Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Israel’


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 13, 2010

Okay, now that seems to make more sense.

After the Times Online reported on Saturday that Saudi Arabia had given Israel permission to use their airspace for possible raids on Iranian nuclear facilities, Saudi Arabian Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf is saying that it ain’t so.

From Haaretz:

Saudi Arabia would not allow Israeli bombers to pass through its airspace en route to a possible strike of Iran’s nuclear facilities, a member of the Saudi royal family said Saturday, denying an earlier Times of London report.

Earlier Saturday, the Times reported that Saudi Arabia has practiced standing down its anti-aircraft systems to allow Israeli warplanes passage on their way to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, adding that the Saudis have allocated a narrow corridor of airspace in the north of the country.

Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi envoy to the U.K. speaking to the London-based Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, denied that report, saying such a move “would be against the policy adopted and followed by the Kingdom.”

According to Asharq al-Awsat report, bin Nawaf reiterated the Saudi Arabia’s rejection of any violation of its territories or airspace, adding that it would be “illogical to allow the Israeli occupying force, with whom Saudi Arabia has no relations whatsoever, to use its land and airspace.”

This story doesn’t especially surprise me.

While the original story did seem plausible to me in a “maybe-there-really-could-be-a-Santa-Claus” kind of way, one could have probably bet the mortgage that a story like this would follow soon after, regardless of how accurate it is.

It almost had to happen.

And while a case can be made that the Saudis will ultimately do whatever is necessary to preserve the kingdom, including allowing Israel to use Saudi air space to conduct raids on Iranian nuclear targets, would anyone expect Saudi Arabia to say publicly that they’ve actually come to an agreement of this type with Israel?
wordpress statistics


Posted in Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 13, 2010

Common enemies create unlikely coalitions.

The oft-quoted phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” sums it up quite nicely.

On a micro level, the annoying, noisy neighbor next door becomes an unexpected ally when the even more annoying guy down the street keeps letting his out-of-control dog go rummaging through everyone’s garbage cans, leaving trash strewn everywhere.

The guy with the smelly armpits on the subway sitting next to me becomes an instant comrade when the naked-from-the-waist-down dude across from us starts hurling peanut shells, shouting expletive-rich, pro-Obama slogans.

Arguably, the most well-known example of this kind of thing on a macro level is the alliance between the United States and Soviet Union during World War II.

Common foe: Nazi Germany.

Yet, within seconds of the war ending, the Cold War was officially on.

In a world where the scourge of moral equivalency acts as a fertility drug of evil – and the rise of kindness to the cruel is matched only by the increase of cruelty to the kind – the very concept that the nation of Saudi Arabia would stand with Israel before the United States does is, to say the least, distressing.

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Hugh Tomlinson of the Times Online writes:

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Odd times.

Saudi Arabia, obviously, is concerned about an ever-strengthening Shia. It is more than obvious, even to the Saudis, that Barack Obama’s United States of America cannot be counted on for cover.

Thus the backup plan.

And what, pray tell, is Plan B?

Let Israel take care of it.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

At least temporarily.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 8, 2010

Helen Thomas

I spent as many as eleven or twelve seconds yesterday afternoon  contemplating what the future would hold for newly-retired White House correspondent – and Hamas-talking point propogandist – Helen Thomas. Of course, at least five of those seconds were spent wondering what the hell I was doing wasting the other six on her. Still, it did briefly enter my mind.

As I heard the news that the matriarch of journalistic derangement was calling it quits following her spewing of the most disturbing drek to be heard publicly since Bob Dylan’s Christmas album, a part of me couldn’t help but wonder if it isn’t, in fact, best to have our dippy loons on the left doing what they do in the glow of the spotlight. After all, the best thing – the only thing – to come out of the Obama presidency has been the gift of exposure: unabashed, card-carrying, campus-nurtured, big-government unapologetic leftism on full display for all to see.

In that spirit, maybe having a world-class wacko-lefty moonbat center-stage is good for our side.

