Jerusalem Online

Friday, April 29, 2011

Jerusalem is part of Israel, Palestine is just a partner.

By Pastafajoule.


“Hamas is part of the Palestinian nation,” responded Abbas a day later. “Israel is just a partner. We want to work with both.”
Jerusalem is part of Israel,  Palestine is just a partner. Israel does not want to work with the Palestinians which includes any terrorist entity such as Hamas.
Jerusalem is Part of Israel. It can not be divided in the name of any glory. It can not be divided and simply given away to any part of Palestine since Palestine had never been a state of anything else than the imagination of Jewish killers, robbers and invaders.
Israel is what it is and anything less would be like giving away a part of your skin to the Nazis. Israel is not a slave and is not for sale to anyone. Israel can be shared with kind and honest people. Israel is our life and blood. Israel is our existence and anyone who wishes to hurt Israel must understand that our blood is not for the taking. 
Our tears and sweat is not your gift or a gift for anyone it is our work and our peace. Take it if you like and share our life together in peace, in harmony and in love. If you are going to attempt to steal it we will pursue you and will incarcerate you and give you just punishment.
Don't disrespect us and we will do the same to you. Lie to us and we will let you lie until you can't anymore and then we will destroy you.


If you attempt to kill Israel, Israel will kill you.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

http://www.nerdshit.com/2010/03/16/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens/


