New Orleans is f**ked. Hurricane Katrina blog.

Germany still not safe for dead Jews.

Jewish cemetery in Germany defaced with swastikas

A Jewish cemetery in the central German town of Ebersburg was desecrated by vandals, who sprayed swastikas and other Nazi symbols on gravestones, police said Sunday.

Fourteen gravestones were defaced with the paint, and two more were knocked over, said police in Ebersburg, near Fulda.

The damage was caused sometime between Wednesday and Saturday, and no suspects have been taken into custody.

Apparently the Nazis of the 1940s took care of the problem that there would be anyone around to notice the vandalism right away.

Two heroes save an unknown number of innocent civilians from death at the hands of a Palestinian terrorist.

Guards save dozens in Beersheba blast

A suicide bomb attack at the entrance to the central bus station in Beersheba critically wounded two security guards Sunday morning and caused a total of 48 people to be evacuated to the Soroka Medical Center.

The two security guards in their 20's who prevented the suicide bomber from getting onto a bus were in serious condition at Soroka University Medical Center on Sunday.

Both their lives are still in danger after suffering burns and shrapnel wounds. One of the guards underwent surgery for his wounds, while the other had shrapnel in his eyes.

I pray for their speedy recovery.

Thank G-d also for the sharp Israeli bus driver who sent the terrorist away.

The bomber had aroused the suspicions of the driver of a crowded Number 9 bus. Asked by the bomber if his bus went to Soroka, the driver directed him to another area, then alerted security guards, who pursued the attacker until he set off the bomb. The explosion critically injured one of the guards. The other was listed in serious but stable condition.

Initial investigations suggested that the bomber had intended to blow up at the Soroka Medical Center, Channel 2 reported.

Read what a Palestinian doctor had to say about Soroka after the last attempt to attack the hospital.

Gaza doctor fumes over bomb plot at Soroka

I've decided that every time I hear about a terroist attack in Israel I will donate some amount to either One Family Fund or another organziation dedicated to healing the physically and psychologically wounded. A site to donate to American Friends of Soroka Hospital is here.

UPDATE: Baruch Hashem - Beersheba bombing 'heroes' recovering

Although they both suffered serious burns, shrapnel wounds and other damage and were in unstable condition during the 24 hours after being admitted to Soroka, both have undergone surgery and are stable and out of danger.

On PBS' P.O.V. program this week (Tuesday in the Dallas area) - Hiding and Seeking - Faith and Tolerance After the Holocaust

Is it possible to heal wounds and bitterness passed down through generations? An Orthodox Jewish father tries to alert his adult sons to the dangers of creating impenetrable barriers between themselves and those outside their faith. He takes them on an emotional journey to Poland to track down the family who risked their lives to hide their grandfather for more than two years during World War II. Like many children of survivors, the sons feel that Poland is a country that is incurably anti-Semitic, but it is precisely here that they meet people who personify the highest levels of compassion. "Hiding and Seeking" explores the Holocaust's effect on faith in God as well as faith in our fellow human beings. A co-presentation with the Independent Television Service (ITVS).

The show tends to have a liberal slant (see no one hates Jews in Poland! How could anyone claim that Poles were anything but innocent during the Holcoaust?), but it should still be interesting anyway.

Having spent a number of years living in NY City, I had heard that there were certain places in Central Park that gay men would go to "hook up". Little did I know that Modern Orthodox young adults also have a place of their own.

With Their Eyes Only

On a midsummer Saturday afternoon, the Great Lawn in Central Park is the best place - perhaps the only place - for these modestly dressed eligible bachelors and bachelorettes to meet, so much so that by 5 p.m., the lawn has been transformed into a unmistakable singles scene for the Sabbath-observant Jews of the Upper West Side.

I don't know if this still holds true, but the Lincoln Square synangogue on the Uppper West Side used to be known as "Wink 'n' Stare".

Another Hitchens related link - this one to a video of a Hitchens appearance on Jon Stewart where the left is claiming an intellectual smackdown victory.

Christopher Hitchens vs Jon Stewart

I of course, beg to differ, as I posted on my brother-in-laws journal.

