pro-Palestinian in her reporting.

Again, other examples exist, they are not hard to find.

3) Demonisation

Perhaps the greatest tool in the kit of bias, depicting one side as the bad-guys over the other, is a sure way to engage public wrath upon the "bad-guys." This has been done over and over again, in many contexts. Today, we see it happening with radical muslims: they are the bad guys, it is them we must hate, and whatever bad happens to them, they deserve - because they're bad, right? Perspective is skewed, and eventually lost entirely, before being forever more forgotten. Something i'm sure most readers of this blog will appreciate.

Summary

Bias reporting creates a hostile public towards a certain entity. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that entity is Israel. In relation to other middle eastern and Asian countries (such as Iraq, and Nuclear-Korea) that entity are those same said countries, when put up against the Allied forces, they being predominentaly theUSA and UK.

I read today about "Iraq insurgents" who bombed some people the other day. A few weeks ago, I read about other "Iraq insurgents" who bombed another place, and coming to think of it, every protest staged against the UK and USA is by "Iraqi insurgents" - well just who are the insurgents in Iraq? The Iraqi's who do not wish to be occupied by the West, and our form of government imposed on them, or the Allies themselves? I'm hedging my bets at the moment, for I believe it may have been wrong to enter Iraq in the first place, but now we have, we should support our respective governments and leaders and make sure we do a good job of restoring order there, before hastily pulling out military personnel, and all the while supporting the new state in place.

Of crouse, what's happening now is different. The people do not want a democracy, much less a western imposed one. Why? Perhaps for the same reasons as Weimar Germany didn't last. The people have no respect for a wishy-wahy, namby-pamby democracy, and in short, WANT a dictator. Fine. Give them a dictator then. But make darn sure he isn't evil first (where "evil" is defined as killing their own people in any context, except that which is to maintain order).

Now here is an acid test for hypocracy:

All those that agree with me in the above for the most part, remove "Iraqi" and "USA/UK/West" and replace with "Palestinian" and "Israel" respectively. Still agree? Ha. Thought as much. Darned hypocrites ;-)

Conclusion

I have never seen a conflict where on the eve of a battle, the vanquished (the Palestinians) demand unconditional surrender, and the victors (Israel) sue for peace.

In short, the Israelis have all the disadvantages of being technologically advanced, and the Palestinians have all the advantages of being the underdog.