Augmented Reality in a Contact Lens

A contact lens with simple built-in electronics is already within reach; in fact, my students and I are already producing such devices in small numbers in my laboratory at the University of Washington, in Seattle. These lenses don’t give us the vision of an eagle or the benefit of running subtitles on our surroundings yet. But we have built a lens with one LED, which we’ve powered wirelessly with RF. What we’ve done so far barely hints at what will soon be possible with this technology.
Conventional contact lenses are polymers formed in specific shapes to correct faulty vision. To turn such a lens into a functional system, we integrate control circuits, communication circuits, and miniature antennas into the lens using custom-built optoelectronic components. Those components will eventually include hundreds of LEDs, which will form images in front of the eye, such as words, charts, and photographs. Much of the hardware is semitransparent so that wearers can navigate their surroundings without crashing into them or becoming disoriented. In all likelihood, a separate, portable device will relay displayable information to the lens’s control circuit, which will operate the optoelectronics in the lens.
These lenses don’t need to be very complex to be useful. Even a lens with a single pixel could aid people with impaired hearing or be incorporated as an indicator into computer games. With more colors and resolution, the repertoire could be expanded to include displaying text, translating speech into captions in real time, or offering visual cues from a navigation system. With basic image processing and Internet access, a contact-lens display could unlock whole new worlds of visual information, unfettered by the constraints of a physical display.
Besides visual enhancement, noninvasive monitoring of the wearer’s biomarkers and health indicators could be a huge future market. We’ve built several simple sensors that can detect the concentration of a molecule, such as glucose. Sensors built onto lenses would let diabetic wearers keep tabs on blood-sugar levels without needing to prick a finger. The glucose detectors we’re evaluating now are a mere glimmer of what will be possible in the next 5 to 10 years. Contact lenses are worn daily by more than a hundred million people, and they are one of the only disposable, mass-market products that remain in contact, through fluids, with the interior of the body for an extended period of time. When you get a blood test, your doctor is probably measuring many of the same biomarkers that are found in the live cells on the surface of your eye—and in concentrations that correlate closely with the levels in your bloodstream. An appropriately configured contact lens could monitor cholesterol, sodium, and potassium levels, to name a few potential targets. Coupled with a wireless data transmitter, the lens could relay information to medics or nurses instantly, without needles or laboratory chemistry, and with a much lower chance of mix-ups.
Three fundamental challenges stand in the way of building a multipurpose contact lens. First, the processes for making many of the lens’s parts and subsystems are incompatible with one another and with the fragile polymer of the lens. To get around this problem, my colleagues and I make all our devices from scratch. To fabricate the components for silicon circuits and LEDs, we use high temperatures and corrosive chemicals, which means we can’t manufacture them directly onto a lens. That leads to the second challenge, which is that all the key components of the lens need to be miniaturized and integrated onto about 1.5 square centimeters of a flexible, transparent polymer. We haven’t fully solved that problem yet, but we have so far developed our own specialized assembly process, which enables us to integrate several different kinds of components onto a lens. Last but not least, the whole contraption needs to be completely safe for the eye. Take an LED, for example. Most red LEDs are made of aluminum gallium arsenide, which is toxic. So before an LED can go into the eye, it must be enveloped in a biocompatible substance.
So far, besides our glucose monitor, we’ve been able to batch-fabricate a few other nanoscale biosensors that respond to a target molecule with an electrical signal; we’ve also made several microscale components, including single-crystal silicon transistors, radio chips, antennas, diffusion resistors, LEDs, and silicon photodetectors. We’ve constructed all the micrometer-scale metal interconnects necessary to form a circuit on a contact lens. We’ve also shown that these microcomponents can be integrated through a self-assembly process onto other unconventional substrates, such as thin, flexible transparent plastics or glass. We’ve fabricated prototype lenses with an LED, a small radio chip, and an antenna, and we’ve transmitted energy to the lens wirelessly, lighting the LED. To demonstrate that the lenses can be safe, we encapsulated them in a biocompatible polymer and successfully tested them in trials with live rabbits.
Second Sight:
In recent trials, rabbits wore lenses containing metal circuit structures for 20 minutes at a time with no adverse effects.
Seeing the light—LED light—is a reasonable accomplishment. But seeing something useful through the lens is clearly the ultimate goal. Fortunately, the human eye is an extremely sensitive photodetector. At high noon on a cloudless day, lots of light streams through your pupil, and the world appears bright indeed. But the eye doesn’t need all that optical power—it can perceive images with only a few microwatts of optical power passing through its lens. An LCD computer screen is similarly wasteful. It sends out a lot of photons, but only a small fraction of them enter your eye and hit the retina to form an image. But when the display is directly over your cornea, every photon generated by the display helps form the image.
The beauty of this approach is obvious: With the light coming from a lens on your pupil rather than from an external source, you need much less power to form an image. But how to get light from a lens? We’ve considered two basic approaches. One option is to build into the lens a display based on an array of LED pixels; we call this an active display. An alternative is to use passive pixels that merely modulate incoming light rather than producing their own. Basically, they construct an image by changing their color and transparency in reaction to a light source. (They’re similar to LCDs, in which tiny liquid-crystal ”shutters” block or transmit white light through a red, green, or blue filter.) For passive pixels on a functional contact lens, the light source would be the environment. The colors wouldn’t be as precise as with a white-backlit LCD, but the images could be quite sharp and finely resolved.
We’ve mainly pursued the active approach and have produced lenses that can accommodate an 8-by-8 array of LEDs. For now, active pixels are easier to attach to lenses. But using passive pixels would significantly reduce the contact’s overall power needs—if we can figure out how to make the pixels smaller, higher in contrast, and capable of reacting quickly to external signals.
In Focus:
One lens prototype [top] has several interconnects, single-crystal silicon components, and compound-semiconductor components embedded within. Another sample lens [bottom] contains a radio chip, an antenna, and a red LED.
By now you’re probably wondering how a person wearing one of our contact lenses would be able to focus on an image generated on the surface of the eye. After all, a normal and healthy eye cannot focus on objects that are fewer than 10 centimeters from the corneal surface. The LEDs by themselves merely produce a fuzzy splotch of color in the wearer’s field of vision. Somehow the image must be pushed away from the cornea. One way to do that is to employ an array of even smaller lenses placed on the surface of the contact lens. Arrays of such microlenses have been used in the past to focus lasers and, in photolithography, to draw patterns of light on a photoresist. On a contact lens, each pixel or small group of pixels would be assigned to a microlens placed between the eye and the pixels. Spacing a pixel and a microlens 360 micrometers apart would be enough to push back the virtual image and let the eye focus on it easily. To the wearer, the image would seem to hang in space about half a meter away, depending on the microlens.
