A BRIEF HISTORY LESSON: WHAT LAND DID THE JEWS STEAL?

When asked if they support Israel in its conflict with Hamas, one finds a wide gulf between conservatives and liberals. In a recent Rasmussen Poll, 62% of Republicans in America sided with Israel, while only 31% of Democrats favored the Jewish state in the current conflict. Why are conservatives the only ones who will come to the defense of Israel's security measures? Why are liberals always ready to condemn the Jewish state's efforts to defend itself against terrorism?

In today's Townhall.com, conservative columnist Larry Elder gives us a brief history lesson, one which rebukes the long-held Palestinian claim that the Jews stole their lands. Here is Elder's brief history lesson:

ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS: WHO'S DAVID, WHO'S GOLIATH?
by Larry Elder

Much of the world buys the line -- peddled by the Palestinians and the Arab Muslim world and, indeed, many Western countries -- that paints Israel as the bad "Goliath" that "stole" the land from the "Palestinians."

Israel gave Gaza self-rule in 1994, unilaterally withdrawing the last of its citizens and soldiers from Gaza in 2005. Hamas, voted into power via free elections in 2006, fought and defeated their political and military rival, Fatah, to seize de facto control of Gaza in 2007. In the past eight years, Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars into Israel -- 7,000 of them after Israel's 2005 withdrawal. With improved technology -- reportedly assisted by Iran -- Hamas' rockets can now fly 24 miles before impact and explosion, thereby threatening, injuring and killing more and more Israelis living in southern Israel.

But why the "disproportionate" response by Israel? Reportedly, more than 600 Palestinians have been killed, some civilians. Set aside for the moment that Hamas' charter specifically calls for the "obliteration" of the state of Israel. And set aside the fact that the Palestinian "militants" fight in heavily populated areas, assuring, indeed encouraging (for PR purposes) civilian casualties.

We turn our attention to the "stolen" allegation.

Israel lies in the ancient Fertile Crescent's southwest corner, with some of the oldest archeological evidence of primitive towns and agriculture. Historians and archeologists believe the Hebrews probably arrived in the area in the second millennium B.C. The nation itself was formed as the Israelites left Egypt during the Exodus, believed to be in the late 13th century B.C.

The 12 tribes of Israel united in about 1050 B.C., forming the Kingdom of Israel. David, the second king of Israel, established Jerusalem as Israel's national capital 3,000 years ago. Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for a millennium.

After conquests by Babylonians, Persians and Greeks, an independent Jewish kingdom was briefly revived in 168 B.C., but Rome took control in the next century, renaming the land of Judea "Palestine" after the Philistines, historical enemies of the Israelites'.

Invading Arabs conquered the land from the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines) in A.D. 638 and attracted Arab settlers. Within a few centuries, the Arab language and Islam prevailed, but a Jewish minority remained. After a brief period of prosperity, waves of invasions and changes of control followed, including rule by the non-Arab empires of the Seljuks, Mamelukes and European crusaders, before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire from 1517 until 1918.

The crusaders massacred thousands of Jews, along with Muslims, in the 11th century. But soon thereafter, European Jews established centers of Jewish learning and commerce. By the time the Ottoman Turks occupied Palestine in the 16th century, according to British reports, as many as 15,000 Jews lived in Safed, which was a center of rabbinical learning. Many more Jews lived in Jerusalem, Hebron, Acre and other locations. By the middle of the 19th century, Jews constituted a significant presence -- often a majority -- in many towns.

Still, in the 19th century, the Holy Land looked mostly like a vast wasteland. When Jews began to return to their "promised land" early in the 20th century, the desert literally began to bloom under their industry. Arabs followed, coming in large numbers for the jobs and prosperity.

After four centuries of Ottoman rule, Britain took the land in 1917 and pledged in the Balfour Declaration to support a Jewish national homeland there. In 1920, the British Palestine Mandate was recognized. A declaration passed by the League of Nations in 1922 effectively divided the mandated territory into two parts. The eastern portion, called Transjordan, would later become the Arab Kingdom of Jordan in 1946. The other portion, comprising the territory west of the Jordan River, was administered as Palestine under provisions that called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.

The United Nations, in 1947, partitioned the area into separate Jewish and Arab states along meandering and indefensible boundaries. The Arab world, insisting that any Jewish claim to Palestine was invalid, staunchly refused to compromise or even discuss the subject.

When Israel's independence was declared in 1948, Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq combined to crush the 1-day-old country. They lost. Still, Egypt occupied most of the Gaza Strip, and Transjordan (calling itself "Jordan") held most of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem. Neither Arab country gave the "Palestinians" a state.