Thanks for the Hitchens-Stewart link. It's nice to see two people who are part of the left-center and right-center have a semi-serious conversation on Iraq and terorrism. As Hitchens himself says in an article he mentioned in the segment see my previous post), the problem is that Bush has taken to platitiudes when it actually takes more than a few minutes to explain why we're better off today than we were before we went into Iraq and people need to listen.

I went back to look at the tape a second time to see if this really was an intellectual smackdown. I would argue that it wasn't. Some of your readers may confuse applause from the home crowd after a monologue with a debating victory.

Stewart first asked "Why Iraq?" when other countires are also "evil", a valid question to which Hitchens had an detailed answer (there's more in his article). Hitchens even explained in detail why we had the international legal (if not moral) authority to go into Iraq. Stewart did not claim he was incorrect - he just implied that political action (treaties, laws, etc) which threatens the prevention or punishment of crimes against humanity is meant to be symbolic and to actually fight against regimes committing these crimes would be "crazy". Is this really a morally justifiable position?

Stewart then accuses us of wanting to go in and "re-draw the map" in the Middle East in a Churchillian manner. Huh? If anything many detractors of the handling of the war claim that we will fail because we are NOT re-drawing the map and forcing the Iraqis to stick to the old English-imposed borders.

Stewart then says Bush is incompetent which is always the refuge a liberal takes when there is no counter-argument on the policy. Hitchens agrees (seriously) so there is no point of contention there.

The next point Hitchens tries to show is that Iraq harbored terrorists that actually attacked the US and it's citizens and more specifically al-Zarqawi, a man he claims is today possibly more dangerous than bin Laden. Stewart replies with a not very specific or enlightening retort of "so does everyone else", specifically mentioning Qatar as a palce that harbors terrorists. In fact, Qatar has been relatively liberal in both it's stand on women's issues and freedom of the press (Al-Jazeera is based there) among other things. They were shocked when they experienced their first terror attack earlier this year.

Then of course Stewart picks out the least important of Hitchen's examples (the architect of the Achille Lauro hijacking) and says that there's a differnece between "old-school" terrorism and al-Qaeda terrorism. Hitchens wan't arguing that. He was saying that Iraq welcomed all levels of terrorists - none were denied entry or support - which was the point.

Finally, Stewart goes into a little Bush-bashing monologue which I don't necessarily disagree with, but his conduct as President really has no bearing on whether what we're doing in Iraq is right and whether anyone, including the Iraqis, are better off now than they were with Hussein in power. Since Hitchens didn't have a chance to respond, and although the audience gave a nice round of applause, I can't consider this a debating point won - besides Hitchens probably would have agreed.

To me Stewart's best line is when he repsonds to Hitchens at the end by saying that "I need the President to be on my side." Of course, just becuase he disagrees with the President's PR methods doesn't mean that the President is not on his side. My five five year old always thinks I mishandle her bedtime (too early) and dinner menu (not enough chocolate), but I assure you I am on her side.

Christopher Hitchens uses the unimpeachable power of logic, anethema to liberals who think that because we are not perfect, we can't do any good in the world.

A War to Be Proud Of

LET ME BEGIN WITH A simple sentence that, even as I write it, appears less than Swiftian in the modesty of its proposal: "Prison conditions at Abu Ghraib have improved markedly and dramatically since the arrival of Coalition troops in Baghdad."

I could undertake to defend that statement against any member of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, and I know in advance that none of them could challenge it, let alone negate it. Before March 2003, Abu Ghraib was an abattoir, a torture chamber, and a concentration camp. Now, and not without reason, it is an international byword for Yankee imperialism and sadism. Yet the improvement is still, unarguably, the difference between night and day. How is it possible that the advocates of a post-Saddam Iraq have been placed on the defensive in this manner? And where should one begin?....

...puerility in adults is quite another thing, and considerably less charming. "You said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on fire." I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten seconds to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem.

Read it all.

It seems to me that this is the kind of museum we need at Ground Zero.

Anne Frank’s house inspires 9/11 museum

At the second-floor museum in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District, visitors are met by three-dimensional displays of photographs that pull the viewer close to the terror, dirt, sweat — and death.