Another way to make sharp images is to use a scanning microlaser or an array of microlasers. Laser beams diverge much less than LED light does, so they would produce a sharper image. A kind of actuated mirror would scan the beams from a red, a green, and a blue laser to generate an image. The resolution of the image would be limited primarily by the narrowness of the beams, and the lasers would obviously have to be extremely small, which would be a substantial challenge. However, using lasers would ensure that the image is in focus at all times and eliminate the need for microlenses.
Whether we use LEDs or lasers for our display, the area available for optoelectronics on the surface of the contact is really small: roughly 1.2 millimeters in diameter. The display must also be semitransparent, so that wearers can still see their surroundings. Those are tough but not impossible requirements. The LED chips we’ve built so far are 300 µm in diameter, and the light-emitting zone on each chip is a 60-µm-wide ring with a radius of 112 µm. We’re trying to reduce that by an order of magnitude. Our goal is an array of 3600 10-µm-wide pixels spaced 10 µm apart.
One other difficulty in putting a display on the eye is keeping it from moving around relative to the pupil. Normal contact lenses that correct for astigmatism are weighted on the bottom to maintain a specific orientation, give or take a few degrees. I figure the same technique could keep a display from tilting (unless the wearer blinked too often!).
Like all mobile electronics, these lenses must be powered by suitable sources, but among the options, none are particularly attractive. The space constraints are acute. For example, batteries are hard to miniaturize to this extent, require recharging, and raise the specter of, say, lithium ions floating around in the eye after an accident. A better strategy is gathering inertial power from the environment, by converting ambient vibrations into energy or by receiving solar or RF power. Most inertial power scavenging designs have unacceptably low power output, so we have focused on powering our lenses with solar or RF energy.
Let’s assume that 1 square centimeter of lens area is dedicated to power generation, and let’s say we devote the space to solar cells. Almost 300 microwatts of incoming power would be available indoors, with potentially much more available outdoors. At a conversion efficiency of 10 percent, these figures would translate to 30 µW of available electrical power, if all the subsystems of the contact lens were run indoors.
Collecting RF energy from a source in the user’s pocket would improve the numbers slightly. In this setup, the lens area would hold antennas rather than photovoltaic cells. The antennas’ output would be limited by the field strengths permitted at various frequencies. In the microwave bands between 1.5 gigahertz and 100 GHz, the exposure level considered safe for humans is 1 milliwatt per square centimeter. For our prototypes, we have fabricated the first generation of antennas that can transmit in the 900-megahertz to 6-GHz range, and we’re working on higher-efficiency versions. So from that one square centimeter of lens real estate, we should be able to extract at least 100 µW, depending on the efficiency of the antenna and the conversion circuit.
Having made all these subsystems work, the final challenge is making them all fit on the same tiny polymer disc. Recall the pieces that we need to cram onto a lens: metal microstructures to form antennas; compound semiconductors to make optoelectronic devices; advanced complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor silicon circuits for low-power control and RF telecommunication; microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducers and resonators to tune the frequencies of the RF communication; and surface sensors that are reactive with the biochemical environment.
The semiconductor fabrication processes we’d typically use to make most of these components won’t work because they are both thermally and chemically incompatible with the flexible polymer substrate of the contact lens. To get around this problem, we independently fabricate most of the microcomponents on silicon-on-insulator wafers, and we fabricate the LEDs and some of the biosensors on other substrates. Each part has metal interconnects and is etched into a unique shape. The end yield is a collection of powder-fine parts that we then embed in the lens.
We start by preparing the substrate that will hold the microcomponents, a 100-µm-thick slice of polyethylene terephthalate. The substrate has photolithographically defined metal interconnect lines and binding sites. These binding sites are tiny wells, about 10 µm deep, where electrical connections will be made between components and the template. At the bottom of each well is a minuscule pool of a low-melting-point alloy that will later join together two interconnects in what amounts to micrometer-scale soldering.
We then submerge the plastic lens substrate in a liquid medium and flow the collection of microcomponents over it. The binding sites are cut to match the geometries of the individual parts so that a triangular component finds a triangular well, a circular part falls into a circular well, and so on. When a piece falls into its complementary well, a small metal pad on the surface of the component comes in contact with the alloy at the bottom of the well, causing a capillary force that lodges the component in place. After all the parts have found their slots, we drop the temperature to solidify the alloy. This step locks in the mechanical and electrical contact between the components, the interconnects, and the substrate.
The next step is to ensure that all the potentially harmful components that we’ve just assembled are completely safe and comfortable to wear. The lenses we’ve been developing resemble existing gas-permeable contacts with small patches of a slightly less breathable material that wraps around the electronic components. We’ve been encapsulating the functional parts with poly(methyl methacrylate), the polymer used to make earlier generations of contact lenses. Then there’s the question of the interaction of heat and light with the eye. Not only must the system’s power consumption be very low for the sake of the energy budget, it must also avoid generating enough heat to damage the eye, so the temperature must remain below 45 °C. We have yet to investigate this concern fully, but our preliminary analyses suggest that heat shouldn’t be a big problem.
All the basic technologies needed to build functional contact lenses are in place. We’ve tested our first few prototypes on animals, proving that the platform can be safe. What we need to do now is show all the subsystems working together, shrink some of the components even more, and extend the RF power harvesting to higher efficiencies and to distances greater than the few centimeters we have now. We also need to build a companion device that would do all the necessary computing or image processing to truly prove that the system can form images on demand. We’re starting with a simple product, a contact lens with a single light source, and we aim to work up to more sophisticated lenses that can superimpose computer-generated high-resolution color graphics on a user’s real field of vision.
The true promise of this research is not just the actual system we end up making, whether it’s a display, a biosensor, or both. We already see a future in which the humble contact lens becomes a real platform, like the iPhone is today, with lots of developers contributing their ideas and inventions. As far as we’re concerned, the possibilities extend as far as the eye can see, and beyond.
The author would like to thank his past and present students and collaborators, especially Brian Otis, Desney Tan, and Tueng Shen, for their contributions to this research.