But what has been most striking about the media coverage of the entire Helen Thomas affair is that most of the focus has been on anti-Semitism. Very few have attacked this story based on the sheer stupidity of her claims. Indeed, she’s had a long, long career of foot-sucking ignorance that has been as embarrassing and disgusting as it has been amusing. But, if Helen Thomas is an anti-Semite – and who am I to say she’s not – I really couldn’t care less.

I mean that.

As a Jew, let me say clearly – emphatically – that I don’t care what’s in her heart. I really don’t. I care about her deeds. If her actions are anti-Semetic, then it matters to me a great deal. She’s always been a joke to me, in that “let’s visit Great Aunt Gladys at the asylum” sort of way. Whether or not she thinks all Jews need to “get the hell out of Palestine” – to quote her eloquent assessment of the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East – is irrelevant to me.

Instead, I’m more interested in the fact that the content and accuracy of Thomas’ comments on how the Jews are occupying land that is not rightfully theirs – and her comments on how to rectify the problem – are all but being ignored by the lamestream media. I’m not surprised, mind you … just fascinated. Where, pray tell, are all the wanna-be Woodward and Bernsteins out there? Where is Johnny Fact-Checker? And how is it that this “journalist” was able to keep her job for so many years when it’s clear she can’t even manage to get the most basic of information correct?

Helen Thomas is a colossally ill-informed, ignorant cartoon character, and unfortunately, not a lot of people seem to be touching on that.

THOMAS: Remember, these people (Palestinians) are occupied, and it’s their land. It’s not German. It’s not Poland.

REPORTER: So, where should they (Jews) go? What should they do?

THOMAS: They can go home.

REPORTER: Where’s home?

THOMAS: Poland. Germany.

REPORTER: So, you think Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?

THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

Of course, the problem with the Helen Thomas Middle East Peace Plan is the pesky little fact that two million Israeli Jews are either descended from, or come directly from, Islamic countries, like Morocco, Egypt, Iraq and Yemen. And let’s not forget about the hundreds of thousand of Jews that came from the Soviet Union.  And Ethiopia.

Israel was not created as a result of the relocation of German and Polish Jews. Israel’s very being has nothing – repeat nothing – to do with Germany and Poland. If, as Thomas suggests, the Jews need to “go back home,” they would overwhelmingly have to “return” to despotic nations like Syria and Libya.

The modern Zionist movement began in the late 19th Century. From around 1880, Jews began migrating to “Palestine” – part of the Ottoman Empire – in earnest, and many began purchasing land there. (Keep in mind that from the time of Joshua, Jews have always lived in the land that is now Israel, and at no time was there ever an official nation called Palestine – ever). During the early years of the Zionist movement, no Arabs were kicked off their land, forced the leave, placed in exile, persecuted, victimized or cheated. Jews were legally – repeat legally – buying up parcels of land. (And remember that Jews were already living there, along with Arabs).

And it wasn’t as if prime real estate was being gobbled up by these relocating Jews. In those days, most of what is Israel today was devoid of population and vegetation.

In 1867, Mark Twain visited the Land of Milk and Honey and wrote:

A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

The city of Jerusalem was a small and sparsely populated .

A fast walker could go outside the walls of Jerusalem and walk entirely around the city in an hour. I do not know how else to make one understand how small it is.”

The point that is lost on most is the reality that while Jews were migrating to the Holy Land in terrific numbers during that period – from 1918 to 1948 – the Arab population actually grew faster than the Jewish population.

At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, there actually were Arab leaders willing to accept the existence of a Jewish State in “Palestine” if the rest of the Middle East could be placed under Arab control. However, Arabs in “Palestine” were vehemently against Jewish immigration and the existence of a Jewish State of any kind.

The modern Palestinian movement was born.

And when the British finally left in May, 1948 – and the tiny little partition that was alotted for the Jews declared themselves an independent nation – all of the Arab nations simultaneously attacked her. It was the Arabs who would not accept that in the vast expanse of the Middle East a small area could be designated as a Jewish State.

Israel miraculously defeated her Arab enemies – and have done so in every Arab-Israeli conflict since.