The word "Palestinian," as employed today, is a relatively recent term. Until the end of the British mandate over Palestine, in 1948, all inhabitants of the area west of the Jordan River were known as "Palestinians." A Jewish person living in what is now Israel was a "Palestinian Jew." An Arab living in the area was a "Palestinian Arab." Likewise, a Christian was known as a "Palestinian Christian."

Israel won more land after a series of wars, land since returned or offered for return in exchange for peace. The Jews "stole" nothing.

BIBI IS THE RIGHT CANDIDATE FOR THE JOB

In my blog, "Villains or Victims" (1-5-05), I wrtoe that the timing of the attacks on Gaza were designed to change the predicted outcome of the coming Israeli elections for prime minister. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the Kadima party candidate, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the Labor party candidate, are hoping the attacks against Gaza will strengthen their respective candidacies at the expense of Bibi Netanyahu, the Likud party candidate, who up to now has been heavily favored to win the election.

In today's Townhall.com, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have a column which backs my opinion on the timing of the war against Hamas. Morris and McGann believe that Livni and Barak are weak doves and do not think their war will lead to Netanyahu's defeat at the polls because the Israeli public sees Bibi, in contrast, as a strong leader. For Israel's sake, I sure hope Morris and McGann's prediction will prevail. Here is their Townhall.com column:

GAZA: THE DOVE'S WAR
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

The ostensible purpose of the war in Gaza is for Israel to wipe out Hamas and eliminate its capacity to rain rockets down on its citizens. Both the dovish leaders in the current Israeli government -- Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni, and Defense Minister Barak -- and the international diplomatic community want to get rid of Hamas and leave the more moderate Palestinian Authority as the sole negotiating agent for the Palestinians. So the Israeli attacks have not received the kind of international condemnation and vitriol that they usually attract.

But the real purpose of this war is to get Livni elected prime minister and defeat Bibi Netanyahu. It is no accident that after years in which 8,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza on Israel (3,000 in 2008 alone) that the Israeli government chose a moment six weeks before the Feb. 10 election to retaliate.

Livni and her likely coalition partner Barak need to show that they are tough enough to lead Israel. And the international community, desperate to avoid a Netanyahu government, is determined to let them.

But it won't work for one basic reason: Livni and Barak are weak compared to Netanyahu and won't bring the degree of force to bear necessary to accomplish their objective. Instead, they will wage the war with one eye on the international reaction and will pull the punches needed to bring Hamas to submission. They will not close the Gaza border to supplies, and they will cave in to demands to suspend the ground war long before it has silenced Hamas.

Livni and Barak will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by giving up before final victory is achieved. And their obvious failure to persevere will be all Netanyahu needs to win the election.

After all, Livni, Olmert and Barak have set a very high standard for success. Having triggered the war in order to stop Hamas' rocket attacks, they cannot stop it and declare victory unless the attacks do, in fact, stop. Hamas cannot let Israel silence its attacks while it still breathes and has life.

So the attacks won't stop. With 1.5 million homes to hide in, the Israeli Army cannot hope to destroy every rocket and every launcher, and kill every terrorist. The attacks will continue, as they have continued, day after day, even during the invasion. And, faced with international pressure and the dissatisfaction war is causing in their internal party ranks, Livni and Barak will lose their gamble.

Barack Obama, for his part, has remained largely silent, declaring that America has "only one president at a time." But his silence is militated as much by his desire to see Livni get elected as by any support for Israel or reticence to speak out while Bush still serves. He needs Livni to win just as Bill Clinton needed the Labor Party and Shimon Peres to win while he was president.

If Israel is to be led by Netanyahu, Obama will be in perpetual conflict with the tough Israeli leader. He will constantly be constrained to try to hold Netanyahu back from military attacks on Iran and on Hamas and Hezbollah, and he won't bring Netanyahu to any negotiations until the Israeli leader feels he has a partner with whom to negotiate.

Netanyahu is not going to play the game of pretending that the emperor has clothes by believing that the Palestinian Authority represents anyone but itself. He will demand that the Palestinians show their interest in peace through negotiations by electing leaders who want to negotiate. Otherwise, land for peace will be DOA in the Israeli cabinet.

So it is in everybody's interest that Livni win, except for Israel's. Because Hamas and Iran represent real threats, not just phantoms, Israel will be ill served if the current demonstration of toughness leads them to elect doves for the next five years. Doves won't defeat terrorists.

FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA

The blogger of hourglass1941 (http://hourglass1941.blogspot.com) had an enlightening blog right in line with my "Villains or Victims" (1-5-09) blog. Since the hourglass1941 blog speaks for itself, here it is:

Ohio State Professor Defends Hamas & Palestinian Supporters Equate Two State Solution to Ethnic Cleansing

Columbus, Ohio. Palestinian Anti-Israel Rally. Janauary 5, 2009.