Monday, April 25, 2011

What the pro-democracy sympathizers across the Middle East Could do to topple Assad.


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," the Spanish-born philosopher George Santayana wrote.
The way to beat the tyranny is to break away in all ways associated with it. Shedding Islam would be a blow to the tyranny imposed by those cruel monsters who value of others human being’s lives is death for all but themselves.
"President Assad's intentions have been clear since he came out publicly saying he is 'prepared for war',"
Security forces have arrested some 500 pro-democracy sympathizers across Syria after the government sent in tanks to try to crush protests in the city of Deraa, the Syrian rights organization Sawasiah said on Tuesday.
Amnesty international, citing sources in Deraa, said at least 23 people were killed when tanks shelled Deraa in what it called "a brutal reaction to people's demands."
"Witnesses managed to tell us that at least 20 civilians have been killed in Deraa, but we do not have their names and we cannot verify,"
Government forces also stormed the Damascus suburbs of Douma and Mouadhamiya on Monday, shooting and making arrests, a day after they swept into the coastal town of Jabla, where at least 13 civilians were killed, rights campaigners said
Iran:
Iranian television said 10 people were killed on Saturday and the hardline Revolutionary Guards vowed on Monday to crush resistance by "rioters."
The term "corrupt on earth", a charge which has been levelled at political dissidents in the past, carries the death penalty in the Islamic republic.

But Iranian politicians have called for opposition leaders to be handed the death penalty following the protests, accusing them of fomenting unrest.
Libya:
As opposition groups in Libya take over areas outside of the capital, state prisons and military buildings are being searched.
In Benghazi, the opposition says they have unearthed equipment used by the government to torture dissidents, while more and more allegations of cruelty towards political prisoners are emerging.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Almagor Letter: Stop Calling for Release of Terrorists


Almagor Letter: Stop Calling for Release of Terrorists

The Almagor Terror Victims Association published an open letter on Thursday to the six former high-ranking security officials who earlier this week urged Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to give in to Hamas’ demands for the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. The six, which include former Shin Bet heads Ami Ayalon, Karmi Gilon and Yaakov Perry, former Mossad head Danny Yatom, retired police major-general Alik Ron and Yom Kippur War hero Brig.-Gen. (res.) Avigdor Kahalani, urged Netanyahu to include terrorist murderers in the deal.

The six former security officials told reporters that a military operation to free Shalit is not possible and that Israel will be able to withstand the aftermath of a deal for Shalit.

The response letter, which was written by Almagor board member Dr. Aryeh Bachrach, whose son and his friend were killed by terrorists while on a hike, reads as follows:

On the 30th day since the slaughter in Itamar, I and my fellow active bereaved members of Almagor, who are acting against the release of terrorists, are calling on those senior government and security officials who called this week to release terrorists and make a deal with Hamas: Stop!

In the past you were partners to gestures and deals in which terrorists were released. You did not pay the price for those deals, but rather our loved ones did. You won’t pay for the risk you called to take this week, but Israeli families like ours will.

Stop with your repeated suggestions that not only bring up for us the memories of your past failures, but also encourage Hamas and frighten us about the future.

Here is the math: 183 Israelis have lost their lives since 2000 by terrorists who were released. Many others died in the years before that, including by terrorists released in the Jibril deal, which is the exact same deal as what you are offering now. There are many who were murdered and whose names we do not know, since their stories are hidden in the ISA interrogation files and have not been made public.

A notable exception is the two released Fatah terrorists who murdered Zehava Ben Ovadia and Paul Appleby after being released as part of the Jibril deal. They will again be released if G-d forbid your recommendation is accepted.

And we still have not talked about the 1,000 victims of the 2000 intifada who were murdered - though indirectly - in a very organized manner by former prisoners of Hamas and Fatah, among them Barghouti (Fatah) and Sheikh Yassin (Hamas).

Yassin was also released on the recommendation of some of you, in exchange for two security men detained in Jordan, with an evaluation that he is a disabled man and is thus not dangerous.

At that time you said, as you do now, that if he acts against us we will act against him, but until we were able to kill him, he initiated and commanded from his wheelchair a slew of mass terror attacks which killed and wounded hundreds of Israelis.

Barghouti is in prison a third time - after previous arrests and releases – and again is a candidate for release in your eyes.

We urge you to not only look at what’s popular, populistic and publicized, but rather at the whole picture, and the whole picture, if G-d forbid the Prime Minister answers your call, will be bleak.

On the 30th day since the murder of the Fogel family, we ask you to look into the future. What will happen if these terrorists, these predators, are released from their cages? All the deterrence that we created after the arrests and killings in recent years - after you left your posts – will be destroyed and what happened a month ago in Itamar may become a tsunami of terror. The images of the mass terror attacks will come back and chaos will rule our streets again.