I’m sure these things simply slipped Thomas’ mind, constipated professional she is.

And I’m certain someone in the lamestream media would have pointed these things out at some point.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Antisemitism, Media, Moral Clarity | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 1, 2009

if only israel leaves

if only israel leaves

To speak ill of Noam Chomsky in Manhattan (or any other liberal enclave where liberalism rests like an angry tumor) is akin to taking a cinderblock to the face of a beloved grandmother or drop kicking kittens with steel-tipped boots. It just isn’t done – not without outraging a whole bunch of people.

I tried it once.

I had no idea that I was both a Nazi and an evil money-grubbing Capitalist. My versatility astounded me.

Indeed, there are more of Chomsky’s books on any given bookstore shelf in New York City than there are happy mosquitoes at a nudist convention – or peace symbols in Greenwich Village.

Well, I’d like to take a few paragraphs to speak ill of him – and then some – if I may.

Call me a nasty kitten-kicker, if you will. Tag me with a “grandma-smacking” label if it suits you, but I must go on record as saying that Chomsky is a bona-fide moral oaf. To believe what he believes, he would have to be, by definition, a moral idiot.


(I am aware that I have spiked heavily into the red on the “Incredibly Obvious” meter, but this one requires a response).

Late last week, Chomsky gave an interview to Amy Goodman, host of liberal tea-time’s favorite radio noise “Democracy Now.” In it, Chomsky said that President Obama’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “approximately the Bush position” and said that a solution can be found if Israel simply “leaves.”

In response to Obama’s comments on the Middle-East conflict on Thursday, Mr. Chomsky said:

(Obama) began by saying that Israel, like any democracy, has a right to defend itself. That’s true, but there’s a gap in the reasoning.

It has a right to defend itself. It doesn’t follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. So we might agree, say, that, you know, the British army in the United States in the colonies in 1776 had a right to defend itself from the terror of George Washington’s armies, which was quite real, but it didn’t follow they had a right to defend themselves by force, because they had no right to be here.

So, yes, they had a right to defend themselves, and they had a way to do it—namely, leave. Same with the Nazis defending themselves against the terror of the partisans. They have no right to do it by force. In the case of Israel, it’s exactly the same. They have a right to defend themselves, and they can easily do it.

One, in a narrow sense, they could have done it by accepting the ceasefire that Hamas proposed right before the invasion—I won’t go through the details—a ceasefire that had been in place and that Israel violated and broke.

With all due respect, the gap exists between Mr. Chomsky’s ears.

There is egregious moral impotence in pacifism, and that is precisely what Chomsky advocates. Pacifism is, indeed, his answer to conflict – but his position is more sinister than just that. (Yes, pacifism is sinister when evil is allowed to subsist). He advocates pacifism only when practiced by the United States or Israel. Terrorists, totalitarians, fascists and despots get passes – or at the very least, a whole host of “reasons” and “excuses” for why they have been forced to fire missiles at civilians or strap bombs across their chests.

I invite anyone to summon the creative forces of their imagination to create a scenario of conflict where the likes of Mr. Chomsky would not find some way to squeeze in a denunciation of America.

For example, given a horrific terrorist attack in, say, Washington, D.C., Chomsky might admit it was a terrible thing, but would immediately begin asking what America had done to provoke it. The only correct response, according to Mr. C, would be to do nothing. Condemnations against those who perpetrated the act would be short-lived and fleeting to Chomsky and his self-loathing disciples.

But pacifism is not only a moral failing, it is, literally, a sickness – an act given to self-destruction – because it defies the natural instinct of humans to defend themselves when confronted with attack.

The age old question, “How exactly does one defend itself without force when the enemy exists in a different moral reality?” has yet to be sufficiently answered by Leftocrats. Better yet, “How is retreating from evil a sound defense?” cuts to it with a bit more verve. Mr. Chomsky is so tragically inept on the realities of the world that he truly believes that those who perpetrate evil – like the Nazis or Islamo-fascist terrorists – will cease their aggressions if the other side simply “leaves.”

Thus, in Chomskyville, goodness could never prevail.