Did anybody let President Bush and Condoleezza Rice know that Palestinians have no intentions of accepting a two state solution to the Middle East crisis? I guess it should be obvious since two states have been rejected by Hamas, and by extension, the Palestinian people, for years now, but U.S. leaders continue to cover their ears chanting lalalalala.

The chants last night, however, by about 300 Palestinians and supporters in front of the Statehouse in downtown Columbus made the goal very clear...Palestine will be free from the river to the sea and Long live the intifada. The buzz at the rally was Israelis are colonialists, illegally there, murderers, and genocidal maniacs.

Some of the speakers were children. One child, who looked to be around age 7 and proudly prompted by his mother, sounded this call: Go forward young Muslims, wherever you are, to the light of Allah. Together we shall stand for the pleasure of Allah. He will forgive us, all say Insha'Allah. Go forward young Muslims wherever you are.

Makes you wonder what needs forgiven. And pleasure of Allah? It can only be hoped that it's not the oft quoted Jew killing in this Islamic Hadith:

"Mohammed said in his Hadith: 'The Hour [Day of Resurrection] will not arrive until you fight the Jews, [until a Jew will hide behind a rock or tree] and the rock and the tree will say: Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'" - Palestinian Authority TV Dec. 27, 2004 [Rebroadcast from July 13, 2003]

When I asked spokesperson Pranav Jani, Assistant Professor (of English) at The Ohio State University (and introduced with some sort of connection with the International Socialist Organization) if Hamas was a terrorist organization, he skirted the issue or applied moral equivalence to the United States. Jani led the chant Long live the Intifada. The first Intifada in the late eighties spawned Hamas. Jana soundly rejects a two state solution to the conflict. He, and it seemed, all the Palestinians and supporters at the rally support a one state solution.

During the entire rally, I did not hear one speaker state that the overall conflict is specifically the result of Gaza or the West Bank. It is the sheer existence of Israel. My sense is that Palestinians will not embrace peace alongside Israel. They want all the land from the river to the sea. Many times the protesters chanted No Justice. No Peace. I think what they really meant is No Israel. No war.

BERNIE MADOFF, THANKS A LOT

If you don't live under a rock, you know about the swindle perpetrated by Bernie Madoff on hundreds of investors and a score of charitable foundations. The media has consistently identified Madoff as a Jew. That is sure to encourage, reinforce and exacerbate anti-Semitism in this country. Why is it that the media has never referred to Enron crook Ken Lay's religious affiliation or to Gov. Rod Blagojevich's ethnicity?

On December 3, 2008, Rabbi Marc Gellman sent a long open letter to Madoff, fiercely condemning the crook for the multitude of damages he had done with his ponzi scheme. Gellman has served as the Rabbi at Temple Beth Torah in Melville, New Yorlk since 1981. I have chosen to reproduce only a small portion of Gellman's open letter, the part that takes Madoff to task for fanning the flames of anti-Semitism. Here is that portion:

"One of the very worst things you did has to do with the Jews. You are responsible for reviving the 'Jew game.' I heard of the Jew game from a boy who became a man last Saturday. I asked him once if he had ever experienced anti-Semitism in school. That is when he looked at the floor and told me about the Jew game. The game, played by anti-Semitic kids in school, was one in which they would hide around a corner, throw a quarter down the hall, and then when somebody picked up the quarter, they'd run at the person, shouting, 'You're the Jew!'

You did not cause the anti-Semitic insults about Jews and money, but you caused them to be revived. Not since Julius Rosenberg spied for the Soviet Union has one person so damaged the image and the self-respect of American Jews. I am not comfortable with the fact that so many of the articles about you specifically identify your prominent place in the Jewish community.

Ken Lay of Enron shame was never identified as a 'prominent Protestant energy broker.' The most aggressive accusers of the governor of Illinois seldom describe him as 'the prominent Serbian-American governor of Illinois.' Yes, it is unfair that your Jewishness has become part of the storyline. But you just reminded the bigots who grew up playing the Jew game that it still strikes a familiar chord.

You wiped out Joe Lieberman's accomplishments. You revived ancient bigotry against our people. You gave credence to the horrid accusations about Jews being untrustworthy and greedy. One offensive paper has a column called 'Jews in the News,' which focuses on some Jewish criminal or other to remind their sickening readers of the legitimacy of anti-Semitism. You are not just one of the 'Jews in the news' they seek. You are the apotheosis of their hate-filled world. You have given the Jew-haters material for a decade of hate gardening. You single-handedly revived the Jew game. This is what you have done."

To that I want to add: Bernie Madoff, you sorry piece of shit, thanks a lot.

VILLAINS OR VICTIMS?

