Downgrading Gandhi

As the Wall Street Journal reports on a new biography of Gandhi (the respective quotes that follow are from that review), he was "the archetypal 20th-century progressive ­intellectual, professing his love for ­mankind as a concept while actually ­despising people as individuals." Regrettably, the progressives (aka leftists, aka socialists, aka communists - with various degrees of totalitarianism in their ideology) have not changed in the third millennium. It has been known for a long time that when Karl Marx was told, "I cannot think of you in a leveling society, as you have altogether aristocratic tastes and habits," Marx replied, "I cannot either.  That time will come, but we will be gone by then." (Unfortunately, some of us were not so lucky). Gandhi was not alien to luxury either, when he could afford it, adopting his simplicity principle only upon return to India where it would be good for his public image.

It is something new though, when we learn from Great Soul that Gandhi "advised the Czechs and Jews to adopt nonviolence toward the Nazis." His realism and humaneness come clear from his opinion that "'a single Jew standing up and ­refusing to bow to Hitler's decrees' might be enough 'to melt Hitler's heart.'" It is particularly striking that "he advised the Jews of Palestine to 'rely on the goodwill of the Arabs' and wait for a Jewish state 'till Arab ­opinion is ripe for it.'" The Jews knew then and know now how long they would have to wait for that opinion to ripen. What is really amazing, however, is that the world still relies on the expectations of the "good will of Arabs", so generously promised by that "mortal demigod". The one who turns out to be - according to this sympathetic biography - another fallen idol, a great deceiver and racist, who called Hitler "My friend".

A perfect metaphor

This is what happens (or finally should) when Israel reaches its limits of patience:

Fair militancy

Militant atheism is frequently selective - not in its deity-rejection but in its militancy. For instance, even though Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all "three anti-human religions" for Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), they come from "a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament". The latter, "known as...", of course, only to Christians (it's Tanakh for the Jews, without the changes introduced by the Christians), is, of course, responsible for everything, being a "tribal cult of a single fiercely unpleasant God." Definitely more unpleasant to Dawkins than the deity of his own religion, in whose hands he was molested as a boy - after all, that was for him only "an embarrassing, but otherwise harmless experience". Judaism is somehow to blame even for the death penalty for blasphemy practiced in Pakistan. As if penalties for blasphemy did not exist in other religions entirely independent of Judaism, and Islam did not contain enough violence that is unique to it.

It is thus comforting when an atheist is at least fair in his militancy. This is the case with Bill Maher. He is derisive of Christianity and Judaism, as he is of anything he dislikes. In his fairness though, interviewing Keith Ellison, a congressman and a Muslim convert, he called the "holy" Koran a "hate-filled book", where "Islama bin Laden" (must be a slip of the tongue) takes his instructions. Unapologetically and matter-of-factly. He sees a greater threat from Islam than even from the "right-wing" and the KKK (which would not say much if he did not consider everything on the right of Marx to be equal to KKK). There is no need to transcribe the short dialogue - just watch it.

What is interesting in that dialogue is not Maher's mumbling attempts at critiquing Islam, fair as they are - unusually for this self-styled "comedian", - but Ellison's helpless response. The only Koranic quote Ellison was able to produce to contravene Maher's "hate-filled book" statement was deceptively incomplete: "anyone who takes the life, it's as if he killed the whole world". That's what you usually hear from Islam's disingenuous apologists. What they never say is that the complete quote of this Koran 5:32 verse is, "Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors." So yes, there is a belief that murdering one human is like murdering the whole humanity, but this is a Jewish belief, indeed found in the Talmud. It is referred to as a Jewish belief in the Koran. Nowhere is it seen that Islam accepts it. What it does accept is Koran 9:5, "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Then again, Ellison, who referred to the eternal Koran as "compiled" and stated that he accepts "non-believers", may have not done his conversion right, or perhaps has forgotten what it was since he was 19, and there is a hope for him yet.

Talking tough

Remember courageous Mr Kristof? The one who took a Bible to Saudi Arabia with him - not because he needed it, but "to see what would happen"? You can feel how Mr. Kristof is excited about his bravery in his new piece now: wow, he got enough of it to ask "a politically incorrect question: Could the reason for the Middle East’s backwardness be Islam?" (I like that preemptive recognition of "incorrectness" - Allah forbid somebody decides he does not understand how severe that thoughtcrime is). 