We who already paid the price, some of us during your time in office, call to you - stop!

Let us beat Hamas rather than submit to it. We tried your methods and they brought us nothing but bereavement and grief. Now we hope to wage a struggle against terror and not to conduct dialogue with it.
We hope that the soldiers and their commanders persist in this struggle and that we will not be subject to interference from within, as was the case last week.

Sincerely,

Dr. Aryeh Bachrach and 100 bereaved families

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Per Force

Those who are born are destined to die, and the dead to rise again; the living , to be judged; to know, to teach and to make it know that God is the Maker, He is the Creator, He is the discerner, He is the Judge, He is the Witness, He is the Complainant.  It is He that will in the future judge, blessed be He; in Whose presence there is no wrong, no forgetfulness, nor partiality, nor taking of bribes.  Know also that everything comes to pass according to reckoning.  And let not your fancy give you hope that the grave will be a place of refuge for you, for it was perforce that you were formed, perforce you were born, perforce you live, perforce you shall die, and perforce you will have to give account and reckoning before the Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.

IDF to acquire four more Iron Dome batteries


13 April 2011
The four additional batteries are expected to be operational within two years. Since last week, eight rockets fired from Gaza at Israel have been shot down by the Iron Dome system 
Iron Dome anti-rocket battery

A ministerial committee approved on Wednesday (Apr. 13) the request of Defense Minister Ehud Barak to purchase four additional Iron Dome anti-rocket batteries. The batteries are expected to be operational within a year and a half and two years.
Government ministers were updated on the operational trial that the Iron Dome system is currently undergoing in southern Israel as well as the possibility of introducing a third Iron Dome battery by the end of 2011.
So far, two Iron Dome batteries have been deployed in the south as part of the operational trial. Since last week, soldiers operating the Iron Dome system have successfully intercepted eight rockets fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip.
Defense Minister Barak called Wednesday's approval of the four additional batteries as an "important step." He said that, upon its full implementation, the Iron Dome system would have a profound influence on the tools of war and the durability of the home front.
Also on Wednesday, President Shimon Peres visited Kibbutz Erez, near the Gaza Strip, and met with the driver of the school bus that was attacked last week by an anti-tank missile fired by terrorists.
"The more they try to hit us, we will get stronger and prevail," Peres said.
Peres praised the success of the Iron Dome system, saying he was "proud that Israel is the only country that has found an answer to rocket fire."

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Ahmadinejad envisions Middle East without Israel
April 13, 2011
In a speech to thousands in Iran, Mahmoud accused the U.S. and Israel of plotting an Iranian-Arabian conflict and declared, “A new Middle East will emerge without the presence of the United States and the Zionist regime (Israel) . . . .”:

“The Iranian people and regional nations are unhappy with the existence of the Zionist regime (Israel) and are against it. They will continue their fight until the defeat of the US and Zionist regime in the region,” Ahmadinejad restated.

According to the report, he said the “bullying powers” have supported dictators for the past 50 years, and that they are “seeking to sow dissension among regional people in an attempt to save Israel.”

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Reid: Probe of Quran Burning Considered


http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0411/Reid_Well_look_into_Koran_burning.html?showallSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid says congressional lawmakers are discussing taking some action in response to the Koran burnings of a Tennessee pastor that led to killings at the U.N. facility in Afghanistan and sparked protests across the Middle East, Politico reports.

“Ten to 20 people have been killed," Reid said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “We’ll take a look at this of course. As to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Congress might need to explore the need to limit some forms of freedom of speech, in light of Tennessee pastor Terry Jones’ Quran burning, and how such actions result in enabling U.S. enemies.

"I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war," Graham told CBS' Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” Sunday.

“During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy," Graham said, adding certain speech can “put our troops at risk.”

Is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a traitor?
Those are the facts: It's ok to burn the flag of the United States and the burning of the New Testament as well as the old Testament. It's ok to behead Jews because they are Jews and to kill Americans unless they convert to Islam. But it's not ok to burn the Koran in the United states because that would be offensive to Muslims all over the world. I don't know about this Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who think that the freedom to express oneself against a people who are bent and working on destroying the United States as we know it today. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war," Graham told CBS' Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” Sunday. My conclusion is that if we are at war with the so called enemy the why are we taking to court the people who are brave enough to say it like it is? Is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid out of his mind????