In every conflict there is a villain and there is a victim. Which one it is depends on whose ox is being gored. In the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, it is in the eye of the beholder. The Palestinians and their supporters clearly see Israel as the villain. The Israelis and their supporters clearly see Israel as the victim of Palestinian terrorism.

The current conflict has its roots in the establishment 60 years ago of the Jewish state. Although Jews lived in what used to be known as Palestine long before Muhammad was born and have continued to live there since his birth, they are seen as European interlopers in the Muslim world.

Do the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances against Israel. Yes they do. A lot of Israeli land once belonged to the Palestinians. But it was the Arabs' attempt to prevent the birth of the Jewish state and their subsequent wars to destroy it, that is as much, if not more, responsible for the loss of Palestinian lands.

Life for the Palestinians has also been made difficult by Israel's harsh military controls in the territories captured during the 1967 war. But those harsh measures were put in place only after the Palestinians repeatedly sent suicide bombers into Israel proper to blow up cafes, nightclubs, bus stops, busses and other civilian targets.

In the context of villains or victims, the Muslim world, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia have all consistently viewed Israel as the villain and the Palestinians as the victims in every dispute between the two peoples. Israel is damned if it responds to terrorism and damned if it does not.

Those who see Israel as the villain would be well advised to look at the character of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations protesting Israel's attacks on Gaza which were held in San Francisco. The protesters carried signs which contained the following slogans in Arabic:

"Itbach al Yahud" (slaughter the Jews), "Falastin balad'na w'al Yahud qalab'na" (Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs), "ba ruh, ba dam, nafdeek ya Falastin" (with our soul, with our blood, we will cleanse you oh Palestine), "al mawt al Yahud" (death to the Jews), "Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud, jaish-Muhammad saya'ud" (Khaybar Khaybar oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will return).

[That last slogan refers to the battle of Khaybar where the prophet Muhammad opportunistically attacked and slaughtered the Jews who had been hospitable to another Arab tribe. The subsequent sacking of Khaybar by Muhammad's forces re-energized the brigands who had flocked to his cause, and persuaded several Bedouin tribes to join Muhammad's forces in hopes of fun and profit.]

The San Francisco protesters also carried signs containing the following slogan in English: "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea" - which states in no uncertain terms the intent of the Palestinians to destroy the Jewish state. And how did they come up with that slogan? It originated with the late Faisal Husseini, until his death the head of Mahmoud Abbas' "moderate" Fatah faction, who in 2001 told Egypt's weekly Al-Arabi that, "Our final goal is to liberate all of historical Palestine FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA."

As it happened to be, the vast majority of the protesters in San Francisco were not even Palestinians. About 80 percent were demonstrators from the Bay Area's well-established left-wing. And not surprisingly, some of those protesters were politically correct Jews.

With all the hatred against the Jewish state, what is Israel to do? Israel must look out for its security and long-term survival, the international community be damned! As George Will and other conservative commentators have noted: Land for peace does not work in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel cannot afford to return to its pre-1967 borders. That would be committing national suicide. It must maintain those parts of the West Bank which contain the permanent Israeli settlements. It must enlarge its nine-mile wide neck to keep it from being cut in half in the event of another war. It must not cede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians because that part would be a dagger pointed at the heart of Israel. For its survival, Israel must continue to have access to the headwaters of the Jordan River. And in order to keep its enemies at bay, Israel must continue to develop and maintain its nuclear weapons deterrent.

Israel has had every right to retaliate with all its might against the daily Gazan rocket barrages launched against its southern communities. But what about the timing of its attack against Gaza? It has more to do with Israeli politics than anything else. Ehud "The Idiot" Olmert, the discredited outgoing prime-minister, is trying to restore his tarnished reputation. Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, and Ehud Barak, the defense minister, are both candidates for prime-minister in the upcoming February elections.

Livni, the Kadima party candidate, and Barack, the Labor party candidate, are hoping the attacks against Gaza will strengthen their respective candidacies at the expense of Bibi Netanyahu, the Likud party candidate, who up to now has been heavily favored to win the election.

If, in order to survive, Israel is seen by the rest of the world as the villain, so be it. That should not deter the Jewish state from dictating the terms of any peace agreement. Those, like Olmert, Livni and Barack who see Mahmoud Abbas as a trustworthy "partner in peace," disregard the Palestinian president's oft-proclaimed vows to eliminate the Jewish state from the map of the world.

Abbas speaks with a forked tongue. When speaking in English to American and European audiences, Abbas says he wants two states, Palestine and Israel, existing peacefully side by side. But whenever he speaks in Arabic to the Palestinians and other Jew-hating Arabs, that is a far cry from what he says. Time after time Abbas has made it clear in Arabic that there can be only one state, and that state is Palestine.