Suson took one of the first photos of the firefighter honor guard that carried remains as they were found. He shot the scene in close-up, as he did other moments, such as a firefighter helping carry out the remains of his own son.

Last year, Suson went to Amsterdam, Netherlands, and visited the home of Anne Frank, the Jewish teenager who wrote a diary of her life before the Nazis sent her to the Bergen Belsen death camp.

“Within two hours of being in there, I felt like I’d come to know this little girl. It put a face on the Holocaust,” said the 33-year-old Suson. “I went back to the hotel and cried.”

I want people to cry when they go to Ground Zero and then think about the monsters that caused such mindless death and destruction.

We do not need George Soros' International Freedom Center.

Take Back the Memorial! I've signed the petition.

Odd quote of the day from Eleanor Clift's report, Challenging Hillary

“This is a great time to have a conversation between two very sharp women, as long as we don’t get too mired down in the catfight,” says Marie Wilson, founder of the White House Project, which is dedicated to advancing the idea of a woman president.

I can't believe a woman advocating the benefits of putting a woman in the White House would really use the word "catfight" here.

From Power Line - so good I have to post the whole thing.

Some Thoughts on Casualties in Times of War and Peace

It is universally acknowledged that public support for the Iraq war is eroding. Some of the polls supporting this claim are faulty because they are based on obviously misleading internal data, but the basic point cannot be denied: many Americans, possibly even a majority, have turned against the war.

This should hardly be a surprise. On the contrary, how could it be otherwise? News reporting on the war consists almost entirely of itemizing casualties. Headlines say: "Two Marines killed by roadside bomb." Rarely do the accompanying stories--let alone the headlines that are all that most people read--explain where the Marines were going, or why; what strategic objective they and their comrades were pursuing, and how successful they were in achieving it; or how many terrorists were also killed. For Americans who do not seek out alternative news sources like this one, the war in Iraq is little but a succession of American casualties. The wonder is that so many Americans do, nevertheless, support it.

The sins of the news media in reporting on Iraq are mainly sins of omission. Not only do news outlets generally fail to report the progress that is being made, and often fail to put military operations into any kind of tactical or strategic perspective, they assiduously avoid talking about the overarching strategic reason for our involvement there: the Bush administration's conviction that the only way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, long term, is to help liberate the Arab countries so that their peoples' energies will be channelled into the peaceful pursuits of free enterprise and democracy, rather than into bizarre ideologies and terrorism. Partly this omission is due to laziness or incomprehension, but I think it is mostly attributable to the fact that if the media acknowledged that reforming the Arab world, in order to drain the terrorist swamp, has always been the principal purpose of the Iraq war, it would take the sting out of their "No large stockpiles of WMDs!" theme.

One wonders how past wars could have been fought if news reporting had consisted almost entirely of a recitation of casualties. The D-Day invasion was one of the greatest organizational feats ever achieved by human beings, and one of the most successful. But what if the only news Americans had gotten about the invasion was that 2,500 allied soldiers died that day, with no discussion of whether the invasion was a success or a failure, and no acknowledgement of the huge strategic stakes that were involved? Or what if such news coverage had continued, day by day, through the entire Battle of Normandy, with Americans having no idea whether the battle was being won or lost, but knowing only that 54,000 Allied troops had been killed by the Germans?

How about the Battle of Midway, one of the most one-sided and strategically significant battles of world history? What if there had been no "triumphalism"--that dreaded word--in the American media's reporting on the battle, and Americans had learned only that 307 Americans died--never mind that the Japanese lost more than ten times that many--without being told the decisive significance of the engagement?

Or take Iwo Jima, the iconic Marine Corps battle. If Americans knew only that nearly 7,000 Marines lost their lives there, with no context, no strategy, and only sporadic acknowledgement of the heroism that accompanied those thousands of deaths, would the American people have continued the virtually unanimous support for our country, our soldiers and our government that characterized World War II?

We are conducting an experiment never before seen, as far as I know, in the history of the human race. We are trying to fight a war under the auspices of an establishment that is determined--to put the most charitable face on it--to emphasize American casualties over all other information about the war.

