It's Almost Supernatural

The Empty Throne

Tomorrow night, when Carte Blanche screens Fahrenheit 9/11, think of this picture.

(Thanks LGF)

Halloween in France

Graves desecrated by vandals with Nazi swastikas and anti-semitic slogans in the Jewish cemetery of Brumath, close to Strasbourg, October 31, 2004. It is the third time in the last six months that Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated in the Alsace region. REUTERS/Vincent Kessler

The Disengagement Plan

All you need to know, from BICOM research: Background and Analysis.

Translation

Cartoon from Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons.

Some links for Bin Laden's video tape appearence (which must have set the Mail & Guardian off into a fanatical frenzy of joy).
Osama: US must stop threatening Muslims
Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11
A more complete selection of excerpts can be found here.(Thanks LGF)

I remember with disgust being at Wits University after Sept. 11. Plastered all around the buildings were propaganda posters defending Bin Laden. Radical Muslim students, sporting their Bin Laden T-Shirts, bleated incessantly "Where is your proof!"

Local Pay Channel to Screen Fahrenheit 9/11

Yet another dishonest smear job of the United States, driven by left-wing lunacy, will hit our Television screens.

This Sunday night (November 1), on the eve of the US elections, Carte Blanche (Investigative show produced by the local pay channel M-Net) will be screening 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.

Following the Nov. 1 showing, M-Net will feature a panel discussion broadcast from its Johannesburg studio. M-Net, the country's first pay channel, secured the rights for one exclusive screening from the film's distributors, Paramount, earlier this week.

"This is the first time in the history of South African television a movie will be broadcast on television while it is still on the circuit," Jan du Plessis, head of M-Net's program division, said in a statement. "But 'Fahrenheit 9/11' has broken many rules and conventions, and we're delighted that we got permission to screen it at such an opportune time." Moore has billed his documentary as his view of what happened to the United States after Sept. 11, 2001, and how Bush's administration allegedly used the event as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

The film won the top award and the longest standing ovation at this year's Cannes Film Festival. It is also packed with lies and deceits. Be sure to visit this previous entry I made, describing the easiest way to learn about the deceits hidden in F9/11.

I have been offered a copy of Fahrenhype 9/11 by the films director (they unfortunately aren't distributing to South Africa). I have asked the director if I can get M-Net to take a look at the film and consider screening it. Watch this space. Fahrenhype 9/11 is a film that "unravels the truth about Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore." You can view the trailor here.

If any university students are interested in setting up a free Fahrenype 9/11 screening, then please contact me.
(Cartoon from Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons.)

UPDATE
As a visitor from Durban comments, Nov 1 is in fact a Monday. So Sunday night is October 31.

UPDATE
Okay, final update, F9/11 will be screend in a special edition Carte Blanche on Monday 1 Nov.

Your Essential Reading Guide: 6 Days of War

Continuing with the Almost Supernatural Essential Reading Guide (following on from The Case for Israel), today's book is Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, by Michael Oren.

Now that Israel has decided to unilaterally disengage from Gaza, it is a good idea to delve into how Israel came to control the disputed territories. The sheer volums of information presented by Michael Oren in "Six Days of War", is invaluable to any reader interested in the region.

A great deal has been written on the 6 day war, but Oren's book (endorsed by Dennis Ross as the most accurate book on the 6 day war) stands out amongst a host of others that seem to be politically motivated towards one side or the other. Oren's book takes the reader on a journey through the battlefiels as well as the war rooms. A full chapter is dedicated to each day in the war, and "and the scene flashes from Jerusalem to Amman to Cairo to Washington, providing the complexity and suspense of a motion picture."

The Harvard Israel Review provides an excellent (yet critical) review on "Six Days of War". Here is a brief excerpt, but make sure to read the whole thing.

