Archive for November, 2009

Pantomime in Caracas

Sunday, November 29th, 2009

You’ve got to hand it to budding comedian Hugo Chavez, currently on working experience as President of Venezuela.

He says that it is right for the Arabs to fight “against the genocidal state of Israel, which attacks, which kills, which attempts to exterminate the Palestinian people.”

His statement comes in the same week as a report by Human Rights organisation B’Tselem, an organisation that is arch-critical of all Israeli self-defence policies irrespective of Arab aggressions against the Jewish state and completely irrespective of the make-up of the Israeli government in power. B’Tselem reported that the past 20 years of conflict have claimed about 7400 Arab lives in Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as 1500 Israeli lives.

Some “genocide”, this. 7400 deaths over 20 years equates to 370 lives a year – or 445 if you include the Israeli victims of Arab jihadi violence. That’s 370 (or 445) too many in a conflict created by the Arab world and kept alive for 61 years through intransigence and predilection for violence rather than compromise and respect.

Every loss of life is a terrible and inconsolable loss, but the figures just don’t add up to “genocide” or “extermination”. Even less do they indicate “ethnic cleansing”: 20 percent of the population of the Jewish nation of Israel is made up of Arabs – predominantly Muslims but also Christians. And of course the world headquarters of the Bahai faith is in Haifa, Israel.

Just doesn’t add up to “ethnic cleansing”, somehow.

Some more figures.

About 700,000 Palestinian Arabs became refugees in 1948 as a result of a pan-Arab jihadi attack on the Jewish state. That number has now increased five-fold to 3.5 million, yet Chavez talks about Israeli “genocide” and “extermination” of the Palestinian Arabs.

What on earth is the good president smoking for breakfast these days? It’s having a really detrimental effect on his ability to do elementary maths.

It’s not exactly doing his powers of logical reasoning any favours either.

Logical incoherence – Obama style

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Fill in the blanks:

We did note that while we recognize that ___ is part of ___, the United States supports the early resumption of dialogue.”

Finished guessing? Here’s the answer:
We did note that while we recognize that Judea and Samaria are part of the State of Israel, the United States supports the early resumption of dialogue.”

Just kidding, here’s the real answer:
We did note that while we recognize that Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China, the United States supports the early resumption of dialogue.”

Backtrack, analyze – and then reach for your medical diagnosis encyclopaedia.

China covets Tibet because it has water, space and direct proximity to the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East.

China invades Tibet. China transports more than a million Tibetans to China, and replaces them with more than a million Han Chinese. In old-fashioned English this used to be known as “population transfer” and was a social, ethical and political no-no.

US President Barack Hussein Obama, who recently refused to meet with the Tibetans’ spiritual leader the Dalia Lama, today acknowledges that China has full entitlement to Tibet.

Round about the same time, the combined force of the Arab world invades Israel after decades of pogroms in which Jewish civilians are massacred in their homes. Israel fights back and in a succession of defensive wars to fend off the aggressors eventually creates the strategic depth it requires by holding on to some of the territory it has captured in the course of its defence.

US President Barack Hussein Obama, who recently refused to be seen in public with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, has consistently maintained that any territory Israel captured in the pursuit of its defence must be handed over to its aggressors.

Take a deep breath, then review the logic. Naked aggression, the rape of a nation and the transfer of its population are given official US approval and Washington recognizes that the aggressor is entitled to the victim’s property.

That’s in Asia.

Naked aggression, a racist ideology and a climate of fanatical religious supremacy are given official US approval and Washington recognizes that the aggressor is entitled to international backing in prosecuting the victim.

That’s in the Middle East.

Is “logical incoherence” a known medical condition?

Media reports:
Indian Express
Times of India
Times Online

Articles from this site (in Swedish):
Terror pays
The Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance

Hostage-taking in Sweden

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Kidnapping as a political weapon makes the transition from the Arab mindset to Sweden.

Kidnapping, the taking of hostages for personal and/or political gain, has now made its triumphant entry into Sweden’s finest salons.

Hostage-taking is no longer the exclusive preserve of fanatical Islamist groups with a fearsome political agenda or of psychotically violent Taliban worshippers in Peshawar, Ramallah, Beirut, Baghdad or Fort Hood.

Now the disease has spread to Sweden.

Its prime advocate is Sweden’s least diplomatic and most aggressive Foreign Minister in history: Carl Bildt. In August, Swedish extremist left-wing tabloid Aftonbladet published an anti-Semitic article based on unfounded allegations of officially sanctioned Israeli organ trafficking using the bodies of dead Palestinian Arabs. The whole world waited for the Swedish government to follow in the footsteps of Sweden’s ambassador to Israel, Ms Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, who expressed distaste for the article’s racist content while at the same time supporting the newspaper’s right to publish it – embarrassingly amateurish journalism and infantile writing style are not, after all, illegal in Sweden. Sweden’s Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz confirmed there were no legal obstacles to either Carl Bildt or any other senior government representative voicing similar sentiments.

The Swedish government, however, did the exact opposite: Carl Bildt withdrew the ambassador’s statement and refused to comment on the article that made derogatory remarks about Jews. A few weeks later, however, there were very strong government comments in the Swedish media – because the same newspaper had published an article containing derogatory remarks about Muslims.

Carl Bildt was criticised by Israel for his unusually abrupt and – even for him – uncouth behaviour over the Aftonbladet case. In response to Israel, Carl Bildt has now taken Sweden’s foreign policy and its reputation hostage by spearheading an act that in terms of its aggressive intent is unparalleled in Sweden’s history: While Sweden still holds the EU Presidency, Carl Bildt has devoted himself to representing the Islamist rejetionist front, forging ahead in the vanguard of a movement to alter the status of Israel’s capital Jerusalem and formally give it to a non-existent state, “Palestine”.

By forcing through an EU decision on this matter, he is adopting a long-term strategy to create the legal foundation for international military action against the Jewish state. It is an act of unparalleled aggression that will have far-reaching consequences for Sweden’s reputation abroad – and will crush any hope of peace in the Middle East.

Carl Bildt is an embarrassing burden for Sweden. Voices in the Foreign Office mutter about his autocratic style and his constant efforts to put himself rather than Sweden’s interests or reputation in focus. No wonder then that several political parties are making huge gains in the run-up to national elections in autumn 2010 – on both the fanatical Left and extremist Right fringes and at the expense of the mainstream political establishment.

Carl Bildt is using the Foreign Office as his own private extortion organisation. He has kidnapped Sweden and is holding Swedish foreign policy hostage while he pursues his own private vendetta against the Jewish state.