Sometimes it becomes necessary to state the obvious: being a soldier is a dangerous thing. This is why we honor our service members' courage. For a soldier, sailor or Marine, "courage" isn't an easily-abused abstraction--"it took a lot of courage to vote against the farm bill"--it's a requirement of the job.

Even in peacetime. The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.

That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.

The point? Being a soldier is not safe, and never will be. Driving in my car this afternoon, I heard a mainstream media reporter say that around 2,000 service men and women have died in Afghanistan and Iraq "on President Bush's watch." As though the job of the Commander in Chief were to make the jobs of our soldiers safe. They're not safe, and they never will be safe, in peacetime, let alone wartime.

What is the President's responsibility? To expend our most precious resources only when necessary, in service of the national interest. We would all prefer that our soldiers never be required to fight. Everyone--most of all, every politician--much prefers peace to war. But when our enemies fly airplanes into our skyscrapers; attack the nerve center of our armed forces; bomb our embassies; scheme to blow up our commercial airliners; try to assassinate our former President; do their best to shoot down our military aircraft; murder our citizens; assassinate our diplomats overseas; and attack our naval vessels--well, then, the time has come to fight. And when the time comes to fight, our military personnel are ready. They don't ask to be preserved from all danger. They know their job is dangerous; they knew that when they signed up. They are prepared to face the risk, on our behalf. All they ask is to be allowed to win.

It is, I think, a reasonable request. It's the least that we--all Americans, including reporters and editors--can do.

Ripped from the pages of today's Little Green Footballs (which ripped this from the pages of Brutally Honest)..a Bob Hope classic.

Some Things Don't Change.

The truth finally comes out regarding one of the most famous blown calls in sports history.

Maradona Gives First-Hand Account of Famous Goal

Diego Maradona acknowledged that he struck the ball with his hand in the famous "Hand of God" goal against England in the 1986 World Cup quarterfinals.

Speaking on his local television talk show Monday night, Maradona called one of soccer's most controversial goals "something that just came out of me. It was a bit of mischief."

Maradona appeared to punch the ball into the net, and officials allowed the goal to stand despite protests by the English team. Argentina went on to win the match, 2-1.

It then won the World Cup.

You have got to be kidding me.

Nonetheless, the pullout has displayed deep fissures, among parties and generations and within Zionism itself. And it has made some Israelis wonder why at least some of the same consideration and sensitivity cannot be shown by the army, at the many checkpoints that form a notional border, toward Palestinians.

Who are these Israelis? How the hell does the New York Times even allow someone to compare a process to weed out terrorists who are on their way to kill dozens of innocent Jews versus the ethnic cleansing (isn't that what they call it) of Jews by their own brothers and sisters? And you know when the Times uses the term "some Israelis", it's jounrnalist-speak for "a growing/significant number". Bullcrap.



Maybe all this kid needed was a Jewish shoulder to cry on. In any case if the Israeli army really put no value on Palestinian life, this kid would have been hamburger.

I wonder how many Palestinian/Arab deaths have been prevented by Israelis who've caught suicide bombers before they could take action.

Just in case anyone is under the impression that the Palestinians are holding their fire during the disengagement (which by the way is happening faster than originally planned). You're wrong.

An IDF tank commander was lightly wounded Sunday by Palestinian gunfire in a settlement area of the Gaza Strip.

The officer was hit in the hand by a sniper, OC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Dan Harel said.

The shooting occurred between the evacuated settlements of Neveh Dekalim and Ganei Tal, said an army spokesman.

Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have mostly held their fire during the Israeli withdrawal.

Harel said that since the withdrawal began early Monday there had been 19 shooting incidents and 12 mortar attacks. That's far fewer than normal during the last five years of violence in Gaza. (Ed. note - how sad is that?)

The general said coordination has been "very good" with the Palestinian Authority, which governs Gaza and the West Bank.

Of course if you read yesterday's AP reports, you might be confused.

No Attacks in Gaza Pullout's First Week

When the liberal, secular elite in Tel Aviv have to start worrying about missiles instead of suicide bombers, there's gonna be a big can of whoop-ass opened up on the Palestinians and no group in Israeli society will have the power or desire to prevent it. The Arabs' biggest mistake would be to unite what is now a fractured society in Israel which is not sure what to do next.