Little known is the fact that Abbas literally earned a doctorate in Holocaust denial. His doctoral thesis became a book, "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism," in which he denounces "the Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that 6 million Jews were killed." With his "one state" proclamations in Arabic and his denial of the Holocaust, how can any Israelis in their right mind trust Abbas as a partner in peace?

Of the three candidates, Bibi Netanyahu is the only one who is resolute enough to withstand the pressure from the United Nations, the European Union and Russia for Israel to commit national suicide by giving the Palestinians "land for peace" - land that the Jewish state will need to defend itself in the event of another all out war. I hope the Isarelis will have the good sense to elect Bibi as their next prime minister.

BAIL DENIED, LA-Z-BOY JAILED IN TEXAS LOCKUP

Only in Texas. It seems that the Lone Star State is never for want of being a laughingstock of America, as illustrated in the following news report:

TEXAS JAIL CLOSES AFTER RECLINERS FOUND IN CELLS
by Angela K. Brown, Associated Press Writer - Sat Jan 3, 7:39 am ET

Fort Worth, Texas – A jail in northern Texas has been closed and its nearly 60 inmates transferred as authorities investigate what they call dangerous conditions for jailers and those behind bars — including cells that locked from the inside or contained recliners. Five inmates had already been moved from the Montague County jail to one in a nearby county this month after an FBI raid, said Jack McGaughey, district attorney for Montague, Clay and Archer counties.

McGaughey declined to say what prompted the investigation, also being conducted by the Texas Rangers. But he said authorities found contraband in the jail. New Sheriff Paul Cunningham moved the inmates to the Wise County jail on Thursday a few hours after he was sworn in.

McGaughey said some surveillance cameras' cords had been disconnected; recliners were in cells; some bathrooms and cells could be locked from the inside; and inmates had made partitions out of paper towels to block jailers' views inside their cells. One alarming discovery was a type of rack made of nails, he said.

This action was taken because there was a concern for the safety of the prisoners and the jail personnel," McGaughey said Friday.

Some inmates had apparently used extension cords to lock deputies out, and unidentified pills were strewn about other jail cells, Dallas-Fort Worth television station WFAA reported.

No one has been arrested, but McGaughey plans to present evidence to a grand jury and said "a number of people" — inmates as well as jailers — could be indicted.

The U.S. attorney's office also is working with the FBI and may bring federal charges, McGaughey said. The FBI in Dallas did not immediately return calls seeking comment Friday.

Cunningham told WFAA-TV that the conditions made him "shiver" but said he hopes the jail will reopen in two months, with repairs made and inmates back under a new set of rules.

The jail in Montague County, about 65 miles northwest of Fort Worth, has had problems in the past.

In early 2002, four inmates broke out after overpowering a guard with a homemade knife. The two convicted killers and two murder suspects drove off in the guard's SUV but were caught 10 days later at an Oklahoma convenience store.

The Montague County jail had been put on warning about three months before the escape for falling short of the guard-to-inmate ratio. After the breakout officials made a surprise visit and found the jail still out of compliance.

FROMA HARROP, PLEASE GET REAL!

Froma Harrop, a syndicated columnist, had an op-ed piece in yesterday's Houston Chronicle in which she "agrees with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's view that there will be no peace if Palestinians are shortchanged on territory." Harrop is out of her ever loving mind if she agrees with the inept and discredited Olmert, a crook at that.

Olmert (to whom I've often referred to as "Ehud the Idiot") had an interview last September with the left-wing Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot. As relayed by Harrop, here is what the idiot said: "We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, meaning a withdrawal from nearly all, if not all, of the (occupied) territories. Some percentage of these territories would remain in our hands, but we must give the Palestinians the same percentage (of territory elsewhere) --- without this, there will be no peace."

And would that withdrawal include parts of Jerusalem? Olmert said, "Including, Jerusalem." His reasoning for giving up East Jerusalem is that if Israel retained all of the city, it would have to absorb another 270,000 Arabs into the country.

Ehud the Idiot's peace plan is a desperate attempt on his part to restore his image, an image badly tarnished by his botched handling of the war with Hezbollah and his recent exposure as a crook. Olmert's peace plan is nothing more than a prescription for the eventual extinction of Israel, as is the "Road Map to Peace," the brainchild of the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States.

Harrop concludes that inorder to achieve peace, "a political solution (to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) must give Palestinians full control of their space and an approximate return to the borders before the 1967 war. For every square foot they don't get back, they get another square foot from somewhere in Israel. That ultimately has to be the deal, and the violent confrontation in Gaza changes none of it."