How sad that our universities are filled with professors who own this worldview.

Leftists like Chomsky live in cartoon constructs of how they wish things to be. Some of them may, indeed, be wonderful people, but they possess no wisdom and cannot be trusted on matters of survival.

Besides, Israel did leave Gaza, remember? It was in all the papers.

And exactly who lobbed thousands of indiscriminate missiles into Israel on a daily basis? Exactly who violated the ceasefire agreement the moment it expired?

Mr. Chomsky subscribes to his own set of facts here.

Does it not trouble Mr. Chomsky that Hamas fighters use the innocent as shields, use civilian dwellings to harbor their weapons and fire upon Israelis from deep within ordinary neighborhoods?

No need to answer that.

It doesn’t trouble him because Israel has the temerity to fight back … and to him (and other moral cowards like him), that’s where the abomination lies.

But in a broader sense—and this is a crucial omission in everything Obama said, and if you know who his advisers are, you understand why—Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes. Gaza and the West Bank are a unit.

Israel, with US backing, is carrying out constant crimes, not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, where it is moving systematically with US support to take over the parts of the West Bank that it wants and to leave Palestinians isolated in unviable cantons, Bantustans, as Sharon called them. Well, stop those crimes, and resistance to them will stop.

Note the phrase: “Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes.”

we're so proud of junior

we're so proud of junior

As unsporting of me as it may be to fire back at the intellectually frail with pesky facts, I’ll take the risk … It was Hamas – a terrorist organization that exists, by their own admission, with the goal of eliminating the State of Israel – that fired missiles into Israel by the thousands. It was Hamas who broke the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire. And yet the criminals are the Israelis for defending themselves?

If I may ask directly … Mr. Chomsky, if Israel stopped defending itself in the conventional way – by force – and did so your way – the roll over, bend over and take it method – what is your best educated guess as to what would happen to Israel?

There is not a single Israeli leader who does not agree that there should be, in some form, a two state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. (Keep in mind, the sizeable Arab and Palestinian populations that live peacefully in Israel proper, with the full rights of citizenship). Yet, Hamas doesn’t want a two-state solution. They want Israel destroyed.

Where exactly is the moral equivalence?

For those who claim that the Middle East conflict is complicated, they are dead wrong. It is simple.

One side wants Israel to go away forever. Israel doesn’t want to.

That the solution may be complicated is a separate issue.

Many thanks to Little Green Footballs for bringing this story to my attention.

Posted in Liberalism, Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2009

Golda Meir famously said, “We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.”

I am not sure I could ever beckon whatever it would take to forgive someone who murdered my children, but the point is well taken.

In Gaza, so the story goes, the ground is full. There is no more room in the cemeteries there to bury the dead. It is a story both unsettling and tragic – assuming it is true.

For me, not being moved by the death of innocents would be – in my humble opinion – less than human.

However, allow me to be as clear as possible.

Each and every death of an innocent in the ongoing battle between Israel and Hamas rests completely – unequivocally – with the murderous terrorist organization, Hamas. Indeed, the majority of the dead in Gaza are military personnel. However, where innocents have been killed – particularly as a result of the dastardly and disgusting practice of using people as shields, or civilian residences as weapons storage facilities – the blame in totality belongs with the vermin who sparked the current conflict by firing thousands of missiles into Israel.

And yet, somehow, most of the world continues to excoriate the tiny little Jewish state by the Mediterranean for defending itself. There can be no better example of how backward a large portion of humanity is than the planet-wide condemnation of Israel. Much of the world press – with its inherent anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and unwillingness to not only confront evil but its inability to  identify it – eagerly broadcasts and publishes endless images of bloodied Palestinian civilians and pulverized buildings in Gaza, complete with soul-wrenching, heart-stomping tales of destroyed families and missing children.

One caption under a picture of dead bodies in Gaza, posted at the Times Online reads:

Gaza FuneralSeven members of the Salha family were killed in an Israeli airstrike on their home. Many families are unable to bury their dead properly because of the hostilities.

