Monday, April 29, 2002
Nothing major today to write about. The farce that is the UN, still exists, unfortunately, but I'm having limited success convincing friends that the organization is not merely ineffectual, but proactively destructive. It has become the ideological bullwark of international anti-Americanis and anti-Semitism. But I digress..
One article of note in the Opinion Journal. The inaural appearance of their new column "The Western Front." The article focuses on the lack of faith that we have in Western Culture. This lack of faith has been nourchured by the Left first and joined later by the Soviet Union. This is part of what I intended to write this blog about, but I have been side-tracked by the violence in the Middle East. So please read, and hopefully I can rejoin the fight soon.
And, oh yeah, after many years of living in NYC, today for the first time I saw a swastika scribbled in the subway. Thanks NY Times!
Friday, April 26, 2002
Today Important Reading List
First, I want to apologize for the lack of original content on the blog, I've been pretty busy at work. I promise to write something original soon, really. But for now enjoy this very important list:
1. First up is Bernard Lewis. In this WSJ editorial he states that our resolve in fighting terrorism is crucial. This is very important because real military victories are mental victories -- when the other side gives up any will to fight. So long as they see us as weak, they will never give up.
2. Another great article by Victor Davis Hanson. He speaks about the new Fascism in Europe and compares it to the rise of Hitler. I know that I'm running out of adjectives to call Vistor's articles, but I really enjoy them and constantly check the National Review web site to see if he's published anything new!
3. Charles Krauthammer talks about the rise (again) of anti-Semitism in Europe.
4. On that note, more fallout on the Le Pen and what it says about Europe. Mark Steyn of the National Post (Canada) on the political disintegration of Europe (my favorite new word -- "Eurinal"). In Slate, Chris Suellentrop, talks about the Ugly Europeans. I think that by now it has become obvious that most of Europe has lost any moral authority they've to tell us what to do.
5. Finally, here is a speech by John McCain on the US support for Israel.
I will not yet come out on how the US-Saudi meeting went (except we should invade them soon!), but here is a piece from FNC on where that Saudi money is going in the West Bank. One hint, they are not building anything new.
Wednesday, April 24, 2002
Today's Reading List
Slow day, so I'm posting a few articles from the weeklies.
1. Martin Peretz of the New Republic writes about two poets, one British and one Saudi, who have glorified homicide bombings.
2. In the Weekly Standard, an article by Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA agent, who says its better to be feared and loved in the Middle East. I tend to agree. Remember hearing all the bad things that were going to happen if we bombed during Ramadan? We stood our ground and the demonstrations disappeared.
3. Also in the WS, Fred Barnes talks about Bush's unwavering support for Israel. I'm sure that this is the case, but the President should listen to people like Mr. Gerecht, above, as well.
4. Finally, in the WS, Eli Lake states the obvious -- that a terrorist like Arafat cannot police other terrorists.
Tuesday, April 23, 2002
Today's Reading List
1. Victor Davis Hanson likens Ariel Sharon to Ajax. As always, he right on target.
2. Another National Review article talks about Europe's War against the Jews.
3. Ruth Wisse wrote this article for the Weekly Standard a few weeks ago, here is a reprint.
4. Lilek's latest bleat is about those anti-globalization kids.
Sunday, April 21, 2002
Today's Reading List
1. Yesterdays editorial in the NYTimes talks about the return of anti-Semitism. I would welcome this article if it wasn't for the fact that the Times and other news sources have been so complicit in the Big Lie. More on this later...
2. The Washington Post today also has a summary of European opinion pieces against anti-Semitism there.
3. The Daily Telegraph talks about the tolerated anti-Semitism in England.
4. Eliot Cohen bring reason to the Arab-Israeli war.
5. Diane of Letter from Gotham has a ton of new material on her blog (despite the claim that she will write lees from now on). Check out the e-mails regarding the Andrea Koppel incident.