Nah, don't worry, surely this question is only to dismiss it with alternative balanced views, the best of which he finds to be that it's all because of "various secondary Islamic legal practices that are no longer relevant today", not because of Islam. One wonders, however, why those "secondary practices" are still working today well enough to keep 1.3 billion people in "backwardness". And how, if those practices are Islamic, is there no connection between them and Islam. Well, it's the same Mr. Kristof, after all, who thinks that Saudis ban Bibles from their country not because of Islam, but "out of sensitivity to local feelings". Where do those "feelings" come from, I wonder, if not from Mohammad's ban on any religion but Islam in Arabia? You can imagine what the chances are for realization of Kristof's "hope we'll have some tough, honest conversations on all sides about what went wrong". Perhaps the Muslims would be talking tough. One could even risk a guess, they already are. "We" - won't.

State oracles

Reportedly, Hillary Clinton has said, "We couldn't have predicted Mubarak's downfall". That is no surprise and no reason to write anything about. After all, the State Department could not predict the downfall of the Soviet Union either, a much more important and expected event, about which generations of Americans dreamed and President Reagan tirelessly worked on. What is surprising is Ms. Clinton's chutzpah in admitting her and her department's utter incompetence and lack of elementary work effort. Obviously, this is not about predicting some event that may or may not happen, anything at least as uncertain as the demise of the Soviet Empire. The only way the State Dept. could not have predicted Mubarak's downfall is if a former president's wife (it's difficult to find any other credentials that were supposed to qualify H. Clinton for her current post) and her subordinates were certain about Mubarak's immortality. The pharaoh is 82. Even if he were to live a long and happy life, it would still not prevent him from retirement in a very foreseeable future. Foreseeable, that is, if you are a sane person rather than Ms. Clinton who could not have imagined she would have to part with the dictator whose pockets she was so lovingly lining, and whose country she was supplying with weaponry that can be used only against Israel. If it were not for Israel's military superiority, the worthless piece of peace paper, for which Israel paid with Sinai's oil, would protect Israel as well as it has against rabid antisemitic incitement in Egypt. The only thing that was needed to predict Mubarak's downfall was to find out how old he is. One wouldn't even need to know, as has become suddenly known immediately after the "downfall", that both the army and Mubarak's own party had called for his resignation.

There is a good Russian saying, "Беда, коль пироги начнет печи сапожник, а сапоги тачать  - пирожник" - translated, it would be bad if a cobbler started baking pies and a baker making boots. This is what we get with the current administration of dilettantes led by a man whose relevant credentials hardly amount to a line in a resume.

Playing with totalitarian symbols, or Why I quit the American Association for the Advancement of Science

12-10-2010. - Today is a sad day. After being a member of the AAAS  for many years, I have decided not to renew my membership upon receiving the notice that it has expired. Although the $146/year membership has not provided me with a tangible benefit, with Science magazine it publishes available to me online through my University's subscription, that is not the reason for my saying 'No' to the last and "Urgent!" AAAS Membership Renewal Certificate. I have felt fine supporting the Association, even though I have not needed any of the benefits of individual membership. I do not know exactly what it does, apart from publishing Science, but that was not an issue either. I have been satisfied with its general description as an "organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association". I no longer am. I no longer feel it can do that service well.

Strange as it may seem, my dissociation from the Association results from the call to renew my membership. Not from its simple substance, which is donating money to some science-related activities and staff supporting them, but from the form. And from the results of my discussion of that form with individuals who are responsible for it - Mr. Ian King, the AAAS Director of Marketing, and Dr. Alan Leshner, the CEO of the AAAS. The contents of that discussion are presented below. I wish my concerns were shared by the community, but I see no reason not to believe Mr. King, the marketing director, who said I had been the only one to raise them. Nevertheless, don't hesitate to comment this way or another.

Notice anything out of order? Perhaps you can't clearly see the image I scanned. The renewal certificate offers an incredibly attractive deal: in addition to Science, some bonus subscriptions and member savings on the AAAS annual meeting I've never attended, I'd get - for 2-year membership - a "FREE Darwin T-shirt!" I cannot know if Darwin would be thrilled by knowing that his likeness serves as a marketing tool, even though his known modesty makes that doubtful. We can, however, safely guess that he, who considered belief in G-d "ennobling" and connected the Golden Rule as the "foundation of morality" with natural human social instincts (see The Descent of Man), would not want to be associated with the bloody revolutionary, Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

These thoughts forced me to send emails to the AAAS staff, the last of which was to its CEO:

Alan I. Leshner
Chief Executive Officer
Executive Publisher, Science
American Association for the
Advancement of Science
Voice: 202-326-6639
FAX: 202-371-9526

11/23/2010 7:33 PM

Dear Dr. Leshner:


As many others, I have received a promotional AAAS membership renewal
certificate, including an offer of a "FREE Darwin T-shirt" bonus. The
T-shirt bears a picture of Darwin on it, which is fashioned after the
well-known portrait of Ernesto "Che" Guevara with a paraphrased slogan
related to the same portrait, "¡Viva La Evolución!".

I doubt this allusion is appropriate for a non-political scientific
organization such as AAAS. Whatever romantic qualities might have been
ascribed to Guevara by pop culture, he was a brutal Communist
revolutionary who ordered executions of, personally executed and
tortured his alleged "enemies". Placing Darwin in any connection with
Guevara is as fitting as adorning him with Lenin's cap or Stalin's pipe,
and is an insult to Darwin who is unable to object personally. It is in
bad taste, to put it mildly, especially for those who, like myself, have
had experience with Communist regimes. In the Soviet Union, we could not
read Science in the original. I am not sure whether its publishers and
authors were aware of that, but Science was reprinted, with all articles
that could offend a Soviet censor removed and their titles blotted out
in the table of contents. This is, of course, nothing compared to "Che"
Guevara's crimes.

I have attempted to receive AAAS's reassurance that this T-shirt was a
mistake to be corrected and is not indicative of the society's position
on totalitarian ideologies. The Society's Marketing Director, Mr. Ian
King, was kind enough to reply to my request and discuss the issue with
his colleagues (I am not sure with whom). The decision they took was
"phasing out the Darwin T-shirt, beginning in September, meaning [they]
will no longer be offering it in [their] renewals, or from [their] trade
show booth for new members". Nevertheless, they did not accept my
request to make a public announcement regarding that, e.g., on the AAAS
website, indicating that the use of Guevara imagery was erroneous. I
still think, however, that it is important not to be silent and merely
withdraw the shirt, which could be done with any marketing device, never
noticed by anybody. The image, which has been seen by many, suggests the
AAAS's sympathies toward totalitarian regimes and their symbols such as
Guevara, or at least readiness to popularize such images by using them
as marketing tools - impressions that I am sure are both unwelcome and
false.

Until the public announcement is made admitting that marketing error, I
cannot in good conscience renew my AAAS membership, due to expire soon.

I would greatly appreciate your response on this matter.

Sincerely, etc.

The response that followed was prompt:

From: Alan Leshner <aleshner@aaas.org>;
To: Michael Vanyukov <mmv@pitt.edu>;
Date: Nov 24 2010 - 2:13pm
We can certainly understand and sympathize with your perspective. We in
        no way meant for this t-shirt to be construed as an endorsement of the
        policies or practices of Che Guevara. Indeed our human rights group here
        at AAAS is well aware of the oppressive nature of the former communist
        regimes, a practice which we know continues in those remaining communist
        countries today. As you may know we no longer distribute this t-shirt.
        We believe to call attention to this product on the web site now and
        revisit the "Che" symbol would be counter-productive to your overriding
        concerns. It is our belief that the t-shirts, like the "Che" character,
        are best left to fade away.

        We hope you will reconsider your membership as we value your opinions
        and unique point-of-view

        With best wishes,

        Alan Leshner

Obviously, I  disagree that somebody should know better what better serves my "overriding concerns" while I am still sane. This is especially so when this judgment is offered by people who have been willing - for two years, by Mr. King's admission - to use an image of a mass murderer who has long been a symbol of communist regimes. Despite the AAAS human rights group's alleged awareness of communist oppression. One of those overriding concerns of mine is exactly that my point of view is considered "unique". In fact, the image of Guevara is so popular in the US universities that the AAAS decided, in the words of its marketing director, "to play off of the Guevara T-shirts that one often sees on college campuses and other places. It was intended to parody that piece of pop culture while serving as a statement of support for the continued preeminence of Darwin's theories." The AAAS's mindless willingness to employ the Guevara chic and laissez-faire attitude to its meaning will contribute to the perpetuation and rise of his popularity, with his and Darwin's images now merged thanks to the AAAS t-shirt. 

No wonder the evolutionary theory - the guiding light of biology - scares those who have not got a chance to get higher education. Education does not make one immune from moral confusion, and sometimes is associated with arrogance preventing timely correction of moral lapses. Neither this confusion nor "the 'Che' character" are likely to "fade away" soon.

British Anti-Zionist Committee

As reported in the Jerusalem Post, the "leadership" (for what it's worth) of the British Jewry has been "de-Zionized". In other words, it has consistently taken a "critical" position towards Israel (quote marks, because it is consistently one-sided and calumnious). Worse even, the head of its self-appointed Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), Mick Davis, has suggested that Israel's policies should be corrected because they poorly reflect on him, thus repeating one of the main antisemitic ideas, according to which the Jews bear collective responsibility for actions of fellow Jews, whether real or imaginary, just as they have had for the slander of deicide.

This reminds me of my home country. In the Soviet Union, antisemitism was officially banned but its official expressions were well understood by the population from the incessant "criticism" of Israel, with printed propaganda including cartoons hardly different from those in Der Stuermer. Everybody could readily connect this "criticism" and its fluctuations with the official and not so secret policy regarding hiring Jews, accepting them to universities, and allowing them emigration. In the antisemitic Soviet Union, there used to be "Anti-Zionist Committee" comprised of famous Jews - actors, writers, lawyers, scientists, and headed by a general, a World War II hero. The AZC, "voluntary" as it was called, was created in 1983 by the KGB and the Propaganda Dept. of the Party (basically the same animal). It was popularly known as the "Antisemitic Committee". Its goal was to malign Israel with the added legitimacy of "Jews themselves" doing that, and to convince the "abroad" - whoever would need such a pathetic pretext, particularly in the USA and Israel, - that the Soviet Jews needed no Israel and there was no antisemitism in the USSR. Needless to say, if anybody thought to organize a Zionist committee, he would see the other side of the KGB in no time, as people like Sharansky did indeed. Those AZC members were partly duped by the continual Communist (anti-capitalist and anti-Israel) brain-washing, partly scared of the KGB for themselves or for family members, partly the official and popular antisemitism had brushed off onto them. I do not know how many well-known Jews were approached and rejected the KGB's kind offer to join. I am not sure how many of the members were "invited" by the KGB rather than volunteered, but there were those among them who did the latter, ashamed of fellow Jews and vocal in "criticizing" Israel. That was nothing new. Right after the Bolshevik revolution, young atheistic Jews had created "Yevsektsiya" (Евсекция; the "Jewish Section" of the Communist Party), whose function was eradication of the Jewish religious and national culture - following Marx's suggestions on the Jewish emancipation by emancipation from Jewishness.

As in the USSR, the "Jews themselves" argument attaches - in the eyes of so many willing beholders - additional legitimacy to slander and antisemitic canards about Israel in the old tradition of blood libel. That's why the Jewish slanderers of Israel - Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Steven Rose - are so popular among neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Muslims, as well as the antisemites of the Left. Under strong pressure, traitors appear with regularity, and provide the ever-interested public with all needed argumentation for why their enemy is right.

I am not sure how strong the pressure on the Jews is in England. I appreciate the possibility that some of them have been brain-washed by the increasingly antisemitic environment in Great Britain into seeing the root of the Arabs-Israel problem in Israel's attacking innocent Arabs rather then in the sworn rejection of Israel's right to exist by Arabs. I do know, however, that compared to the Soviet Jews imprisoned in the Soviet Union, the British Jews and their "leadership" have an additional and much nobler option than slander and betrayal: emigration - to Israel. Instead, they have succeeded - without any KGB pressure and truly voluntarily - in organizing "Anti-Zionist" antisemitic committees. Mazel tov.

Freedom of silence

The state media in the Soviet Union - and all media was state there - hardly needed political censorship after decades of the Soviet rule. The writers exercised self-monitoring very well. The most they allowed themselves was mild allegoric satire that was benignly looked upon by the powers that be as a safety valve for the teacup frondeurs. That helped the writers' popularity and created an illusion of freedom, while keeping boundaries intact. Considering that the writers' livelihood, and sometimes life itself, depended on their craft, one can hardly blame them for self-censorship - perhaps for the choice of profession.

It seems that the US media is getting the proper conditioning as well. On some issues, to remain silent is the only right. The case in point is Juan Williams, a senior National Public Radio (NPR) reporter and Fox News contributor, who has been fired from NPR. He violated the current taboo established by the government, which is a source of NPR funding. He said that seeing people in Muslim garb on a plane makes him nervous. He honestly admitted suffering from a psychological/psychiatric phenomenon, an increased anxiety. That anxiety is conditioned, as is well-known, on a very traumatic event and other similar events associated with the same system of beliefs people in Muslim garb are very likely to share - not on some "Islamophobic" prejudice. He should have kept silent. Such anxiety, and honesty in admitting it, are "inconsistent with [NPR's] editorial standards and practices". Since he could not do much about his anxiety, it is honesty that should have been kept in check, if he wanted to continue serving the organ of governmental propaganda.

One might juxtapose this firing with the recent firing of Helen Thomas by Hearst. There are significant differences, however. Helen Thomas said that Jews should should "go home" from Israel to Germany and Poland, the countries where they were exterminated. She thus unashamedly shares views of Hamas and Hizballah, not necessarily a kosher thing for a senior correspondent with White House accreditation. She was fired because of her antisemitism and support for terrorists' ideology. UPI and Hearst Newspapers, for which Thomas worked, are also not funded by the government. Juan Williams said that he was nervous on the plane seeing people looking like they were into Islam - a characteristic they share with Hamas, Hizballah and Al Qaida. It would be unreasonable not to be nervous about that after 9/11.

Juan Williams has long been an object of disdain and hate by the left for his participation in Fox News, however pro-left his position has been there. The left, taking after its spiritual ancestry, hates everybody who collaborates with what it views as "class enemy". Besides, he had chutzpah to criticize Michelle Obama (who felt OK about the US the first time when her husband was made a presidential candidate). Welcome, Juan, to Miranda rights - Soviet style.

Europe's revolutionaries & Hamas

As reported in Jerusalem Post on October 18, Proinsias De Rossa, an Irish member of European Parliament, said that Hamas should be officially recognized by the European Union. De Rossa is not your average politician, of the kind that seek offices in the forthcoming midterm elections in the US. He is also a former  President of the Workers' Party of Ireland. The Party originates from the Official IRA, whose activities included bank robberies. The latter, while probably profitable, still did not cover funding needs, and in 1986 De Rossa, who was at the time "Chairperson Executive Political Committee" of the Party before its split, signed a letter to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union requesting such funds for "special activities". Those activities, in quotes in the letter itself, were of such variety that it was "not possible to detail ... because of reasons we are sure [Secretary of the CPSU] will understand." The letter appealed to the Soviet comrades with touching sincerity: "The 'special activities' are unable to always be effective and so on occasion the party has to seek loans... We are confident of achieving in time all that we have set ourselves to do, but what we urgently need now is an injection of capital to enable us to devote our time to the tasks in hand and to relieve us of the daily burden of financial constraints". De Rossa and his comrades knew they could rely on the generosity of the CPSU (more precisely, KGB), because they knew "well the tremendous sacrifices made by and the support the Soviet Union rendered to liberation movements and Revolutionary Parties struggling all over the world". As reported in The Independent, the KGB and the CPSU did approve the one million of Irish pounds requested, albeit it took quite awhile, three years, when perestroika was already in full bloom. According to the article, since then De Rossa "has taken a consistently anti-IRA position, organising 'peace trains' between Dublin and Belfast to protest at the bombing of the trains by the IRA". Nevertheless, the "special activities" that have become bad for the revolutionary Irishman (after all, it's hard to be a politician and still support bombing trains in your backyard), may still be viewed as good for "liberation movements... all over the world".

One of those movements is surely Hamas. It is indeed only fitting for Europe to recognize Hamas, as proposed by De Rossa. While for him Hamas are fellow revolutionaries, supported by KGB and its current successors, Europe has for a long time had the same aspirations as Hamas and has only recently been actively engaged in the same business as Hamas. Moreover, Hamas can so far only dream of Europe's success in murdering Jews. De Rossa ridiculously claimed that "Hamas has said it is willing to recognize Israel; we have to ask why this is not reported in the media very often." The answer is simple: there has been nothing to report, unless one is willing to lie like De Rossa - not that recognition by and negotiations with terrorists could be reasonably desired by any state. Of course, Hamas has never changed its foundational Covenant that not only rules out  recognition of and negotiations with Israel, but follows Muhammad's call for the genocide of the Jews, quoting the famous hadith about the Muslims' need to kill the Jews for the Judgment Day to come.

Europe faces perhaps the worst thing in its history - an ideology openly declaring world domination as its goal, whose followers prefer death to life and thus are deaf to anything rational, taking over Europe's cities already - and all it sees is the hated Jews it did not manage to finish off.

Some time after

Let's just think for a moment what would happen if the "Palestinian" state were created as a result of current talks. Besides a couple of new Nobel peace prizes. Let's think of the "best-case" scenario, when the "refugee" problem is solved (I put the word in quotes because few if any of those people are actual refugees), the borders are mutually agreed on, and Jerusalem is not an issue. The disemboweled Israel has finally conducted another ethnic cleansing of its own loyal citizens, depriving them of their homes, land and life they have invested into their fields, vineyards and the Zionist idea. There is nobody left with whom that idea would have any physical traction anymore. The Judenrein Judea and Samaria emerge as "Palestine", named after the ancient enemies of Jews who never lived on that territory. Plishtim, as their Hebrew name was, the Philistines, whose name has come to stand for rude and uncultured ignoramuses, 3,000 years ago occupied part of the Mediterranean coast and had nothing to do with the Arabs. Mahmoud Abbas is enthroned as the President - finally, not of some "Authority" but a state. He has a new kunya perhaps, Abu Filastiniya. He sits in Ramallah, or even Jerusalem - behind the presidential desk under the portrait of the great Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, aka Yasser Arafat. Al-Husseini is also the name of Arafat's revered relative, Haj Amin, a good friend of Hitler and Eichmann and the first leader of "Palestinians". Wikipedia lists "Yasser" within that long train of names, but Arafat took it only when he studied in a university in Cairo. In Cairo he was also born, that great "Palestinian", who adopted the tale of his Jerusalem birth under the direction of his KGB handlers. But I digress.

Now, the "Palestine" of this sweet dream is surely a democratic state. That is, if Abbas, or whoever may dethrone him, does not decide to become a life-term president, which any other self-appointed Arab leader would do, especially given support of his multiple American-taught "security" forces. Is Gaza with its Hamas government part of that state? Hamas's Charter does not allow it to recognize or conduct negotiations with Israel. Thus, whether Gaza is not in that state, or is accepted as an entity within it, it has nothing to do with any agreements. How long will it take for an independent Gaza to start lobbing rockets at Israel again? Alternatively, how long will it take for Hamas to be elected to rule over the united "Palestine" and denounce these fabulous "peace" agreements or simply disregard them? Even before that, what will force Abbas to prevent murders of Israelis committed by "his" citizenry, if he is naming city squares after the terrorist murderers? As happened after the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, it will be immensely more difficult for Israel to protect itself against terror, capture terrorists, or retaliate, if Israeli troops are not deployed in "Palestine" anymore. How long will it take for its terror gangs to get equipped with weaponry readily provided via Jordan, which would likely soon become united with its long-suffering brethren into a terrorist fuehrer-led democracy, getting rid of that old import from Mecca, the Hashemites? There will be people willing to remind Abdullah of his father's Black September and of his own stripping them of their long-held Jordanian citizenship and rights. Whatever illusions may have existed before Israel's self-defeats in South Lebanon and Gaza, following the same pattern again is madness. Don't tell me how well it worked with buying peace from Egypt - does anybody doubt that only Israel's strength has protected it?

Squeezed tightly between the terror states of Jordistine and Hizballon, with the antisemitic "international community" guaranteeing "peace", that is, Israel's non-response to terror attacks for which those states would always have plausible if absurd deniability - with whom will Israel negotiate away the rest of its minuscule land? This time, for safe conduct?