Just for good measure, on the right side of the Times Online webpage, there is a frightening picture a man running with a bloody infant in his arms.

Nope. No bias there.

Here’s my news flash …

Save for the genuinely innocent, I have not a scintilla of compassion for the dead in Gaza.

The article reads:

To the traumatised Palestinians of the Gaza Strip it is bad enough that their friends and relatives are being killed in such numbers – more than 900 at the last count. What is worse is that they can no longer give them proper funerals. In northern Gaza, because the Eastern cemetery is no longer accessible, the bereaved are having to search for plots between the existing graves in the older, full-up cemeteries to bury their loved ones, or to reopen and reuse the graves of their forebears.

There is no mention in this particular article (nor in hundreds like it) – not one – of the reason why Israel is attacking the Gaza Strip. (Surprise, surprise) There is not even a passing reference to the thousands of missiles fired into Israel from Gaza that initiated this latest round of kick-ass.

Not that I expected there would be.

A blogger called Ozzy at the Times Online typifies the cancer that is moral equivalency with this brilliant comment:

war is terrible, but i guess in order for there to be peace there has to be war… that’s what history says, human are always going to repeat the same pattern if they don’t ever try to learn from their mistakes. sadly there are plenty of people who would ignore that for the sake of their cult.

I agree that peace is achieved through victory.

But this oatmeal-spine way of thinking – like most liberal thought on matters of security – is embarrassingly childish. Victory does not ensure that all evil is defeated – and because that is the case, it does not automatically negate the necessity of fighting when it is called for. Winning a war does not mean there will be no more wars. Rather, victory ensures that a specific evil is defeated at a given time, e.g., defeating the Nazis in World War II (but still needing to fight the Communists in Korea or the Islamo-Fascists in the current “War on Terror.”)

That war is “terrible,” does not mean it is unnecessary.

Naivety, thy name is liberalism.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 9, 2009

UN Security Council

This may be a knee-jerk reaction on my part – and I’m willing to concede the point – but in my defense, I have a long track record from which I can accurately draw this specific conclusion.  I call it the “American Rule of Thumb.” In short, whatever world opinion is, go with the opposite.


Whatever the consensus from the rest of the world may be on any subject of relevance, go in the other direction.

The United Nations Security Council has called for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza – and, of course, because this is coming from the ever-reliable, always morally clear institution that sits off the East River in Manhattan, my initial instinct is that it must be the wrong thing to do.

Not particularly analytical of me, I know.

The vote was 14-0, with the United States abstaining.

From Fox News:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. agrees with the principles of the cease-fire resolution but wants to see the outcome of an Egyptian effort to bring the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table.

The cease-fire resolution spearheaded by Egypt and France must be “not just applauded, but supported,” Rice said.

Despite the breakthrough in the United Nations, the two-week-old war in the Gaza Strip raged on, and early Friday, an Israeli airstrike flattened a five-story building in northern Gaza, one of more than 30 targets struck before dawn by Israeli warplanes.

I am convinced that if terrorists took over the United Nations building, the multicultural occupants (those still in possession of their jugular veins) would spend the next hours debating on which shade of white the surrender flag ought to be – that is, after laying blame at the tootsies of the United States and Israel for pissing off the “minding their own business” terrorists.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 3, 2009



Taken directly from the UK Guardian’s Gaza Diary web page earlier today.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 3, 2009

satelliteGround Operations are underway in the Gaza Strip.

I wish the IDF the very best of luck and every success with Operation Cast Lead.

This paragraph from the Jerusalem Post is key:

The IDF warned that terrorists using civilians as human shields would bear full responsibility for their fate. The IDF spokesperson emphasized that “anyone who hides a terrorist or weapons in his house is considered a terrorist,” adding that “the residents of Gaza are not the target of the operation.”

This is precisely what separates the “good guys” from the “bad guys.”

It is what distinguishes terrorists from those who act to eradicate evil.

It is what defines and divides cowards and heroes.

It is what classifies those who wish to kill innocents from those who defend themselves against murderous aggression.