Friday, April 19, 2002
Today's Reading List
1. We start today with Victor Davis Hanson, who talks about the growing rift between the US and Europe. I hope he is right!
2. The Spectator (UK) has a great article on Leftist/European anti-Semitism. It is an excellent summary of the situation.
3. More wisdom on European-Arab axis from Mark Steyn.
4. By the way, if you want the real Palestinian perspective on Jenin, read this account of the battle from an Egyptian paper.
5. Charles Krauthammer thinks we shouldn't waste our political capital on our Arab "allies".
6. The WSJ has a piece by Binyamin Netanyahu about the root causes of terrorism. The real root causes. The paper edition also includes an editorial about the fate of Palestinian Moderates. Not to spoil everyone's surprise, the Palestinian Authority calls them collaborators and executes them in grisly public rituals.
7. Also check out the continuing debate on anti-Semitism on Instapundit.
8. Finally, check out these Weekly Standard parodies.
Thursday, April 18, 2002
Due to some technical problems, protein wisdom will be down for a few days. However, you may be able to reach it here. Hopefully the snafu will work out and we will see Jeff back up soon!
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
Nearly 360 anti-Jewish attacks in France in April
That's approximately 12 per day! And those are the official figures!
How low have we gone?
I never believed that I would live in a time when a London newspaper had to publish this article:
The Jewish faith is not an evil religion.
Today's Reading List
1. Who else, but Victor Davis Hanson with a parody.
2. Michael Kelly thinks that the Powell trip acomplished its goals.
3. James Lileks on the media handling of the pro-Israel rally.
4. Martin Peretz of the New Republic on the anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and the NPR.
UPDATE: Forgot a bunch of NYPost articles (thanks to little green footballs for reminding me). The Massacre That Wasn't, an editorial. Eric Fettmann on Arafat's history of renouncing terror. Jonathan Foreman on "objective reporting" from Israel. This is why I say we should abolish schools of journalism and make sure all reporters have degrees in history.
Also in the Post (I actually had to find the link elsewhere), syndicated writer Michelle Malkin writes about the "chic" use of kids in suicide bombings. Speaking of which, where is Amnesty International and the other "human rights" groups? Instapundit has some thoughts on this, here too.
Monday, April 15, 2002
Today's Reading List
1. Bill Safire on misjudgment at the CIA. Also check out the front page story on the CIA post Sept 11 in the paper edition of the WSJ (no link).
2. The Weekly Standard has a great story about Europe and Jews. It is not available on line, but Jeff Goldstein does a great summary.
Also, check out these translations of Oriana Fallaci's writings. You may remember her as the Italian war correspondent who, just after September 11, wrote an article dressing down her fellow Europeans for their anti-Americanism. Well, now she takes on European anti-Semitism. Can't vouch for the translation.
Friday, April 12, 2002
Today's Reading List
Brief list today.
1. Victor Davis Hanson, of course.
"Why are we in such a mad, mad world? Simple. What people now say has nothing to do with reality. And why is that? Because the reality is now far too frightening to admit: A tired world simply finds a small, democratic Jewish state — opposed by 500 million Arabs, anti-Semitic, autocratic, with oil and terrorists — too much of a liability, and so desperately invents inconsistent moralities, false principles, and situational ethics each day to mask a consistent amorality that won't go away"
2. John Podhoretz says "Europe Loves Hate."
3. Yossi Klein Halevi asks, "Does the World Prefer It When Jews Are Victims?" Remark here, I've always believed that Europeans see Jews in two archtypes -- victim or villan. There is no middle.
4. David Brooks presents the side of the Middle East war the press woth tell you about.
Thursday, April 11, 2002
Glimmer of Hope
Visit Tal G's Israeli blog. I need to get a permanent link to him. Now, read the letters he has received from Iran! Just imagine what would happen once we throw off the fundamentalist government!