Benjamin Netanyahu once remarked that those who simply call for a return to the old borders "have an understanding of history that goes back to the breakfast table," that the "occupation" is isolated out of its historical context. For such people, history seemingly does not exist before June 10, 1967; they see only imperialism in Israel's presence in these lands, and forget-or conveniently ignore-just how and why these areas came under Israel's control in the first place. A welcome antidote to such historical short-sightedness is Michael Oren's Six Days of War, a careful dissection of 1967's Six-Day War-or, as many Arabs prefer to call it, the "June War" or Al-Naksah ("the setback"). Oren has conducted extensive research using recently released Israeli, American, and Russian government documents, exclusive interviews in Hebrew, English, Russian, French, and Arabic, and other primary and secondary materials in these languages to provide the most detailed account of the war ever written. Though Oren draws on sources collected in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, the Arab archives unfortunately remain largely closed. Until they become public, Oren's book will most likely remain unmatched as an examination of this seminal event. The strength of the book, fittingly, is in its description of each of the six days themselves. One goes through each day of the war with a comprehensive feeling of understanding of what each major player experienced. The flip side of this close focus, of course, is the de-emphasis of the war’s historical context and its consequences.But while Oren does provide a brief history of the conflict up to that point and a few events in particular that he feels created an aura of mistrust in June 1967, he ignores the larger issue, which is the mindset of the Arab governments, the weltanschauung of belligerency and hatred that could not tolerate the idea of any Jewish presence in the Middle East. In the history of this war, we see the shadows of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.

For those that won't be reading Oren's book and just want the brief lowdown of how Israel came to enter the West Bank, visit this Beyond Images communication. The HIR review also includes a great summary of the 6 day war.

Jews Will Have to Leave Gaza

Israel's Knesset has just approved the plan to unilaterally disengage from Gaza and northern West Bank. 67 MKs voted in favor, 45 MKs voted against, and 7 MKs abstained.

It is thought that two vindictive Arab parties voted against the plan. Hadash-Ta'al was the first Arab party to announce it would oppose the bill. Azmi Bishara's Balad party was also expected to vote against the bill.

After missing the first round of voting by not being attendance, Education Minister Limor Livnat, Agriculture Minister Yisrael Katz and Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu voted in favor of the plan.

Calls have been made to put the plan to a national referendum. Polls indicate that over 65% of Israel would be likely to support the plan. Social Affairs Minister Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party) has called for the referendum, but has sensibly promised to remain in the coalition even if the result is not to his liking. But...

In regards to recent pressure on the prime minister to hold a national referendum on disengagement, Sharon said, "No one is pressuring me. No one has called. I am going forward with the disengagement plan as is, without a referendum, and the plan will be realized," Army Radio reported. He emphasized that there is no chance he will change his mind on holding a referendum.

The letter from US president George W. Bush was attached to the plan.

However, the government also attached to the plan a letter from US President George W. Bush outlining US commitments to Israel as a result of the plan. One of the assurances says that in light of realities on the ground, "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

People will have to leave their homes, neighbourhoods, friends, businesses, playgrounds etc just because they are Jewish. The Palestinians have shown us that although Israel allows people of any race or religion to live as equals in Israel, the Palestinians will not accept Jews living in what they perceive as their land.

To repeat what the Times said in a recent entry:

Political leaders should be willing to acknowledge publicly the scale of the political wager that Mr Sharon has accepted. His critics have insisted that he would never pursue a pull-out — he is proving them wrong.

The Times Gets It

A must read article from the Times on just how unfair the press has been on Israel's courageous leader, Ariel Sharon: Goodbye Gaza