Monday, April 11, 2011

Muslims and Moral Handicaps



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants an investigation into Koran burning. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that this form of free speech could be banned. Senator Lindsey Graham is also looking for ways to limit free speech, saying, "Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war".
Free speech is more than a great idea, it's a fundamental freedom untouchable by legislators. But all it takes is a few Muslim murders-- and Reid, Breyer and Graham eagerly hold up their lighters to the Constitution. Free speech has been curtailed before in the United States during a time of war-- but only free speech sympathetic to the enemy. During WW1 a suspected German propagandist filmmaker was jailed. But could anyone have imagined anti-German propagandists being jailed? The Wilson administration was behaving unconstitutionally, but not insanely.
Today we aren't jailing filmmakers who traffic in anti-American propaganda in wartime. If we did that half of Hollywood would be  behind bars. Instead Democratic and Republican Senators are discussing banning speech offensive to the enemy. Because even though they're killing us already-- we had better not provoke them or who knows how much worse it will become.
Traditionally it's the victors who give their laws to the defeated. But massive immigration at home and nation building occupations abroad mean that the defeated of failed states are imposing their Sharia law on us. We're asked to trade in our Constitutional freedoms out of fear of Muslim violence. And so the murderers impose the terms of peace on us. And then don't abide by them.
Violence in the Muslim world is a constant. We have been fighting Muslim violence since George Washington's time. And we have been subject to it even longer. Whether it's Muslims killing Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians or any and every religion under the sun-- there is a pattern here. It's a story as old as time. And it's not one that we can stop by ladling out honeyed words of appeasement.
Senator Graham warns us to shut up in a time of war-- but is there any foreseeable future in which we won't be fighting in a Muslim country? Democrats elected the most anti-war candidate of the bunch only to see him begin his 2012 reelection campaign by bombing another Muslim country. And what's surprising about that. Most of the trouble spots in the world that directly or indirectly affect us are located in Muslim countries. The major threat to the United States comes from the Muslim world. And that means we're going to be tied up dealing with the Muslim world in one way or another, whether as soldiers, diplomats or aid workers. And even if we weren't-- there are hundreds of thousands of Americans still living and working in Muslim countries. Hostages to the latest Muslim temper tantrum.
As Muslim terror has gotten worse, we have started treating the Muslim world like a ticking bomb-- tiptoeing around them to avoid setting them off. Whatever they don't like about us, we're willing to change. The paradigm of the angry dog or the ticking bomb means that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Whatever you do, the dog mauls you and the bomb blows up. But by pretending that you control the situation, you can feel better about your role in the outcome.
When a man teases a dog on the other side of a chain link fence-- we blame the man for provoking the dog, not the dog for being provoked. Animals have less of everything that makes for accountability. And so don't hold them accountable. Instead we divide them into categories of dangerous and harmless, and treat them accordingly.
Our response to Muslim violence in Afghanistan, supposedly touched off by a Koran burning in Florida, uses that same canine logic. The Muslims are dangerous and violent, so whoever provokes them is held accountable for what they do. Don't tease a doberman on the other side of a chain link fence and don't tease Muslims on the other side of the border or the world. That's the takeaway from our elected and unelected officials.
But the Muslim rioters are not dogs, they are human beings whose moral responsibility is being denied by treating their violence as a reflexive act. Their violence is not unconscious or instinctual-- it emerges out of a decision making process. There is nothing inevitable about what happened in Afghanistan. If Muslims had some sort of hair trigger, then why was the violent rioting confined to a very specific part of the world. For the same reason that the reaction to the Dutch cartoons took so long. And why was it directed at the UN and not the US. The Koran burning was not the cause of Muslim violence-- but a rationalization for existing violence that would have occurred anyway for reasons having nothing to do with Terry Jones. And by treating Muslims like the 'Morally Handicapped' who have no choice but to kill when something offends them, we are not doing any favors for them or us.
It is far more insulting to treat Muslims as if they have no ability to control themselves and have no responsibility for their actions-- than it is to burn their Koran. That is an assessment that even many Muslims would agree with.
To blame Jones for their actions, we must either treat murder as a reasonable response to the burning of a book, or grant that Jones has a higher level of moral responsibility than the rioters do. There are few non-Muslims who could defend the notion that burning the Koran is a provocation that justifies bloodshed. And virtually no liberal would openly concede that he believes Muslims are morally handicapped-- but then why does he treat them that way?
If a Christian had torched a mosque in response to the Muslim arson of churches in Africa-- is there any liberal columnist or pundit who would have directed the lion's share of the blame at the original Muslim arsonists? No. The mosque burning would be treated as an independent act with no linkage to the church arsons. That is the attitude of Western jurisprudence which does not allow one crime to justify another, let alone one provocation to justify a crime. Individuals are treated as responsible moral actors-- not shooting balls in a pinball machine. Why then does this standard fly out the window when it comes to Muslims? Why does the press so easily sink into the rhetoric of 'retaliation and 'provocation', treating Muslim terrorism as a reflex, rather than a chosen act.
Is it not because for all their fanciful prose about the Religion of Peace, they do indeed see Muslims as dogs on the other side of a chain link fence. "Don't tease the dog, son, and it won't hurt you."
Liberalism begins as condescension toward lower class violence and culminates in complicity with it. Class warfare treated the poor as less morally responsible than the rich because of their deprivation and persecution. By treating physical deprivation as equivalent to moral deprivation, they became guilty of a far worse prejudice than those they were combating. They had declared that the poor were subhuman. When class warfare gave way to race warfare, they repeated the same ugly trick, romanticizing the Black Panthers and empowering thugs and rioters who destroyed black and white communities. The discriminated against were not bound by the same moral code as the discriminators. Their violence was 'purer' because it was a reflex against their conditions that they could not control. And so liberals who lectured ceaselessly about racism, were treating minorities as less than human.
Now in the age of Globalism-- Muslims are the new oppressed, exempted from the norms of civilized society. The morally handicapped who cannot be expected to turn the other cheek, the way we're supposed to.
But Muslims are not morally disabled-- they are immorally enabled. Muslim violence is a choice. Their choice. It is not a reflex or a reaction or a pinball bouncing off the cycle of violence. It is not something that we are responsible for. It is something that they and only they are responsible for. By pretending otherwise, we are immorally enabling them. Treating them like mad dogs or ticking time bombs just guarantees that they will play their part and fulfill our expectations by mauling or exploding.