That I even have to make this statement shows precisely how upside down our world has become … but make no mistake about it, Hamas is wholly to blame for this.

For the first time since the start of Operation Cast Lead, IDF ground troops entered the Gaza Strip on Saturday evening, exchanging fire with Hamas gunmen.

Channel 2 reported that the Navy was imposing a blockade on the water near Gaza to prevent Hamas from receiving assistance through Gaza’s coastline.

The IDF said that a large amount of troops from the Armored Corps, Engineering Corps and Infantry Corps entered the territory with the purpose of destroying Hamas infrastructure and preventing rocket fire by taking control of launching pads “in order to greatly reduce the quantity of rockets fired at Israel and Israeli civilians.”

From the Associated Press:

“We have many, many targets,” Israeli military spokeswoman Maj. Avital Leibovich told CNN, adding that Hamas has been digging smuggling tunnels and other facilities. “To my estimation, it will be a lengthy operation,” she said.

“The goal is to try and take over some of the those launching areas that were responsible for the many launches, thousands of launches in fact, toward Israeli civilians,” she said. “The civilians are not our target. We are looking only after militants. Hamas militants.”

No heavy analysis required at this moment.

Now, win.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2008


Freedom of speech, of course, means freedom to protest the existence of “Zionist Juice.”

In Manhattan on Sunday.

This picture is courtesy of the great Green Little Footballs website.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2008

terrorist257eb98fft3This is why leftists cannot be trusted with national security.

That liberals – like Ezra Klein at the American Prospect – are condemning Israel’s actions against the terrorist organization Hamas is no bombshell.

That liberals like Klein castigate Israel because of her “disproportionate” response to the daily barrage of rocket and mortar attacks coming from the Gaza Strip is downright frightening.

As I wrote yesterday, you don’t provoke a lion with constant harassment and then express outrage at the volume of his roar when he’s had enough.

Leftists cannot be trusted to respond to evil because they spend their time attempting to balance the scales of moral equivalence as a response to dastardly acts while the enemy exploits.

Leftists cannot be trusted to respond to evil because they refuse to label it.

And if by chance they do, leftists cannot be trusted to respond to evil because they wonder what it is we have done to incite it.

Mr. Klein writes:

No deaths and few injuries. “Deeply disturbing.” Hamas lacks the technology to aim its rockets. They’re taking potshots. In response, the Israeli government launched air strikes that have now killed more than 280 Palestinians, injured hundreds beyond that, and further radicalized thousands in the Occupied Territories and millions in the region.

The entire “proportionate response” argument is a further example of why liberals cannot be taken at all seriously in real world situations and why matters of national security need to be left to the adults.

What does Klein and his ilk actually mean?

The fact that Hamas does not fire their rockets at specific military targets – or any explicit targets for that matter – means that the proper Israeli response should be what? An equivelant number of indiscriminate, misguided rocket launches into civilian pockets of the Gaza Strip that, too, cause “no deaths and a few injuries?”

Should this be overseen by the Minister of Equality?

The Secretary of Tally?

Or maybe Israel should do nothing at all and figure out how much more they need to relinquish to the terrorists to “keep the peace.”

(Yes, this is how the modern liberal thinks).

That Hamas hasn’t the technology to kill as many Israelis as they would like to with their daily attacks means what? That Israel should calm down, relax and stop being so unreasonable?

And if Hamas were not firing rockets into Israel in the first place, would this be an issue at all? What exactly does Mr. Klein believe the intent of Hamas is with these launches into Israel?

Of course, it is worth noting that Israel has been targeting military positions and outposts in Gaza. The vast majority of those killed by the strikes were Hamas types – not civilians.

Plus, it is imperative to point out that according to an Associated Press story:

Militants often operate against Israel from civilian areas. Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons.

A warning? Really?

I wonder how many cell phone messages were sent out by Hamas prior to the rocket launches from Gaza into Israel. Certainly their technology is advanced enough to be able to work the “send” button, no?

