I'm Outraged!

I saw this "cartoon" from a Jordanian newspaper on the MEMRI Blog the other day, and it has stuck in my mind.

It's offensive on so many levels, I can't think straight. First, it implies that the Israelis are committing genocide a la the Third Reich by retaliating against Hamas terrorists dropping bombs on towns like Sderot. Thus the evil Israel is built on the bodies of "innocent" Palestinians. Never mind that the Israelis experience daily missile attacks. Second, as an American I'm offended that the artist has modelled his scribble on an image of true heroism. How is it that these guys get away with it, yet pictures like these spark international riots?

The Arab press and the Mainstream Media would have you believe that groups like Hamas are freedom fighters and that the Israelis are the aggressors. This post gives a different picture.

Yanai asks me, “Why does it happen? Why are the Arabs so bad? Why do they
want to kill us? We want peace.

When I try to teach him that even in the Gaza Strip you have innocent
children and innocent civilians he says, “If they are innocent, why do they go
to military summer camps? You never send me to military summer camp, with a
uniform; with weapons, and they are younger than me.”

More:

I supported the [2005] Disengagement from Gaza, from Gush Katif. The
Palestinian government promised, “Give us Gush Katif and there will be peace.”
And I am an optimistic person. I really hoped that it would be peace. Everyone
in Sderot was screaming at me, “No! Why do you say the Disengagement is good?” I
answered, “They promise it will be peace!” And even our mayor, Eli Moyal, told
me: “I am going to run after you and tell you all the time, ‘I told you so.’” We
had a lot of argument for I supported the disengagement but he didn’t. And now,
when we have parents’ meeting with the mayor, he all the time tells me: “I told
you so! You have something else to say?”

I really wanted to hope that there will be peace one day. And I am in
confusion now because on one side they tell us they want peace but on the other
side they send their children to military summer camp; they teach them hate in
school; they teach them that Israel does not exist on the map - there is only
Palestine; that the Jewish people are the devil; that we want to destroy their
life. They teaching hate in the school, in the house; in every place.

Brigitte Gabriel describes an experience remarkably similar to this in her book. That was thirty years ago.

Not much has changed, huh?

Link to first image source.

Link to second image source.

Recommended Reading.

Brigitte Gabriel is a Lebanese Christian who experienced first-hand the horrors of jihad and the hatred of fundamentalist Islam. She lived for seven years in a bomb shelter, dodging sniper bullets and shells just to obtain basic necessities, such as food and water.

She relates her experiences, and speaks out against Islamic terror in her book, Because They Hate. Ms. Gabriel, along with Robert Spencer and others have courageously pointed out the truth about the enemies facing the United States, and criticize the liberals and politically correct who deny or hide the truth.

Her tale of life in Lebanon during the late '70's and early '80's, as well as revelations about distortion in the media reporting of past and current conflicts in the Middle East, is a powerful one. It's an eye-opener.

Find out more about Brigitte Gabriel and her work at American Congress for Truth.

Link to image source.

An Unsung Hero.

If you've studied American history at all, you've seen the iconic photo by Joe Rosenthal of the Marines raising the American flag on Iwo Jima during WWII. Raising the second American flag, I should say.

"The first flag-raising occurred a couple of hours earlier - shortly after
Marines had gained the top of the mountain after hard fighting. This flag was
deemed too small to be easily seen from the base of the mountain so a second,
larger flag was raised."

Ray Jacobs was part of the group that raised that first flag. His account of it can be read here. Mr. Jacobs passed away today. He was 84 years old.

(h/t The Corner)

History Link.

This has been sitting in my bookmarks for a while now. I came across it while Stumbling, and I thought it was pretty interesting. Some of the comments at the site I found it on are interesting as well. Here is a link to the original source.

Exit Question: The map's purpose is to address the question, "How has the geography of religion evolved over the centuries, and where has it sparked wars?" Did religion itself spark the wars, or were there other factors? Do you think this map shows a bias in favor of or against a particular religion? If so, which one, and why do you think so?

Our Big Mistake In Iraq.

Once again, the media (and most of the rest of the world) ignores the plight of Christians in Iraq.

As evident in my post on the Petraeus and Crocker report to Congress, I'm a supporter of our current strategy in Iraq; however, I have not written at length about my views on the War as a whole. As an American, I support the military and want them to succeed, and I feel that having a democratic state in the Middle East that is friendly to us is in our interest.

I don't worry overmuch about whether President Bush's stated reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein were valid or not. I don't know if there were WMD's or what happened to them if there were; my opinion was and is that we were doing what should have been done in 1992.

However, I think that we made some serious mistakes in 2003-4 that are being blithely ignored now by proponents and defenders of the surge. One of those, and the most serious, is to allow language like this to get into the Iraq Constitution:

"Article (2):
1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a
basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the
undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the
principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the
rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.
2nd — This
constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people
and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and
religious practices."[Emphasis added.]