Mashaal:'Beginning of end for Israel'

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal declared on Wednesday that the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank marked the beginning of the end of the Zionist dream in Palestine....

Asked about Hamas's future plans, Zahar said: "Neither the liberation of the Gaza Strip, nor the liberation of the West Bank or even Jerusalem will suffice us. Hamas will pursue the armed struggle until the liberation of all our lands. We don't recognize the state of Israel or its right to hold onto one inch of Palestine. Palestine is an Islamic land belonging to all the Muslims."...

"We will transfer two-thirds of our budget to the West Bank," he said. "Our rockets have a range of 18 kilometers. This means that if we fire them from Kalkilya, they will hit the occupied city of Tal al-Rabi [Tel Aviv]."

Who knows - maybe Sharon is using the Bush plan of attracting all the head terrorists to one spot where they'll be easier to arrest and kill.

Two thumbs up for the Pope.

Pope Visits a Synagogue in Germany

The pope underlined his commitment to continue in the path of his predecessor, John Paul II, who made the first papal visit to a synagogue in Rome in 1986 and improved relations between Catholics and Jews.

''Today I, too, wish to reaffirm that I intend to continue on the path toward improved relations and friendship with the Jewish people, following the decisive lead given by John Paul II,'' said Benedict, who did much of the theological groundwork for John Paul's outreach while serving as a Vatican official in charge of doctrine....

He said it was important not to paper over differences: ''I would encourage sincere and trustful dialogue between Jews and Christians, for only in this way will it be possible to arrive at a shared interpretation of disputed historical questions, and above all to make progress towards a theological evaluation of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity,'' he said.

''This dialogue, if it is to be sincere, must not gloss over or underestimate the existing differences. ... We need to show respect for one another, and to love one another.''

If you want to understand the difference between the liberal left and the conservative right regarding Israel, all you have to do is read the following two editorials.

From the New York Times - Gaza Reality Check

Money quote - "It (Gaza) was never part of the Zionist state intended by the United Nations partition plan that led to the establishment of Israel in 1948."

In other words, the Times thinks Israel only has the right to the blue portion of this map:



From the Wall Street Journal - Israel's Agony, Palestine's Future

Money quote - "Contrary to received opinion, for most of Israel's occupation these settlers were an economic boon to Palestinians, providing them with agricultural and small-factory jobs that had never existed under the previous Egyptian military administration."

I stand with those who defend my people's right to live wherever they choose and see the good in them rather than the bad.

Let's not even go into Cindy "Israel Out of Palestine" Sheehan.

We should all be ready more Andy Borowitz

BUSH REFUSES TO SET TIMETABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM CRAWFORD
Early End to Vacation Would ‘Send Terrible Signal,’ President Says

President George W. Bush said today that he understands and respects the views of those who are calling for him to cut short his summer vacation, but warned that an immediate withdrawal from Crawford, Texas would “send a terrible signal to the enemy.”

“The enemy would like nothing better than to see me cut short my vacation and get back to the White House,” Mr. Bush told reporters. “They hate my freedom.”

If you're a Star Wars loving Jew, as I am, you will love this short film clip - "A Night in Shenkin Street"

For those who don't know, Shenkin Street is the heart of the Greenwich Village-y area in Tel Aviv.

When President Bush talks about being relentless in hunting down the evildoers and he is criticized for not having wiped them all out yet after a few years of fighting and searching (especially OBL), perhaps he takes heart in a similar effort that has been going on for 60 years and will continue until the last person dies.

Justice, justice, shall you pursue. - Deuteronomy 16:20

Ex-Nazi officer's holiday in Italy cut short

The lakeside holiday of a former Nazi SS officer serving a life sentence for his part in a 1944 massacre was cut short on Friday following protests by outraged Italians and international Jewish groups.

Former SS Captain Erich Priebke, 92, decided to leave his friend’s villa in Cardana di Besozzo where he had been enjoying a police-supervised vacation approved by a court and head back to Rome, where he has been under house arrest for six years.