Today's Reading List
There are two opinions about Bush's Middle East strategy -- A. There is a plan and he's playing games or B. He is loosing moral clarity. These are not at all mutually exclusive. He could be losing moral clarity publicly (where it s important), but still fighting the good fight secretly.
1. Fred Barnes falls into camp A. He also doesn't want the world to forget how we got here.
2. Bill Kristol falls into camp B.
3. Bill Safire laments that the attention in this situation is one sided. Bush made demands on both parties. Where is the coverage of Arab refusal to even speak up!
4. A great editorial in the WSJ by Tarek Masoud on the failure of Palestinian leadership.
5. On OpinionJournal, articles about anti-Israeli movements on campus and Middle Eastern Yellow Journalism.
6. The Salt Lake Tribune hears Holocaust Echoes.
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
Today's Reading List
1. Another great article by Victor Davis Hanson.
2. WashPost: Charles Krauthammer reminds everyone what happens when Israel withdraws to internationally recognized borders -- nothing changes. See Lebanon.
3. WashPost: Michael Kelly documents Arafat's terrorism.
4. WashPost: George Will calls for Bush to return to moral clarity.
5. NY Observer: Talking about the Second Holocaust.
Finally, the discussion in Instapundit regarding the European complicity in the Srebrenica massacre. Will the French/Dutch leaders be indicted for war crimes like Sharon was? Don't count on it!
Tuesday, April 09, 2002
Unfortunately, this is how I feel. Dark Thoughts and Quiet Desperation from the LA Times.
Monday, April 08, 2002
Why I canceled my subscription to the New York Times.
I recently canceled my subscription to the New York Times. It is a paper that I used to enjoy reading tremendously, but lately I have found its reporting shallow, callous and uninformed. The final straw came as I read a front-page article in the April 7th issue by Douglas Frantz which justified suicide bombings,
"The relative paucity of high-powered weapons discovered in the Israeli incursions underscores the contention by Palestinian militants that suicide bombers are their only means of countering one of the world's best-equipped armies, which uses heavily armored tanks and American-supplied warplanes and helicopter gunships to dominate the conflict."
This article, not an op-ed piece, justifies violence against Israelis. It legitimizes the premise that suicide bombings are appropriate when used against civilians. This was certainly not the paper's position on Afghanistan, even though clearly al-Queda's weapons are far inferior from ours. For that matter, every other country, political group, tribe and civic association would be justified in using suicide bombers against us, since that would be "their only means of countering (one of) the world's the best equipped army."
To understand the psychology of the Times staff I went back to an article the Times published on November 14th 2001, in its 150th anniversary issue. It is entitled "Turning Away From the Holocaust", and it purports to explain and to "atone" for the Times' ignorance of the Holocaust as it was occurring. The piece, written by Max Frankel, a former executive editor of the Times begins,
"And then there was failure: none greater than the staggering, staining failure of The New York Times to depict Hitler's methodical extermination of the Jews of Europe as a horror beyond all other horrors in World War II -- a Nazi war within the war crying out for illumination."
The article gives several reasons for this occurrence.
"Then, too, papers owned by Jewish families, like The Times, were plainly afraid to have a society that was still widely anti-Semitic misread their passionate opposition to Hitler as a merely parochial cause."
It appears that the these institutional preferences still weigh heavily at the Times. The Frankel article continues,
"At The Times, the reluctance to highlight the systematic slaughter of Jews was also undoubtedly influenced by the views of the publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. He believed strongly and publicly that Judaism was a religion, not a race or nationality -- that Jews should be separate only in the way they worshiped. He thought they needed no state or political and social institutions of their own". (Italics mine)
Despite the subsequent cheerful conclusion of the author, it seems that the things have changed little at the Times. The paper's treatment of Israel today is that of a bastard child, unwanted and inconvenient. Finally,
"And it was his [Sulzberger's] policy, on most questions, to steer The Times toward the centrist values of America's governmental and intellectual elites. Because his editorial page, like the American government and other leading media, refused to dwell on the Jews' singular victimization, it was cool to all measures that might have singled them out for rescue or even special attention."