The eventual extinction of Israel is the avowed goal of the Palestinian leadership, "moderates" and radicals alike. Harrop's ultimate deal will ensure the eventual disappearance of a Jewish state from the map of the world. I responded to Froma Harrop (fharrop@projo.com) with the following e-mail:

Dear Ms. Harrop

I am sorry to say this, but you must be out of your ever loving mind if you believe that Ehud Olmert's prescription for peace is anything but a plan which will lead to the eventual destruction of the Jewish state.

The Palestinians, both "moderates" and radicals have vowed time after time that their goal is the eventtual elimination of Israel from the world map. The "Road Map to Peace" as envisioned by the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States, is seen by the Palestinians as a mere stepping stone on the road to the extinction of Israel.

Shortly before his death in 2001, Faisal Husseini, a "moderate" Palestinian leader who was a favorite of the Israeli left, gave an interview to Egypt's weekly AL-ARABI in which he stated, "Our final goal is to liberate all of historical Palestine from the river to the sea."

Mahmoud Abbas and other leaders of his Fatah party have repeatedly called for the return of the land occupied by the Israelis. By that they mean not only the occupied West Bank, but also the State of Israel itself.

Abbas speaks with a forked tongue. When speaking in English to American and European audiences, Abbas says he wants two states, Palestine and Israel, existing peacefully side by side. But whenever he speaks in Arabic to the Palestinians and other Jew-hating Arabs, that is a far cry from what he says. Time after time Abbas has made it clear in Arabic that there can be only one state, and that state is Palestine.

For its security and survival, the State of Israel must include its long-time established West Bank settlements. It must enlarge the narrow nine-mile wide neck which places it in danger of being cut in half. It must maintain access to the headwaters of the Jordan River.

And Jerusalem must remain an undivided part of Israel. A Palestinian part of Jerusalem will be a dagger pointed at the heart of the Jewish state. Israel should pay for the relocation to the West Bank of the homes and businesses of Jerusalem's Palestinians.

Ohlmert has been an inept and discredited leader, and a crooked one at that. He is trying desperately to restore his tarnished reputation by proposing his suiciadal peace plans. What part of Israel, a mere fly speck on the world map, would he give to the Palestinians in exchange for the West Bank parts Israel would keep?

I hope the Israelis will have the good sense to chose Bibi Netanyahu in the coming elections. He is the only Israeli leader resolute enough to resist the pressure by the international community for the Jewish state to commit suicide. He will ensure that any peace plan will not leave Israael's security and survival in doubt.

Ms. Harrop, please get real!

Respectfully yours

HAMAS' STRATEGY

In today's Townhall.com, columnist Charles Krauthammer expressed his views on the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. What I found most interesting was his explanation of the strategy behind Hamas' rocket barrages, attacks which Hamas knew for certain to be an invitation for Israel to retaliate with its military might. Here is Krauthammer's Townhall.com column:

THE NECESSITY OF ISRAEL
by Charles Krauthammer

Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons. -- Associated Press, Dec. 27

WASHINGTON -- Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.

Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis -- 6,464 launched from Gaza in the last three years -- deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.

This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel, Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage -- or, if it is really fortunate, an errant Israeli bomb -- will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel.

For Hamas the only thing more prized than dead Jews are dead Palestinians. The religion of Jew-murder and self-martyrdom is ubiquitous. And deeply perverse, such as the Hamas TV children's program in which an adorable live-action Palestinian Mickey Mouse is beaten to death by an Israeli (then replaced by his more militant cousin, Nahoul the Bee, who vows to continue on Mickey's path to martyrdom).

At war today in Gaza, one combatant is committed to causing the most civilian pain and suffering on both sides. The other combatant is committed to saving as many lives as possible -- also on both sides. It's a recurring theme. Israel gave similar warnings to Southern Lebanese villagers before attacking Hezbollah in the Lebanon war of 2006. The Israelis did this knowing it would lose for them the element of surprise and cost the lives of their own soldiers.

That is the asymmetry of means between Hamas and Israel. But there is equal clarity regarding the asymmetry of ends. Israel has but a single objective in Gaza -- peace: the calm, open, normal relations it offered Gaza when it withdrew in 2005. Doing something never done by the Turkish, British, Egyptian and Jordanian rulers of Palestine, the Israelis gave the Palestinians their first sovereign territory ever in Gaza.

What ensued? This is not ancient history. Did the Palestinians begin building the state that is supposedly their great national aim? No. No roads, no industry, no courts, no civil society at all. The flourishing greenhouses that Israel left behind for the Palestinians were destroyed and abandoned. Instead, Gaza's Iranian-sponsored rulers have devoted all their resources to turning it into a terror base -- importing weapons, training terrorists, building tunnels with which to kidnap Israelis on the other side. And of course firing rockets unceasingly.

The grievance? It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers. They were all removed in September 2005. There's only one grievance and Hamas is open about it. Israel's very existence.

Nor does Hamas conceal its strategy. Provoke conflict. Wait for the inevitable civilian casualties. Bring down the world's opprobrium on Israel. Force it into an untenable cease-fire -- exactly as happened in Lebanon. Then, as in Lebanon, rearm, rebuild and mobilize for the next round. Perpetual war. Since its raison d'etre is the eradication of Israel, there are only two possible outcomes: the defeat of Hamas or the extinction of Israel.

Israel's only response is to try to do what it failed to do after the Gaza withdrawal. The unpardonable strategic error of its architect, Ariel Sharon, was not the withdrawal itself but the failure to immediately establish a deterrence regime under which no violence would be tolerated after the removal of any and all Israeli presence -- the ostensible justification for previous Palestinian attacks. Instead, Israel allowed unceasing rocket fire, implicitly acquiescing to a state of active war and indiscriminate terror.

Hamas' rejection of an extension of its often-violated six-month cease-fire (during which the rockets never stopped, just were less frequent) gave Israel a rare opportunity to establish the norm it should have insisted upon three years ago: no rockets, no mortar fire, no kidnapping, no acts of war. As the U.S. government has officially stated: a sustainable and enduring cease-fire.

If this fighting ends with anything less than that, Israel will have lost again. It can ill afford to lose any more wars.

THE LEFT'S HATRED OF ISRAEL

At first, because of the Holocaust, the left-wing backed the establishment of a Jewish state. But the left's support of Israel was quite short-lived. It quickly saw the Palestinians as displaced victims suffering at the hands of a fascist Jewish regime. Nevermind that the Arab states, for political purposes, deliberately forced the Palestinians to remain in squalid refugee camps. Nevermind the wars started by the Arabs to destroy Israel, wars which exacerbated the plight of the Palestinians.

The left's hatred of Israel has benn demonstrated over and over again since the early 1950's. National Public Radio (NPR) has often been accused of being a voice for America's left-wing. Emmett Tyrrell, the founder, publisher and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator, has a column in today's Townhall.com which he wrote because of the "downright contemptuous" way one of NPR's reporters treated the Israeli ambassador to the United States during an interview about Israel's military response to daily rocket barrages by Hamas.

Tyrrell wrote, "I wonder what made the NPR catastrophist so angry." The answer is simple - his anger is just one more example of the left's hatred for the Jewish state. Tyrrell goes on to express his views on the conflicet between Israel and Hamas. Here is his Townhall.com column:

RESPONDING TO INCOMING MISSLES
by Emmett Tyrrell

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Does anyone know the name of the National Public Radio interviewer who was so disdainful of Israel's ambassador to the United States on the morning of Dec. 31? I missed his name. I would like to give him an award for sarcasm, rudeness and, well, controlled rage. Maybe he would accept my shoes.

The interviewer is perhaps a graduate of one of our country's esteemed anger management centers. Very theatrically, he cut the Israeli ambassador off in the midst of the ambassador's variations on the theme of peace and goodwill and that sort of thing.

I wonder what made the NPR catastrophist so angry. I can understand the professional journalist suffering some mild pique. The ambassador obviously was not giving him the answers he sought. Yet this fellow was downright contemptuous. To employ a word currently in fashion, I would say his response to the Israeli ambassador was disproportional.

It is dreadful that Gaza, one of the most densely populated places on earth, is under heavy aerial bombardment from Israel. Yet Hamas, the governing entity in Gaza, has been lobbing shrapnel-filled missiles into Israel on a regular basis for months. Two weeks ago, Hamas arbitrarily broke its six-month ceasefire with Israel, and the danger to Israeli life and property has gotten worse. How many missiles is Israel to suffer before it is warranted to defend its territory and its people?

Now that word "disproportional" is being raised among foreign policy elites. Israeli air strikes since Saturday have killed several hundred Palestinians and injured several thousand. So we are hearing that the Israeli actions are "disproportional."

I can almost imagine a learned seminar being convened here in Washington wherein the assembled gogues excogitate precisely how many incoming Hamas missiles will warrant one air strike or more. And how will these advocates of proportionality factor in the targets of the Israeli air strikes?

It is tragic that Palestinian civilians are dying, but Hamas locates its military installations and administrative facilities in civilian areas precisely to dissuade Israel from attacking Hamas as it insouciantly bombards Israel, its soldiers and, more frequently, its civilians.

A couple of decades back, I wrote that the Palestinian terrorists -- and Hamas is a fully accredited terrorist group -- were the only fighters I knew of that target civilians rather than soldiers. That was pretty much true back then. Yet as terrorist organizations have proliferated, the targeting solely of civilians has become widespread throughout the world. Now apparently the civilized world has become accustomed to this outrage. Yet it is to Israel's credit that it remains outraged by a terrorist group that would target noncombatants for strategic purposes.

