Saturday, April 05, 2003

I was driving Pashosh to his soccer game this morning, and they had accounts on the Public Radio by two people who survived the WTC attack. This past Monday, Cantor Fitzgerald vice president Harry Waizer and Port Authority police officer David Lim told their stories of survival at the first public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. At some point I started crying listening to their stories. Pashosh said: "Mom, if it makes you sad, why don't you turn it off?". I answered that I wanted to listen.

Friday, April 04, 2003

USWAR/"No plans" to target Iran after Iraq, says Blair

Also: Powell assured Turkey US will not attack Iran and Syria

IDF radio says that Syria and Iran closed their borders with Iraq, bowing to American pressure.
Greg Kelly (with the army), Ollie North (with the Marines) are inside Baghdad, Fox TV says. Also, 6-8 US tanks are inside the city.
8 Taliban fighters killed near Kandahar, Walla reports, citing Reuters. The report says that Ameican and Afghan forces attacked a Taliban camp near Kandahar. The attack began with Americans dropping 16 tons of bombs on the area. 15 Taliban members were arrested.
Haaretz:
Amendment to Belgian war crimes law delayed....Aside from Sharon, cases are also pending under the Belgian law against U.S. President George Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Palestinian Authority Chair Yasser Arafat, Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Cuban President Fidel Castro.

IDF radio: ayatollah Sistani denies calling on the Shiites in Najaf not to resist the allied forces. (It looks like they are quoting al-Jazeera).
Those pesky numbers - yet again. First the number of victims of the Holocaust was "revised", now the number of American soldiers killed in WWII get the same treatment. And what about those innocent German civilians that the Allies bombed just for the fun of it? I smell more work for the ICC.

Wednesday, April 02, 2003

Following a discussion on SR (permalink broken - scroll down to the cemetery picture): I think it is still important to find out whether those were French or Arabs that did that. Granted, even if they were Arabs, the absense of vocal condemnation from the French public and government speaks volumes of the French attitude, but part of it would be the fact that the French are scared as hell of their Arabs. However, if those were French that did it, I say let the Arabs take over that lousy country anyway.

On second thought, when France becomes the next Islamic Republic, and starts growing and training bin-Ladens of its own, we'll have no choice but to come and liberate them. Oh, how wonderful it will be to see French women showing their faces in public again!

What is it I hear you saying? We will not liberate them? Carpet bomb them? Nuke them? Women and children? Come on, it must be that beer talking again

Monday, March 31, 2003

Welcome to the Middle East.
Please go read this.
From An Unsealed Room: Whatever one might think of the Rachel Corrie bulldozer debacle, it has had an impact. The Hebrew-language website Ynet quotes a senior IDF official as saying that the army is officially abandoning the tactic of bulldozing houses in Gaza because the army "has come to the conclusion that the damage to Israel's image internationally is greater than its effectiveness" as a terror-fighting tool. The right is condemning it as the military capitulating to the media. A left-wing politician, Ran Cohen of Meretz hailed it, saying that that "world public opinion has managed to accomplish what morality and common sense failed to acheive."
I have a very strong urge to make a skeptical remark on this, but I am resisting it so far. And, as it often happens, I would really like to be proved wrong.
For the last couple of days I have posted here the news items that I posted on CP. It takes some extra time to do this, and yesterday I figured that my readers are probably reading CP anyway, so why bother. If any of you still want me to post news here, please let me know.
Lynn (InContext) has only one point of disagreement with Dr. Aaron Lerner (IMRA). I have only one point of disagreement with Lynn. As an Israeli, I agree that Israel should do all it can to minimize its dependence on other countries, no matter how friendly, and especially in matters of security. As an American, I agree that America, just like any other country, has to put its own interests above other countries', no matter how friendly. And, CIA, being an American agency, obviously exists to protect American intersts. However, there are two kinds of interests when foreign policy is concerned: short term and long term. I am afraid that the problem with the CIA is that they are especially keen on the former, while often neglecting the latter. So, if this is true: The CIA faces a tremendous conflict-of-interest challenge when put in the "monitoring" role. The CIA is involved in American efforts to deal with terrorists impacting American interests around the world and the Palestinian security officials have intimate contacts and relations with their terrorist brothers around the world. The CIA ignored illegal Palestinian activity in return for Palestinian information and assistance relating to other terrorist groups, (and it sounds plausible to me), then this would be yet another example of how the CIA officials may be failing to think ahead. For example, I would not be very surprised if some of those snipers end up in Iraq, shooting at American soldiers. Some of their Lebanese brethren are said to be on their way to doing just that.
Update: Lynn tells me that she and I are, in fact, in agreement on the point I made. Lynn and I just have to have lunch together before I move...

Steve discusses Peter Arnett's appearence on the Iraqi TV. NBC, for whom Arnett works, said: "He went to Iraq this year not as an NBC News reporter but as an employee of the MSNBC show, "National Geographic Explorer." When other NBC reporters left Baghdad for safety reasons, the network began airing his reports." Steve asks: "National Geographic Explorer? What in hell was he doing in Iraq working for that show?" It's an interesting question. In 1990 my husband and I cancelled our subscribtion to their magazine, after they published an article on the Palestinians in the Territories that was especially one-sided and biased against Israel. On its face, NG is not a political publication, but it does not mean that people who work for it or even own it do not have political agendas.
Update: It looks like I may have been wrong about NG in Arnett's case.