Klein writes:

The rocket attacks were undoubtedly “deeply disturbing” to Israelis. But so too are the checkpoints, the road closures, the restricted movement, the terrible joblessness, the unflinching oppression, the daily humiliations, the illegal settlement — I’m sorry, “outpost” — construction, “deeply disturbing” to the Palestinians, and far more injurious. And the 300 dead Palestinians should be disturbing to us all.

Disturbing is the failure to acknowledge that all of this so-called “unflinching oppression” is a rejoinder to terrorist activity perpetrated by Hamas and other murderous groups who wish to see Israel wiped from existence by any means possible.

Some points are meant to be made over and over again.

As I wrote on Saturday:

Talk show host Dennis Prager often poses two questions in regard to the never-ending unrest between Israel and the nations that want her destroyed.

-What would happen if Israel laid down her arms?

-What would happen if Hamas and Hezbollah laid down their arms?

As Prager correctly points out, one scenario would result in the destruction of a nation. The other would result in peace.

With all due respect, you are a moral coward, Ezra Klein.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2008

logoFor a second straight day, Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip took a much-needed pounding from Israeli forces. The terrorist organization’s main security compound was among the marks that took a heavy beating from Israeli war planes.

The campaign by Israel is retaliatory – a more-than-appropriate response to daily rocket and mortar attacks launched by Palestinian “militants” after a truce between the two sides expired last week.

To no one’s great surprise, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned the Israeli operation.

Their statement, in part, read:

“Despite the public ‘green light’ given to the Israeli military by the Bush administration, American Muslims join our fellow citizens who respect international law and the sanctity of human life in repudiating this massacre carried out using U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons.

“It must be clear by now that the only future offered to the Palestinian people by the outgoing administration was one of perpetual subjugation and humiliation at the hands of the Israeli occupiers. Unfortunately, our nation’s timid response to this tragic episode will only serve to fuel anti-American sentiments in the Muslim world.

“We therefore call on President-elect Obama to demonstrate his commitment to change our nation’s current one-sided Mideast policy by speaking out now in favor of peace and justice for all parties to this decades-long conflict.

“We also call on world leaders to take direct action to end Israel’s counterproductive and wildly disproportionate attacks and to end the humanitarian siege of Gaza, which led to the recent breakdown of the ceasefire.”

First, the ‘green light’ was lit by Hamas with their daily barrage of rockets into Israel.

Second, the phrase “disproportionate attacks” is a laugher. You don’t provoke a lion with constant harassment and then express outrage at the volume of his roar when he’s had enough.

Third, as far as “international law” and the “sanctity of human life” is concerned … there is a general guideline for Americans to follow here.

If the rest of the world supports something or takes a certain position, go with the opposite.

It’s a good rule of thumb.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 27, 2008

gaza1Israel is doing the right thing.

With the news of that country unleashing retaliatory strikes against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip  – in which at least 228 were killed – as a response to the daily rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian terrorists, the White House made a critical point that terrorist sympathizers still refuse to consider.

Said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, “If Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel, then Israel would not have a need for strikes in Gaza. What we’ve got to see is Hamas stop firing rockets into Israel.”


This is all on Hamas.

Talk show host Dennis Prager often poses two questions in regard to the never-ending unrest between Israel and the nations that want her destroyed.

-What would happen if Israel laid down her arms?

-What would happen if Hamas and Hezbollah laid down their arms?

As Prager correctly points out, one scenario would result in the destruction of a nation. The other would result in peace.

Any bets as to which action would yield which result?

As Johndroe said, “The United States holds Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire; we want the ceasefire restored.”

The Egypt-brokered six-month truce between Israel and Hamas officially ended on December 19th.

Israel said the daily rocket and mortar attacks, which have intensified since the truce came to an end, were “intolerable.”

Naturally, as a response to a response to something they initiated, the good folks over at Hamas vowed revenge – which, according to them, would include suicide bomb attacks in the “cafes and streets” of Israel. Meanwhile, Israel said the attacks against Hamas would go on as long as necessary. The possibility of using land forces was not ruled out as Israeli forces reinforced the border between Israel and Gaza.

Good for you, Israel.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »