Mr Richert,

I am not exactly sure of what you are getting at here.  Are you implying that “open border” supporters in America would not support the same in Israel?

That very well may be the case for the majority of “open border” supporters, I don’t know, as I have never conducted a survey.  However, I can tell you that I am what you would consider an “open borders” supporter (not that I am, but you would call me that), and I also am adamantly opposed to even the very existence of the UN-created “ersatz Israel”.

To me the most interesting aspect of this story is the fact that up until now the blockade of Gaza has been solely blamed on Israel although it is obvious that the Egyptian government was equally complicit.  The Hamas government of Gaza probably figured that rank and file Egyptians, including in the security forces, would be sympathetic to breaking the blockade on that border, while if the same thing had been tried on the Israeli side there would have been a massacre.  I commend the Gazans for their initiative and the Egyptians for their charity.

Compliments to the Egyptians for rising
to the occasion and aiding these families.
To hell with the politics, especially the
murderous ghetto politics of the Israelis.

My only disagreement with Paul concerns
our border. Open border no, but building
a “wall” is an absurd idea. Ron is supporting
this, I believe, for political reasons.
He has it correct when he states
that the problem is actually the current
weak and handicapped American economy.
Fix the economy and the immigration problem
will dissappear.

THE STAGGERING DOUBLE-STANDARD OF AMERICAN JEWS WITH RESPECT TO RACE HERE IN AMERICA AND IN ISRAEL NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME.

“Will American pro-immigrationists apply the same standard to Foreign Minister Mekel’s remarks as they do to Ron Paul’s?  Somehow, I don’t think so.”

Yeah… that’s about as likely as America penning up hundreds of thousands of Mexicans in borderland bantustans and shooting, bombing and starving them to death.

One never reads of “concern” by the US government over the daily breaches of America’s borders. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_mideast;_ylt=AszvqGKYpFN8NHm0oXp8Slys0NUE

US worried about Gaza border breach
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer2 hours, 42 minutes ago
The United States expressed concern Wednesday about tens of thousands of Palestinians pouring into Egypt from the Gaza Strip across a broken security barrier at the border of the small territory run by Hamas militants.

“We are concerned about that situation and frankly I know the Egyptians are as well,” State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said.

David Welch, the assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, said the Egyptians take border security seriously and that he has no indication the situation has affected Israeli-Palestinian relations for now.

“I’m not going to try and speak for Egypt, give public recommendations to the Egyptian government on how to control their sovereign border,” Casey said, adding that the United States is available to offer advice or support.

The Palestinian exodus was a protest against the closure of the impoverished Palestinian territory imposed last week by Israel. Israel controls most of Gaza’s land borders, while Egypt shares a small border with the territory around the market town of Rafah. Egypt generally keeps its border with Gaza under tight control, although Israel accuses Egypt of looking the other way when it comes to smuggling operations.

The border crossings put Israel and the United States in an awkward spot as President Bush pushes new Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Egypt is one of only two Arab states to make peace with Israel, and holds a historic role as Arab host and broker for peace talks.

Israel has come under international criticism for sealing off Gaza as a pressure tactic against Hamas militants who took over the strip in June, but is reluctant to criticize Egypt for allowing Palestinians free passage Wednesday.

The United States does not want to publicly criticize either Israel or Egypt. It aimed instead at Hamas, the militant political and military organization pledged to Israel’s destruction. Israel and the United States are backing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, of the rival Fatah Party, in a bitter fight between the Palestinian factions.

“The Palestinians living in Gaza are living under chaos because of Hamas, and the blame has to be placed fully at their feet,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday.

Jubilant men and women crossed unhindered over the toppled corrugated metal along sections of the barrier in Rafah, carrying goats, chickens and crates of Coca-Cola. Some brought back televisions, car tires and cigarettes and one man even bought a motorcycle. Vendors sold soft drinks and baked goods to the crowds.

They were stocking up on goods made scarce by the Israeli blockade and within hours, shops on the Egyptian side of Rafah had run out of stock.

Earlier Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered a muted response, saying in Switzerland that the U.S. wants to see stability in the region, but that “most importantly both the security concerns of Israel and the humanitarian concerns of Gazans be met.”

More “I hate Israel/Jews more than I love America” rhetoric from the Fannonite “paleoconservatives”.

In the real world, Israel has allowed in food and provides energy to Gaza. It is the Gazan Arabs (themselves former Eyptians until 1967) who are creating suffering in playing the victim card. HAMAS (you know the thugs who want to conquer Madrid as much as Tel Aviv) cut off power that israel was providing.

But the know that fellow travelers, leftists, and useful idiot conservatives will report their propaganda as truth.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=15751EA0-F01A-493B-8138-5AC2FFC64D6A

Fueling the Gaza Jihad
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

We’ve long known that Israel is not supposed to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks. All Israeli antiterror measures, from targeted killings of terror masters to rooting out the Jenin terror-haven to mere curfews and checkpoints, have been roundly and almost universally condemned. Even the most passive measure of all—building a fence to keep terrorists out—has been censured at The Hague and become a cause celebre as the “apartheid wall” among a plethora of Israel-foes.

But now, to the principle that Israel must not defend itself against terror, has been added a new principle—that Israel has to fuel (quite literally) the terror against it.

Last week, after seven years of bombardment of Sderot and smaller Gaza-belt communities reached a new peak to the tune of about fifty rockets and dozens of mortars a day, the floundering Israeli government hit upon an idea that was sure to fail: sealing the border crossings and cutting the fuel supplies to Gaza. Some thought this might lead Gaza residents to “pressure Hamas to stop the rocket fire”—as if Gaza was a parliamentary democracy with responsive legislators who scurry to please their constituencies.

Instead, what has happened since has been drearily predictable.

Even after Israel cut off all fuel supplies, Gaza was still left with the two-thirds of its electricity that Israel provides to it directly. Yet, on Sunday evening, Hamas staged a “humanitarian crisis” by shutting down Gaza’s only electrical plant. Gaza City, as the reports put it, was “plunged into total darkness” complete with a candlelight protest of marching children, quickly becoming much more of a humanitarian concern than being plunged into seven years of rockets falling on houses and schools.

“We have the choice to either cut electricity on babies in the maternity ward or heart surgery patients or stop operating rooms,” warbled a Gaza Health Ministry official. It wasn’t really true, since Hamas still had plenty of electricity to direct to hospitals and other urgent needs, and could even, in theory, have solved the whole problem by ending its attempts to murder Israelis. But it worked wonderfully.

The same chorus that always rises to defend Palestinian terror didn’t miss its cue. On Monday European Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner said, “I condemn the rocket fire into Israel and we fully understand Israel’s need to defend its citizens…. However, the recent decision to close all border crossings into Gaza as well as to stop the provision of fuel will exacerbate an already dire humanitarian situation…. I have made clear that I am against this collective punishment of the people of Gaza.”

Also on Monday UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert to protest, after urging Israel over the weekend to end the closure. The Arab League met urgently in Cairo and, along with the Arab ambassadors to the UN, requested an emergency session of the UN Security Council that was quickly scheduled for Tuesday.

True to form, the Europeans, UN, and Arabs led, but the U.S. wasn’t far behind. On Tuesday Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters that “Nobody wants innocent Gazans to suffer and so we have spoken to the Israelis about the importance of not allowing a humanitarian crisis to unfold there.” She didn’t explain why, in her numerous visits to Israel in recent years, she has never perceived a humanitarian crisis in Sderot or any need to relieve its residents’ suffering.

U.S. ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad chimed in with, “We do believe that attacks against Israel are unacceptable and that it has the right to defend itself, but we have also said that when Israel defends itself it has to take the impact on civilians into account.” Translation: “Israel does not have the right to defend itself, since in acting against Gaza terrorists it is impossible to avoid sometimes harming Gaza civilians, and we could much more easily live with another seventy years of bombardment of Sderot than have that happen.”

Israel, of course, folded quickly . On Tuesday it resumed fuel deliveries to Gaza, pumping 700,000 liters of diesel through the Nahal Oz crossing while also providing cooking gas and medicine. Hamas quickly showed its appreciation by firing five Qassams that same morning. An Israeli woman was taken to hospital in Ashkelon, north of Gaza, for severe anxiety and shock.

Also on Tuesday morning Gaza terrorists resumed shooting at field workers near Kibbutz Ein Hashlosha, where last week a twenty-year-old Ecuadorian volunteer was killed by sniper fire. Needless to say, the Arab League did not hold another urgent session and the voices of Ferrero-Waldner, Ban, Rice, Khalilzad, et al. were not heard addressing these events.

Comments:

1. Israel has to partially blame itself for trying a policy aimed at depriving and pressuring Palestinian civilians, which in today’s world has about as much chance of succeeding as campaigning in favor of smoking or against condoms. Israel did so as another way of avoiding the truth that nothing can any longer protect its Gaza-belt citizens, save their communities, or restore Israel’s deterrence and functionality except a large-scale military action in Gaza. This too will collaterally harm Palestinian civilians and not be popular at all—but at least it will achieve something.

2. The Gazan population gets off scot-free for, along with its West Bank counterpart, electing Hamas as the Palestinian government in 2006. If, for instance, a large majority of the Iranian population was known to back the mullahcracy and its goals, it would lose sympathy as a result. The Palestinians, however, are the apple of the world’s eye, an icon of innocence no matter what they do—including choosing and backing a virulently anti-Western, jihadist regime.

3. While Hamas was bleating about babies, heart patients, and operating rooms and world leaders were sternly reproving Israel, nobody asked whether Egypt, for instance, or other Arab brethren of the Palestinians, could have eked out the supplies they claimed they desperately needed. The alleged importance of the Palestinian issue to the “moderate Arabs” has become a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy and has recently led President Bush to convene a conference in Annapolis and publicly push Israel toward “ending the occupation.” But in the present episode this has not translated into suggestions, let alone pressure, on the Arabs to do anything to help the Palestinians. The Arabs want Israel, not themselves, to be in the hot seat; and they get what they want.

4. Israel got the worst of all worlds with its 2005 disengagement from Gaza. That is, it disengaged militarily, prompting a vast increase in the rocket attacks, but continued to be viewed by the world as fully politically engaged and responsible for Gaza’s welfare. Expectations that the world would become more “understanding” of Israel’s need to respond militarily, or otherwise, once it had ended its “occupation” did not materialize at all. Currently a cowardly Israeli government, whose leader was a prime disengagement advocate, keeps delaying the day of reckoning as the military challenge from Gaza grows ever more formidable and the inevitable price of confronting it ever higher.

5. Regarding the present situation, Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni noted that “Israel is the only place in the world that supplies electricity to terrorist organizations that launch rockets at it in return.” The connection—in effect, the self-destructive, suicidal behavior—is direct and physical, since the fuel supplied by Israel powers the very Gazan production lines that make the rockets. And not only that: the Gazans have repeatedly fired the rockets at the Israeli power station in Ashkelon that supplies Gaza.

Ideally, Israeli leaders like Livni and Olmert who in their personal careers have drifted from a robust nationalism to a weak-kneed eagerness-to-please would ask themselves if this—not only not protecting Jews, but fueling those who attack them and even attack the fuel itself—is not an apt symbol of Zionism in crisis and the need to regain the old acuity and pride.

People crossing borders, peacefully, conducting
trade, peacefully.
What a horrid sight for Israel and Ron Lewenberg.

Willb,

“People crossing borders, peacefully, conducting
trade, peacefully.
What a horrid sight for Israel and Ron Lewenberg.”

Are you an open borders fanatic for America?

@Ron Lewenberg:

“But the know that fellow travelers, leftists, and useful idiot conservatives will report their propaganda as truth.”

Really?  You’re calling the Jerusalem Post all those things?  Because I quoted them: “Most of the Gazans returned after stocking up on food and other basic supplies that have become scarce due to the blockade imposed on the territory by Israel.”

Open borders fanatic?
No.
Building the worlds largest ghetto?
Also no.
Proud of the Egyptians for their hospitality?
Yes.

Mr. Richert,

The Israeli press, with the exception of the non-sanctioned Chanel 7, Israel National News, is all but uniformly liberal to leftist. The Jerusalem Post was once mildly nationalist, but then again the Chicago Tribune was once conservative,

You woudn’t trust he NY Times to be perfectly honest when speaking of US immigration policy, would you?

This is the equivalent of the sob stories for the children of illegal aliens in America.

As far as I am concerned, Israel can do with its borders whatever it wants.  I for one have no problem with Israel building walls to protect itself and its citizens.  But it would be nice if the American government respected America’s borders as much as they do Israel’s and were as concerned over breaches of American’s borders as much as they are Israel’s or many other foreign nation-states. 

But shouldn’t we all agree that Neocons have been leading the charge to keep America’s borders wide open?  Bill Kristol said that he is a quote “liberal on illegal immigration” unquote. 

So, if Neocons want to protect Israel’s borders but don’t want to protect America’s borders, what does this tell us about Neocons?

@Ron Lewenberg:

“The Jerusalem Post was once mildly nationalist, but then again the Chicago Tribune was once conservative,

You woudn’t trust he NY Times to be perfectly honest when speaking of US immigration policy, would you?”

Seriously?  Wow.  Either one of us is reading a different Jerusalem Post than the other, or one of us is a pretty hardline Israeli nationalist.

Here’s a hint: I’m not an Israeli nationalist, and there’s only one Jerusalem Post.

The same Jerusalem Post that Mr. Lewenberg believes is lying about the situation in Gaza features the following editorials online today:

Sowing war
By playing into Hamas’s hands, the UN is strengthening the forces it claims to wish to isolate.

Hamas’s dupes
Perhaps more EU officials should visit Sderot before opening their mouths.<i>

<i>Culpable Egypt
Egypt’s failure to prevent the flow of arms and terrorists into Gaza now threatens a full-blown war.

Fair compensation
The Palestinian refugee problem was caused by Arab rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

10 essential words
The Arab demand for a “right of return” is utterly asymmetrical.

Where Bush needs to nudge
The Palestinians can’t lead Arab states toward peace, therefore leadership must come from these states.

Tell Abbas to stop educating for war
Abbas cannot make peace when he is readying his people for war.

Clearly, Mr. Lewenberg is right: The Jerusalem Post is an inimical to Israeli interests as the New York Times is to American interests.

And clearly, I need to proofread: That final line should read in part “ . . . is as inimical . . . “

Mr. Richert,

Do the neoconservative or occasionally patriotic editorials in the Wall Street Journal change the fact that its reporting is centrist or liberal?

The young reporters in Israel have gone through the same leftist indoctrination as those in the US. They make the same leftist assumptions and will spin stories, even when they think they are balanced.

Let me state for the record:

The country we call “Israel” is a creation of the United Nations.  Just as the United Nations had the power to create this “Israel”, it has the power to destroy it.  The only thing holding back the destruction of “Israel” by it’s creator is the veto power of the USofA on the Security Council of the United Nations.

So, that means that the continuation of American Zionist policies are directly linked to the very survival of “Israel”.  The politicians of “Israel” know that if the USofA were to ever turn away from the Zionist policies, their country would cease to exist ("wiped off the map"/"erased from the pages of time").  This explains why the “Israeli” politicians are so involved with the policies of the USofA.  They’ve already lost the USSR, so all of their bets are on the USofA.

This is why it is possible to criticize the USofA and not offend “Israel”, but it is impossible to criticize “Israel” without criticizing the USofA.  The international politics of “Israel” are a subset of American foreign policy.

The only way to solve this problem is to get the USofA out of the situation, and let the parent of “Israel” work out the problems with it’s own “Frankenstein Monster”.  The USofA should have no allegiance to the United Nations, nor to it’s various creations.

@Ron Lewenberg:

“The young reporters in Israel have gone through the same leftist indoctrination as those in the US. They make the same leftist assumptions and will spin stories, even when they think they are balanced.”

No doubt.  Of course, FrontPage Magazine, which you quoted at great length, is always balanced and couldn’t possibly have an agenda.

I’ll take the news report from the Jerusalem Post of P. David Hornik and David Horowitz any day.

Sorry--that last sentence should read: “I’ll take the news report from the Jerusalem Post over the propaganda of P. David Hornik and David Horowitz any day.”

From P. David Hornik’s blog, illustrating his “balanced” reporting, here’s his summary of what President George W. Bush has done in his two terms towardvis a vis</i> Israel:

push for a mass expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria; push obsessively for a terror state abutting what little would be left of Israel and make it a centerpiece of your foreign policy; direct weapons, training, and funds to Israel-hating terrorists; uphold an oily, corrupt, spineless Israeli prime minister as a great leader whom his people must keep in office no matter what; ride and encourage the weakest, most capitulationist political factors in Israel whose policies always demonstrably lead to increased terror and increased empowerment of terror; elevate leaders of the already-existing corrupt, jihadist, genocidal substate entity already adjoining Israel to the status of honored international statesmen.

Needless to say, a less “balanced” reporter (like, say, those at the Jerusalem Post) might have a somewhat different view of the most pro-Israeli president that United States has ever had.

Acuity? Pride?

Try selling that crap to the parents of a nutrient-free infant in Gaza.

Mr. Capp,

Do you through reasoning skills out the window when dealing with Israel?
Dozens of nations have been RECOGNIZED by the US since 1946. Are you suggesting the India is a false country?

I have pointed out Communist anti-Zionism and Antisemitism. You ignore facts .

You are theologically opposed to the existence of Israel, hence you will find any and all excuses to support your religious bigotry.

Mr. Richert writes:

“No doubt.  Of course, FrontPage Magazine, which you quoted at great length, is always balanced and couldn’t possibly have an agenda.”

Who said that they don’t have an agenda? They are simply honest about theirs.

“I’ll take the news report from the Jerusalem Post of P. David Hornik and David Horowitz any day.”
Fine. But what about when presented with opposing facts?

Lights On, Nobody Home

The media leaves the false impression that Israel has completely cut Gaza’s electricity.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Lights_On,_Nobody_Home.asp

“Needless to say, a less “balanced” reporter (like, say, those at the Jerusalem Post) might have a somewhat different view of the most pro-Israeli president that United States has ever had.”

What makes you think taht Jorge Arbust is any more a pro-Israel presiden than a pro-America president?
You are responding with the same institutionalized disbelief I see in liberalss and right-liberals when told that George W. Bush is a liberal and the most-pro-Islamist president we’ve had.
They guffaw and attack the source.

President Bush is no friend of Israel.

President Bush has called for Jerusalem to be divided with the Jewish Quarter in Arab hands. He wishes to make historical Jerusalem Judenrein/Judenfrei
President Bush has called for Israel to deal with the “right of return” of Arab “refugees”, thus asking Israel to commit demographic suicide. (And don’t tell me taht Bush is too stupid to understand the implications of this.)

President Bush has condemned the defensive barrier that Israel uses to protect it citizens and Arabs non-citizens.

President Bush has called for Israel to arm the PLO paramilitary forces, even though these units openly attacked Israel in 2000 and whose “renegade factions”, l Aqsa Brigade, and Tanzim still attack Israel. Israel’s best fried just promised 85 million to the PLO.

Give it up Ron.
Scott nailed you dead to rights.
Do you think pasting material
from sites that no one at this
site would read, here or there,
strengthens your argument?
Stop wasting space. All you are
doing is wearing out my mouse wheel.

<<Are you suggesting the India is a false country?>>

Yes.

Any more questions?

@Ron Lewenberg:

“Fine. But what about when presented with opposing facts?

The media leaves the false impression that Israel has completely cut Gaza’s electricity. ”

Where did I discuss (much less dispute) the question of electricity?  I quoted the Jerusalem Post on the starvation brought about by the Israeli blockade on food.  You said it was a lie, but you cite an article on . . . electricity?

“George W. Bush is a liberal and the most-pro-Islamist president we’ve had.”

At least we agree on something.  But as Israel’s support for Islamic rebels in Kosovo and Bosnia makes clear, one can support some Muslims and still support Israel.

“Where did I discuss (much less dispute) the question of electricity?  I quoted the Jerusalem Post on the starvation brought about by the Israeli blockade on food.  You said it was a lie, but you cite an article on . . . electricity? “
Given that the Gazans breaking into Egypt were purchasing cigarettes and consumer goods (tvs, beds...) starvation was not occuring on any major scale.

UNRWA is a terrorist-supporting group. Why would any conservative accept any of thier announcements as true even if liberals/msm parrot these?

However, there clearly was suffering. Taht said, how should Israel have responded to the ongoing bombardment of Sderot and ongoing attempts at terrorism in Green-line Israel? How should it have responded to Egyptian complicity is smuggling arms in Hamastan?

Would you reward terrorism?
Would you invade?
Would you have aistrikes on selective targets?

“At least we agree on something.  But as Israel’s support for Islamic rebels in Kosovo and Bosnia makes clear, one can support some Muslims and still support Israel. “
Bad examples. Putting aside the fact that many “Palestinians” are merely Slavic Muslims who were relocated by hte Ottomans, Israeli support for the Islamists was a horrible betrayal of the Serbs. The Muslims used a complicit media to fabricate stories which have largely been disporven. Now Serbs are being expelled or murdered. Having supported Bin Laden’s allies, Israel set the precient for a UN/EU/NATO invasion of Israel.

This was pure liberal lunacy.
That so many neocons, although not all, supported it should be a dead giveaway that these are liberals not Zionists.

@Ron Lewenberg:

Apparently, you have trouble recognizing sarcasm.  Still, it’s interesting to watch you jump through hoops to try to explain away Israeli support for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo.  I’m afraid that there’s a much simpler explanation than that those who supported them “are liberals not Zionists.”

I’m glad to hear that you were on the right side, though.