This gives Islamic Law precedent over the laws of the state, effectively making the declaration of religious freedom worthless, in theory now, possibly in practice later. So far Maliki is giving lip service to that freedom, but the danger remains.

As a Christian, I'm dismayed that our country dropped such a big ball at the outset, no matter how our military strategy has been successfully revised. I think this mistake could come back to bite us in the future. Unfortunately, Christian persecution is nothing new, but statements like this bother me as well.

"Msgr. Sako is not discouraged and guarantees: “One thing remains absolute and
unshakable for our community here in Kirkuk, we will persevere with dialogue to
build and strengthen peaceful coexistence”."

I hope the Gospel is part of that dialogue. I get nervous when church leaders talk about "dialogue" and "coexistence" with Islamists, because it usually is code for appeasement.

Remember our Christian brothers and sisters around the world who suffer in His name. Pray that they keep strong in their faith, and that God will deliver them.

Beatification.

As predicted, commentators of all stripes are hastening to raise Benazir Bhutto to political sainthood.

"Sipping tea with her was an experience I shall never forget. She knew the
risks of returning to Pakistan, but accepted them because, "I love my country
and my people." That's something else we don't see much of today: patriots.
There are many politicians who, for reasons of ego and a need to satisfy their
own narcissism, seek power, but hide their hunger with bows toward more noble
objectives. Like all politicians, indeed like all humanity, Bhutto was flawed,
but she was less flawed and more principled than many others in her country.
Women with a husband and children don't jeopardize comfortable and relatively
safe lifestyles for what awaited her in Pakistan. True heroism is to know the
risks and to take them in spite of danger."

She has been compared to the Aquinos of the Philippines for her determination to return home in the face of danger. The comparisons continue now that the inevitable assassination has happened. But the comparison doesn't hold water:

"Sytangco, who was also Aquino's spokeswoman when she was still president,
recalled that both Aquino and Bhutto came to power in 1986 as first women
democratic leaders.
She said that while Aquino did not make any state visit
to Pakistan when Bhutto was still prime minister, both leaders met twice --
first in 1989 when they attended the centennial of Paris and in Manila when
Bhutto paid a visit on Aquino after attending a conference here.

"They both
had similarities except that Aquino was never charged with corruption," Sytangco
said." [Emphasis added]

Further evidence comes from those who knew her, such as David Warren:

"She was my exact contemporary, and I met her as a child in Pakistan, so let me
jump on this bandwagon. I remember her at age eight, arriving in a Mercedes-Benz
with daddy's driver, and whisking me off for a ride in the private aeroplane of
then-President Ayub Khan (Bhutto père was the rising star in his cabinet). This
girl was the most spoiled brat I ever met."

Such testimony paints her less as a crusader for democracy than as a crusader for her own power. This is bolstered by the dynastic succession of her party's leadership.

The resistance to Marcos by the Aquinos was fueled by genuine democratic fervor and religious conviction, and change was largely peacefully. Saint Bhutto? I don't think so.

Lieberman on National Security Politics.

Senator Joe Lieberman recently gave a speech at The Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Joe Lieberman is a rarity these days, a liberal who is able to rise above politics where our national security is concerned. You may remember he lost the Primary Election in Connecticut because of his support for the Iraq War, and subsequently kept his seat by running as an Independent.

In his speech, he talked about Paul H Nitze and his service to Presidents from Roosevelt to Reagan, and the strength of past Democrats on national security (I disagree with him on Clinton however, but nevertheless), and the dramatic shift that has occurred in the Democratic Party with the rise of the far-left anti-war, anti-Bush movement. This movement, led by the likes of Markos "Screw Them" Moulitsas and his DailyKos blog has exercised an undue influence on the Democrats in Congress. The money quote:

"But there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all
of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how
the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about
the fact that Iran is murdering our troops."

He's right. National Security should not be subordinate to partisan politics. We are all Americans, regardless of our political stripes, and what our view of the government's role is. Anti-war activists decry those who question their patriotism; well I do question it, because their violent opposition, if brought to fruition, will only lead to defeat and more civilian deaths on our soil in another terrorist attack. I think the reasons for invading Iraq were a little hard to swallow, but I also think the deposing of Saddam Hussein was about 12 years overdue. I also don't think we were fully prepared or fully anticipated the nature of the fight after Saddam's regime was swept away. But I want us to win, and I agreed with critics of how we were conducting the war, and I welcomed the change in strategy. Such criticism is designed to ensure that we win. The radical Left only seems interested in defeat so that they can oust Bush and the Republicans.

This war is not like Vietnam, no matter how much the anti-war crowd wants it to be. We acted decisively in the interest of national security, not inserting ourselves into an already on-going civil war like we did back then. However, if we don't pursue victory, the outcome will almost surely be the same.