We have never held Muslims morally accountable for anything they do. Not as a religion or as countries or individuals. Instead we pretend that Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi are the problem. A handful of extremists and a few bad leaders somewhere. Not the people themselves. Never them.
Instead we have treated Muslims as the morally handicapped, too morally feeble to understand that violence is not the answer to everything from your daughter sneaking out with a boy to a pastor torching the Koran for a BBQ. And they have reacted exactly as people do when they know they will not be held accountable for their actions.
Treating someone as dangerous gives them power over you. They will test that power and then use it. Allowing yourself to be intimidated is the first step to being defeated. For many it is also the last step. We treated Muslims as dangerous and then we insist loudly that we love them very much and aren't afraid of them at all. Guess who we're fooling? Only ourselves. Every time there's a terror alert or American politicians talk about the wonders of the Koran-- the Muslim world sees it as evidence of their power over us. And when a Koran is burned, that just means we need further intimidating. It's a cycle of violence, but we're not the ones driving it except through our appeasement.
Muslims have stifled their own moral development-- but we haven't helped either. And the only way we can do that is to push them toward a moral reckoning. Instead we have bought into their genocidal narrative, enabled their violence and empowered the murderous aspects of their ideology. It's time that stopped. Lies and flattery will not prevent the violence. Only the confrontation of truth can force a moral reckoning.
Senator Graham wishes there was a way to hold Koran burners accountable for violence carried out by Koran readers, but what we really need is a way to hold Koran believers accountable for their own violence.

Its just a matter of time you Iran dictators are put to trial in Israel


New Exhibition Commemorates Eichmann's Trial


by Elad Benari and Hezki Ezra
On Monday, exactly 50 years to the day the Eichmann Trial began in Israel, Yad Vashem opened a new exhibition on the trial.
The exhibition, entitled “With Me Here Are Six Million Accusers: An Exhibition Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Eichmann Trial”, will be on display in Jerusalem and was produced by Yad Vashem’s Museums Division. The exhibition focuses on visual aspects of the event, based on the unique items found in Yad Vashem’s collections, the National Archive, and the National Photographic Collection. The exhibition displays original footage from the filming of the trial, and various additional media productions that allow visitors to get a sense of the trial as it occurred.

“This exhibition has a very very clear message,” said the exhibition’s academic advisor, Gideon Greif, at a special media preview of the exhibition which took place on Sunday, one day before it was opened to the public. “It demonstrates that Adolf Eichmann was not what he claimed during the trial in Jerusalem. He was not the man behind the desk. He was a very active murderer. He went to the sites to which he sent the Jews. He wanted to see if his orders are functioning. He was not willing to relieve even one Jew.”
Curator Yehudit Shendar said that it is important for the exhibition to take place in Jerusalem because Israel was the only state that was determined to put Eichmann on trial for his crimes. Since the trial took place in Jerusalem’s Beit Ha’am, it is only natural, said Shendar, that the exhibition be displayed there.