Today, the paper is no longer content on centrist American values, but steers clearly toward the world's center. It aspires to be a citizen of the world. The Times feels that it can ignore anti-Semitism because the rest of the world ignores it.
You may say, "There is no Holocaust going on, and the Israelis are militarily strong." This is true, but it takes years of hate-propaganda and dehumanization to get a large group of people to commit, or at least to ignore, mass murder. So as much as I appreciate the Times' "apology" even if they began to strongly advocate the cause of the European Jews in 1941, the time that the article covers, it would already be too late. The world was already at war with Nazi Germany and there is little more that could have been done. More importantly, the German people were by then so saturated with anti-Semitic propaganda that they committed or allowed others to commit the Holocaust. That process had been going on for a decade by then. The rest of the world, including the Times, spent that decade ignoring and appeasing the Nazis.
It would have been far better for the Times to speak out in 1936, then in 1941. To speak out against the hate speech, against the anger of the poor and the humiliated Germans, and to get the world to notice the seeds of the Holocaust.
Today, the hate that caused the Holocaust has reared its ugly head again. Nazi propaganda is being translated into Arabic, thousands march chanting death to Israel and ordinary Jews are dying only because they are Jews. Danny Pearl's last words before his throat was slit were "My father is a Jew and I am a Jew." Synagogues are burning again across Europe. The process, which in a decade transformed Germany from one of the world's greatest civilizations into mass murderers has begun once more. Repeating history once more many governments and news outlets, including the Times, are either silent on the topic of hate or condone the behavior.
While Israel still has the strength to defend herself against a tide of hate and violence, all of her actions are condemned and criticized by the rest of the world. Moreover, the fact that in her dying breath, Israel's atomic weapons could kill millions of her enemies, brings me no comfort. All lives are precious, a fact that, unfortunately, the Times does not understand. One day, Israel may no longer have the physical or mental strength to go on. That day, and I hope it never comes, we will see what the current wave of anti-Semitism can do.
Which brings us back to the Frantz piece that caused me to cancel my subscription. Clearly, this poor excuse for an article glorifies and condones the hatred and violence against Israeli civilians. It would be no different if the newspaper similarly justified anti-Palestinian hate and violence. No good can ever come of such vile violence and no human interaction has benefited from it.
Maybe I have simplistic views, but I believe that a newspaper like the Times, the paper "of record" for the United States should not stroke or belittle the type of hate that has once led the world to murder millions in cold blood. I believe that the Times should treat a state and her people fairly even if the people are Jews. I believe hate has to be confronted, not justified.
The Times has done none of these things. Instead, it glorifies and justifies hate. This time if there is another Holocaust, the Times would not be a mere bystander, it would be a participant. That is why I canceled my subscription to the paper and why I believe that all decent people should consider doing the
Saturday, April 06, 2002
Please cancel your subscription to the NY Times!
I found this line in an article in the NY Times.
The relative paucity of high-powered weapons discovered in the Israeli incursions underscores the contention by Palestinian militants that suicide bombers are their only means of countering one of the world's best-equipped armies, which uses heavily armored tanks and American-supplied warplanes and helicopter gunships to dominate the conflict.
Emphasis mine. How does this not justify murder? Why is the NY Times so blatantly prejudiced?
By this logic, are suicide bombers the only means for al-Queda to counter American might? Can Saddam use nuclear weapons because we have more of them? This is all nonsense of course, and the New York Times would be too frightened to say so about America. But applying it to a small country under seige seems to be OK. Please stop supporting this hate-mongering publication!
Today brief reading list:
Ellen Goodman of the WashPost talks about suicide bombers...
