Monday, April 24, 2006

Yom Ha'Shoah

While remembrance calls for silence, I would still like to use this special day to point out that there is one country, just one, that will side with Israel and stand by her side regardless of economic and commercial costs, world opinion, oil, and other considerations.

Given the twentieth century's history, the natural candidate for this post should be Germany, or possibly Poland, on whose territory the most despicable and incomprehensible crimes ever planned by man were perpetrated. In fact, just about any European nation that collaborated in the Holocaust might have decided to stand by Israel - and that means all of Continental Europe with the exception of Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, and Bulgaria.

But, for that whatever reason, all these countries have chosen not to do so.

And thus that one, irreplaceable country is America, still the shining city upon a hill, and as ever, mankind's last, best hope.

George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln would be proud.

And Israel shall live on, an eternal friend of America, and an eternal reminder that Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich and Hoess did not succeed, did not manage to exterminate the Jewish people, and did not break the Jewish people's will for survival, or for a return home to Jerusalem, at long last.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Coming Soon to a Mullah Near You

Friday, April 21, 2006

Show me the way to Natanz

Show me the way to Isfahan

To Bomb, or not to Bomb

This is the title of an extraordinary piece on Iran by the consistently excellent Reuel Marc Gerecht.

His key point:

We can't guarantee the results. But what we can do is demonstrate, to the mullahs and to others elsewhere, that even with these uncertainties, in a post-9/11 world the United States has red lines that will compel it to act. And one nonnegotiable red line is that we will not sit idly and watch a virulently anti-American terrorist-supporting rogue state obtain nukes. We will not be intimidated by threats of terrorism, oil-price spikes, or hostile world opinion. If the ruling clerical elite wants a head-on collision with a determined superpower, then that's their choice.

There is a price to pay, of course, but the urgency is nicely conveyed in his closing paragraph:

So we will all have to wait for President Bush to decide whether nuclear weapons in the hands of Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guards Corps are something we can live with. Given the Islamic Republic's dark history, the burden of proof ought to be on those who favor accommodating a nuclear Iran. Those who are unwilling to accommodate it, however, need to be honest and admit that diplomacy and sanctions and covert operations probably won't succeed, and that we may have to fight a war--perhaps sooner rather than later--to stop such evil men from obtaining the worst weapons we know.

An absolute Must-Read.

Show me the way to Tehran

Monday, April 10, 2006

You cannot spell "unbearable" without UN

Anne Bayefsky, one of the most tireless and righteous fighters in the crusade against the corrupt and immoral abyss that shames the entire New York skyline, has a brilliant piece in the Weekly Standard, Another U.N. "Reform".

A nice little fact to get started:

The council was created by the U.N. General Assembly on March 15 in a vote of 170 to 4

Now, why does that sound familiar? Or, more to the point, did Australia, which had joined the coalition of the free not too long ago, and brought the count in the hall of fame at Turtle Bay to 5, forget its mind? Or was it one of the two Pacific nations of blessed memory? Or possibly one of the Original Satans?

(United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)

Palau, by the grace of Queen Elizabeth the Second. Marvelous. But what about the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Pacific Pillar of the Anglosphere?
Did they have the decency to abstain? Or did someone else?

...with 3 abstentions (Belarus, Iran, Venezuela).

Is anyone else noticing the foul smell? Or, while we're at it - what were Zimbabwe, Cuba and Sudan doing?

Now that we know who was responsible, let's look at what exactly they have wrought.

How about a look at the members of this august, high-flying council?

Which brings us to the candidates that have put themselves forward. First out of the gate for the African group is ...

I'm taking a wild guess here.... Libya? Or maybe the Congo?


Oh. Competing on a high level, are we?

And throwing their hats into the ring for the Asian group are China, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, among others.

That is just priceless. One has to wonder, though: was the North Korean delegate busy at the UN restaurant? Was Syria's representative busy at a biochemistry lecture downtown?

The Latins? Cuba to start.

Any questions? No, thanks.

Oh, wait... the whole thing is actually fool-proof!
In another twist, countries standing for election can choose to make a public pledge that they will eventually protect human rights.

Eventually. As in, whenever hell freezes over.

In the words of the secretary general, "states wishing to be elected to the new Council will put forward their pledges and commitments to protect and promote human rights. It will be up to their fellow member states to evaluate these promises."

A pledge. By a communist or Islamofascist stooge. Makes me feel so much better already...