Ariel Sharon is often presented outside of Israel as simply a belligerent and uncompromising political hawk and thus an obstacle to the Middle East peace process. That caricature has never been fair and has rarely been more misplaced than at the moment. Over the next two days, the Israeli Knesset will debate and vote on Mr Sharon’s plans to disengage (namely, leave) the Gaza Strip and to remove more than 8,000 Jewish settlers in the process. His proposal has earned him the hatred of many on the right of the political spectrum. Posters have appeared in Jerusalem accusing him of being “crazy” and of “tearing the nation apart” through his blueprint. Shimon Peres, the veteran Labour Party leader, gave a warning last week that Mr Sharon risked being assassinated. It cannot be overstressed just how radical the Gaza withdrawal scheme is and the high price that Mr Sharon has already paid for it. None of the Labour Prime Ministers since the 1967 war has dared to attempt to extract Israel from this territory. Mr Sharon, by contrast, has wisely concluded that it is both militarily and politically indefensible. His candour here has, however, provoked a huge split within his Likud Party, a ballot of individual members which denounced the Prime Minister’s formula, and led to smaller parties deserting his coalition. Mr Sharon today heads a minority administration and is intensely vulnerable either to a rival such as Binyamin Netanyahu, his Finance Minister, or to a combination of his parliamentary opponents in any vote of no confidence. It is absolutely vital to Israel itself and the region that the disengagement plan is enacted. It would not of itself rescue the peace process, but it would demonstrate that positive political movement is not impossible. At a minimum, it would serve as a policy downpayment before the point when Palestinians produce a leader with more personal credibility than the corrupt Yassir Arafat. Palestinians will be closer than before to controlling their own destiny and to having a chance to prove that their territory can be run transparently and equitably. If the vote is carried, then international reaction should not be churlish. The open contempt for Israel has, alas, acquired a momentum that any concession of whatever substance is dismissed as a ruse or a cunning ploy to entrench authority over the Palestinian people. Political leaders should be willing to acknowledge publicly the scale of the political wager that Mr Sharon has accepted. His critics have insisted that he would never pursue a pull-out — he is proving them wrong.

Prejudicial Terminology

Here's a letter that has recently appeared in at least 4 South African newspapers over the past week.

Any reference to the Anglo-Boer War invariably includes mention of the concentration camps where Afrikaner women and children were held. The concentrations of Palestinians in "refugee camps" are no better than the British concentration camps in South Africa and the camps/ghettoes where Jews were herded by the Nazis. Why, then, are the centres where Palestinians are kept virtual prisoners by an invading force — Israel — referred to as "refugee centres" and not "concentration camps"? Is the reason not simply that such designation would drive home to the world that Israeli ethnic cleansing is no "better" than what was done by the British and the Nazis and recently the Serbs?

There is no comparison. There were no restaurants, hotels, and places of entertainment in concentration camps. There are in Palestinians cities. People did not leave the concentration camps and then at some later stage return. Palestinians travel overseas and return to their "concentration camps". The media did not have a heavy presence in concentration camps as they do in Palestinian cities. The Nazi camps were slave labor camps and people were often starved or worked to death. They did not go down the road to the markets to buy food.

There was no semblance of normal life in concentration camps. Palestinians continue normal daily life, albeit with restrictions brought about by terrorist attacks. They go to school, work, get married, visit one another, watch Palestinian TV, listen to Palestinian radio etc. Any comparison is without any foundation and is clearly a foul attempt to incite hatred, misleading the majority of ignorent onlookers. I am not saying that the Palestinians lead an easy life without any strife, but grotesque exaggerations help neither side.

As a side-note, if the Nazi era occurred with todays technology, can you imagine the Jews having had access to the intricate equipment necessary to perform an endoscopic examination, which Arafat has recently had the pleasure of enjoying in Ramallah?

Arafat Under Pressure

A call increasingly heard these days: Condi Rice calls for Arafat to step down

Foreign leaders who still talk to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat must pressure him to step aside, now that Israeli leaders are pushing a plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said. Rice, who has planned speeches in several states considered battlegrounds in the presidential race, said Monday there has to be a discussion with Arafat "to say, 'All right, land is now being returned to the Palestinian people. ... You said that's what you wanted all these years. Now is time to step aside."

The outgoing UN Mideast envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, has added to Arafat's woes, saying on Monday that Palestinians are now embracing him for telling the truth after initially chastising and even banning him for publicly criticizing Yasser Arafat's failure to combat lawlessness.

Roed-Larsen painted a grim picture of the situation inside the Palestinian territories before the UN Security Council in July, essentially blaming Arafat for growing corruption and lawlessness. It was a stunning change of attitude by a man the Palestinians have long considered to be a good friend. "Every Palestinian knows in his or her heart that everything I said in that statement to the Security Council in July was correct," Larsen said after presiding over a ceremony in Jerusalem marking United Nations Day. "And now, and not to my surprise actually, I'm being embraced by Palestinians of all walks of life because of what I said."