Many of the human weapons detonated in cafes and markets are described simply as "desperate." Indeed there is plenty of reason for despair among young Palestinians. But in the attention to the psyche of the suicide bomber, we have focused too little on the community of adults encouraging what one Middle Eastern columnist called "a popular sport, a grand aspiration of thousands of young Palestinian boys and girls."'
These adults begin with the recruiters who carefully transform the desperation into devastation by promoting and outfitting, planning and praising suicide as the solution. They include adults who announce suicide bombings in the newspapers as if they were weddings. And elders who hang posters in the Ramallah hospital of bombers as heroes.
Nevertheless, any culture that takes pride in having the next generation as a ready supply of cheap weapons has already lost its future. Any leader who cultivates or condones suicide as its war plan has lost all moral standing. What do we say about societies that practice human sacrifice?
Friday, April 05, 2002
Today's reading list
The Fall-out of the Speech continues....
1. I will avoid the self-congratulatory editorials in the WashPost and NYTimes. The influence of the press in this matter cannot be minimized. Beginning with the Friedman/Saudi "peace plan", the editorial boards and the reporters of the major news outlet all followed the same exact line -- moral equivalence, cycle of violence, etc. This reminds me of the ear of "yellow journalism" right before the Spanish-American War when the paper stirred up American passions for a war against Spain. Now, the papers/CNN seem to be calling for the destruction of the a small country populated by a minority. I don't know how they sleep at night. Howard Kurtz notes the effect of the press on the White House change of heart.
As for the "conservatives", most think that the speech is much more pro-Israel than the mainline press makes it out to be. I think so too, but I'm not sure that if I'm just fooling myself. We shall see.
2. Victor Davis Hanson writes on the inevitability of wars.
3. Charles Krauthammer wants to banish Arafat (is it too late?). Jim Hoagland takes on the Speech.
4. The WSJ lead editorial thinks that the new policy could be seen as rewarding terror, but a focus on Iraq would relieve that. Peggy Noonan thinks that the Speech was well balanced and right.
5. The NYPost has numerous articles about the Speech. The lead editorial welcomes the Speech, but is cautious on the follow through. John Podhoretz thinks that Bush has written Arafat off. Ralph Peters believes that the President is following the same old pass to failure. Finally, Jonathan Foreman decries the knee-jerk media and sees hope in the Speech.
6. Jonah Goldberg has a column on the psychology of suicide bombers.
My take is that the President does not intend to give an inch to the terrorists. The speech was an attempt to quiet the international frenzy of blood lust. The hate speech from the US media, Europe and the Arab states has overwhelmed me. That's why I had hoped that Bush would not give in to the bigots and the dehumanizers on the Left for whom the only outrage was the confinement of Arafat, while the lives of the Jews meant nothing. I was probably hoping too much, because our plans (destroying Iraq) are too important and the hate for Jews in the world is too strong.
My deconstruction of socialism will have to wait a few more days. Although it will be very relevant for the discussion, for example, how socialism creates hate and glorifies violence, I've been too focused on the current events.
Thursday, April 04, 2002
Wednesday, April 03, 2002
Today's reading list
1. Washington Post: Three great opinions from the WP. George Will discuses the Arafat exile proposal. Michale Kelly on Arafat's true intentions. The most intriguing column is by Jim Hoagland, on the benefits of a regional war. More on that below. Unfortunately, in a typical knee-jerk editorial, the WP lament the destruction of the Palestinian police force. Obviously, the board does not even read its own paper -- like the article hidden on page 10 that links the PA to the war (its called war when its government supported).
2. In the WSJ, the lead editorial argues that the only way to end the Middle East crisis is to take on Iraq.
3. The NY Post editorial board tells Yasser to go, and Eric Fettermann talks about the "peace process."
4. Good news, the NYTimes has decided to condemn suicide bombers! Now if Israel could just negotiate with the Times...
Now back to Hoagland,
But a broader war that could force Arab political leaders into making painful choices about their own stunted societies, Iraq's enduring criminality and the sickening commercialization and glorification of Palestinian suicide bombers is not the worst outcome available. The fire next time threatens to become the only way out of the current untenable predicament for the United States and the nations that support its war on global terrorism.