Shendar also mentioned the important role played by Yad Vashem during the Eichmann Trial.
“When Bureau 06 was opened in order to assist the prosecution with preparing the material for the trial, it was Yad Vashem they turned to in order to get documents and photographs,” she said. “The charge which Yad Vashem took upon itself to collect everything that has to do with the Holocaust came to fruition at that very moment.”
Yad Vashem, said Shendar, was also helpful in providing witness to the Eichmann Trial because by that time it had hundreds of names of witnesses who told their stories to Yad Vashem.
“Yad Vashem provided the list of witnesses for the prosecution,” said Shendar. “Now and then, Yad Vashem still plays an essential role in commemorating, remembering and teaching [the Holocaust].”
Adolf Eichmann, one of the major planners of the Holocaust genocide, was put on trial in Israel in 1961, after having been captured by Israeli agents in Argentina. He was found guilty, and was put to death in 1962.
The exhibition was launched a day after Yad Vashem uploaded footage of the entire trial to YouTube  for the purpose of giving “a new generation the opportunity to view one of the most significant turning points in humanity’s attempt to grapple with the Holocaust.”
Yad Vashem has also announced the launch of “Operation Pick Up the Pieces”, a national campaign aimed at saving personal items from the Holocaust.
As part of the campaign, Yad Vashem officials hope to collect documents, certificates, diaries, photographs, artifacts and artwork from the Holocaust, which are currently in the hands of private individuals throughout Israel.

Samaria woman survives road attack

Author: Amichai Farkas | April 11, 2011
An Israeli woman traveling in Samaria was attacked by Palestinians while traveling from her home in Maaleh Levona to visit her son in Ariel. The woman, Malkah Mahon, fortunately survived the attack and was able to return home safely.
While traveling in her car, Malkah saw a vehicle with Palestinian Authority license plates attempting a u-turn on the road ahead of her. Two Palestinian men from outside the vehicle motioned to her, and Malkah felt that something was wrong. She quickly turned back towards Maaleh Levona and the two men started to throw stones at her vehicle, while the vehicle rammed into her car a number of times in an attempt to run her off the road. Malkah barely escaped — and she is fortunate to be alive.
This is not the first time that residents of Maaleh Levona have been targeted by Palestinian terrorists. Recently, a Palestinian dressed as an orthodox Jew tried to abduct a woman but failed when his car malfunctioned.
These types of attacks must be met with a decisive response, whether or not the attacks result in harm to Israelis. Even though Malkah lives in the highly disputed West Bank area, she deserves full protection against terrorism, just like every other Israeli citizen.
What is perhaps most troubling is that Malkah reported that the vehicle contained Palestinian Authority (P.A.) license plates, meaning that P.A. personnel were possibly involved. Israel simply cannot sit back while the internationally funded P.A. allows its officers to carry out attack against Jews.

Sunday, April 10, 2011


‘Muslims Are Taught to Hate America’: 9/11 Senate Hearing Descends into Shouting Match After Activist Testifies

by Daily Mail Reporter  |  DailyMail.co.uk  |  April 9, 2011

A hearing on homeland security descended into a heated and angry dispute after an Arab-American activist testified that she was taught as a youngster to ‘hate Jews’ and ‘hateAmerica’.
The debate over Islamic terror turned into a shouting match as Nonie Darwish, director of Former Muslims United, spoke at the State Senate committee meeting in New York.
NonieDarwish
'You're supposed to hate America': Nonie Darwish, director of Former Muslims United, testified at a State Senate committee meeting in New York.
One senator gripped a Koran in his and accused the human rights activist of spreading ‘hate and poison’ at the hearing held to study how vulnerable New York City is to another act of terror ten years after September 11.
‘Check what’s going on, it’s not a secret’ said Ms Darwish, who was educated in Egypt and came to the U.S. in 1978. ‘The education of Arab children is to make killing of certain groups of people not only good, it’s holy,’ she said.
‘It is horrendous. They don’t leave your mind to think for itself. You’re supposed to hate Jews. You’re supposed to hate America. You’re supposed to hate Western culture.’
WorldTradeTowersExplodingOn9-11
9/11: Ten years after September 11 attack, the State Senate in New York is holding hearings to study how vulnerable the city is to another act of terror.

Senator Eric Adams (Pictured Below), a Brooklyn Democrat, interrupted, holding up a copy of the Koran 'This is offending this hearing by having her here. This is not our enemy. You’re bringing hate, hate and poison into a diverse country.’BrooklynNYStateSenatorEricAdams
Committee chairman Greg Ball, a Putnam Republican, told Mr Adams to be quiet and suggested he was playing to the TV cameras.
‘I’m glad no one is between those TV cameras and you because that’s the most dangerous place in New York City right now,’ he said.
The shouting match frustrated some lawmakers. Senator Martin Golden, a Brooklyn Republican, said: ‘I want to get back to what this is all about. Homeland security is about the future of this city and this state, to make sure that we’re safe.’
Senator Marty Golden, another Brooklyn Republican, added: ‘This, obviously, is her assessment, how she was brought up in life. It doesn’t have anything to do with the good Muslim Americans who live in this country.’