The conventional wisdom is that an escalating Palestinian-Israeli conflict will complicate and inhibit U.S. military action against Baghdad. That is a misreading of history and of this White House. Establishing fear and respect among those who would indiscriminately harm Americans -- for whatever cause -- is and must remain a fundamental part of the Bush war on global terrorism.
The broader war option exists as a calculated choice to at least temporarily contain mass murderers. To get a glimpse of the thinking behind this option, seek out the Pentagon's Internet Web site, www.defenselink.mil, and read Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld's remarks at his April 1 news conference. Extending the war into Iraq and perhaps elsewhere to enforce President Bush's pledge to punish those who are "with" terrorism is clearly an idea that is on Rumsfeld's screen.
Two points here:
1.This might be the Bush strategy -- no one is talking about Iraq, and the conventional wisdom is that it's bad. But, no one is criticizing us about Iraq now, while we prepare. So while I think this diversion was forced on us by the Arab states, I think the White House is using the shift in focus to prepare for the Iraq war. Only the destruction of the tyrannical regimes in Iran and Iraq will stop the violence in the Middle East.
2. What is peace? We throw the word around these, but let's think of the meaning. It used to be that peace was the absence of war, and the absence of death. Today, that definition has gone away, and we take Peace as something to strive for, even if does not bring with it the cessation of war. So we plead for Peace in the Middle East, as if peace could exist while one side continues to blow up the other. This is a part of a trend in international politics at legalization of human relations. So, a piece of paper has as much chance of stopping the violence as a similar piece of paper stopped Hitler after Czechoslovakia and another stopped the Soviets from developing biological weapons. None. We have to return to the classical definition of peace -- the absence of war.
UPDATE: A Reader, Tom from Tom's Desk, points to some excerps of the terrorist tactics in the French-Algerian War from a Spanish blog in response to the Cohen column. Scroll down to the April 2 entry. Thanks.
Tuesday, April 02, 2002
Casualties of the Palestinian War
Since the NY Times refuses to even name the victims of the Palestinian war, here is a site with all their faces and bios. Thanks to Diana Moon.
More to come?
Via Opinion Journal... Among the weapons found in Arafat's compound are receipts for explosives for al-Aksa Brigades. Will the world care? Not likely. Even if they find pictures of Arafat torturing puppies, Europeans will still support him....
Today's reading list:
1. Victor Davis Hanson, of course.
2. George Will in Newsweek on the Bush doctrine.
3. From the WSJ, Thomas Bray on the American press, and more Victor Davis Hanson (you can never get enough), and in the print edition, an article entitled, "Israel has no Choice but to Defeat the Terrorists."
4. From the Weekly Standard (at least the free version), Marshall Wittmann correctly calling Israel the front on the War on Terrorism and Reuel Marc Gerecht on the folly of appeasing dictators.
5. From the New Republic, Michael Rubin on the Israeli response.
6. From the New York Post, Ralph Peters and Daniel Pieps on strategy.
Who would have thought 6 months ago that these are the publications that I would be quoting from? I can't even stand the NYTimes anymore -- I used to swear by it!
Finally, a very dishonorable mention to Richard Cohen for his extremely stupid column. I tried to think of other adjectives, I really did, but couldn't come up with anything less than stupid. Cohen alleged that there is some resemblance between Israel and the Palestinians, and France and Algeria. He claims that no matter how hard the French fought, no matter how brutal they became, they still lost. In that he sees a lesson for Sharon.
Let's assume for a short second that he is right. But let's ask ourselves what the French loss has meant for the rest of the world and for Algeria. For the Arabic world, the struggle against France, like the most recent Afghani war against the Soviet Union, emboldened the Islamic cause. A series of Western retreats over the past several decades has assured the militants in the Islamic world that the only reason the West understands is violence. The French loss was a loss for the whole world (as an aside, I do not support French colonialism, but it's always better to negotiate from a position of strength and in this case the French ran with tails between their legs). It showed a new generation of Muslims that terrorism works. An Israeli retreat would reinforce the same notion.
Second, has he checked Algeria lately? How well are they doing? Mired in a civil war. Sending young men to terrorist training camps. No economy to speak of. Is that what Mr. Cohen wants for the Palestinians?
He is right that the French fought hard and lost, but that loss was horrible to the world and to the Algerians themselves. As much as I hate French foreign policy, it would have been far better if the French won the war and then gave a civil Algeria independence. This is what he Israelis must do. Crush the PA and the terrorist groups in the West Bank, and then with the help of US and Europe start a Marshall plan for the region (where the money flows somewhere other than Mr. Arafat's et al Swiss bank accounts).
Last rant -- this is why I think the American press is going downhill. Just mentioning a fact without any reflection of historical context passes as analysis these days. Apparently, journalists no longer use their brains, but rely primarily on the knee-jerk!
Monday, April 01, 2002
Telling it like it is.
Donald Rumsfeld accusesSyria, Iran and Iraq of supporting terrorism in Israel.
"Murderers are not martyrs," he said at an afternoon news briefing. "Targeting civilians is immoral, whatever the excuse. Terrorists have declared war on civilization, and states like Iran, Iraq and Syria are inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing."
1. What do we make of this statement in light of an earlier Bush statement of the "Israeli exception" to the Bush doctrine? What does Bush really want? Is he playing neutral, while letting Powell play good cop and Rumsfeld play bad cop? Does he know what he wants? My view is that he shares Rumsfled's opinion, but has bowed to State Dept pressure on the approach. I think that Bush would be wise to stop asking State for help -- we have never been as weak internationally since the Cheney trip to the Middle East. The Palestinians are murdering Jews and the Arabs have said no to regime change in Iraq -- a colossal policy failure. We give an inch -- they take a mile. In foreign policy, you always want to negotiate from a position of strength.
2. Why does the press refuse to acknowledge that the current violence in Israel was created with outside influences and is related to the possible action in Iraq? It does not take a genius to figure that out. If they are truly objective shouldn't they present all possible causes of the current situation? Why do they stick to the same, tired Palestinian excuse for violence routine, which was cooked up by the Soviet Union during the Cold War? Do the people in the media lack the gene required to learn from history?
Holocaust Watch Anti-Semitic violence escalates in France.
MARSEILLE, France (AP) A fire destroyed a synagogue in this Mediterranean port city at the close of a weekend that brought a rash of attacks targeting Jews in France, police said Monday. No injuries were reported.
Other anti-Semitic attacks in France over the weekend include:
A fire set by vandals at a synagogue in the eastern city of Strasbourg on Saturday night, leaving charred marks across its facade before the blaze was put out by firefighters. No one was injured.
Damage to the main gate of a synagogue in Lyon, in the southeast, when hooded vandals crashed two cars through early Saturday and set fire to one of the vehicles inside the temple's prayer hall. No injuries were reported.
A shooting at a kosher butcher's shop near Toulouse, in southern France on Saturday. The owner was in the shop at the time but was unharmed.
An attack on a Jewish couple in their 20s Saturday in the Rhone region town of Villeurbanne, according to Le Journal du Dimanche. The woman, who is pregnant, was reportedly hospitalized overnight.
A break-in in a Jewish school in Sarcelles, in the Val d'Oise region north of Paris. Police said Monday that minor damage was reported. The school had been robbed in July.
In neighboring Belgium, authorities said attackers threw gasoline bombs through the windows of a Brussels synagogue, causing a small fire. There were no injuries or major damage in the attack late Sunday.
Italics mine. I suppose the French want their land back too?