I have no idea how many Hamas strikes against civilians warrant how many Israeli acts of retribution. Frankly, such calculations seem to me as beside the point. The real question is how many Israeli strikes are needed to close down Hamas? That is what is necessary. The Israelis have at their border a violent, unprincipled enemy that has vowed to destroy Israel. Hamas not only vows to destroy Israel, it bombards Israel and expects the world to object when Israel counterattacks.

Now that strikes me as irrational. Hamas should accept the consequences of its assaults on Israel. Hamas might even renew the ceasefire that it broke. For that matter, Hamas might end its war against Israel. I doubt the Israelis would object.

SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

It sure didn't take long, a few hours to be exact, for the United Nations, the European Union and Russia to condemn Israel's retaliation against Hamas for its week-long rocket barrage against Israeli towns just north of the Gaza strip. So what else is new? The United Nations and most members of the European Union have had a long history of condemning every Israeli military response to Arab attacks on its people.

The only time the Russians ever supported Israel in its armed conflicts was in 1948, and then only because the Soviets were anxious to see the British lose their foothold in the region and because they thought the new state might emerge as a communist entity. After 1948, the Russians, in concert with the communist world, always sided with Israel's enemies.

Just imagine how Russia, or any other nation for that matter, would react if its border towns were rocketed by a neighboring state. Don't forget, Russia's recent massive invasion of Georgia was in response to attacks on ethnic Russians inside South Ossetia, a Georgian province, and not because of any attacks on its own soil.

Since the beginning of this year, 21 Israelis have been killed in attacks from Gaza, including 13 civilians, 10 of them by rockets. Despite a six-month cease fire between Israel and Hamas, southern Israel continued to be the target of sporadic rocket attacks by Gaza militants. Since the end of the cease fire, Israel has been subjceted to heavy daily rocket fire from the Gaza strip.

Thus far, three days of Israeli air strikes against Hamas targets in Gaza have resulted in 360 Palestinian deaths, with over 1,400 wounded. According to the U.N., at least 60 of the dead were civilians, including a number of children. The number of civilian deaths is remarkably low considering that the rocket sites and Hamas security facilities are all located within densly populated civilian neighborhoods.

Muslims throughout the world, as expected, called Israel's attacks on Gaza a "crime against humanity." Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president who would love to see his Fatah rival Hamas destroyed, nevertheless called the air strikes a "sweeping Israeli aggression against Gaza." While French President Nicolas Sarkozy condemned the rocket attacks against Israel, he was also quick to condemn "the disproportionate use of force" by the Jewish state.

It is as certain as death and taxes that as the attacks on Gaza continue, there will be more and more accusations of "crimes against humanity" and the crescendo of calls from the international community for Israel to halt its "brutal agrression against the Palestinian people" will become more pronounced.

I am concluding this blog with a joke sent to me by a good friend because the final part of this joke pretty well illustrates the anti-Israeli modus operandi of the Palestinians, the U.N., the Europeans and the Russians.

What happens when a fly falls into a coffee cup?

The Italian - throws the cup, breaks it, and walks away in a fit of rage.

The German - carefully washes the cup, sterilizes it and makes a new cup of coffee.

The Frenchman - takes out the fly, and drinks the coffee.

The Chinese - eats the fly and throws away the coffee.

The Russian - Drinks the coffee with the fly, since it was extra with no charge.

The Israeli - sells the coffee to the Frenchman, the fly to the Chinese, drinks tea and uses the extra money to invent a device that prevents flies from falling into coffee.

The Palestinian - blames the Israeli for the fly falling in his coffee, protests the act of aggression to the UN which immediately passes an anti-Israeli resolution, takes a loan from the European Union to buy a new cup of coffee, uses the money to purchase explosives and then blows up the coffee house where the Italian, the Frenchman, the Chinese, the German and the Russian are all trying to explain to the Israeli that he should give away his cup of tea to the Palestinian.

JEWISH CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS

As far back as I can remember, I have suffered in silence whenever I overheard some bigot say that Jews lacked the courage it takes to fight in the military. It is almost impossible to refute such an outrageous lie without having on hand some statistics to the contrary. And even if one had such stats, the bigot would refuse to believe them.

I always try to catch the NBC Nightly News and the NBC Today Show. Col. Paul Jacobs (ret.), a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, has appeared many times on both programs as one of NBC's military analysts. The other day I asked myself, "Hmmmm, Jacobs? I wonder if he might be Jewish?" I found out he is. Then I browsed the web further to see if there were any other Jews who were awarded the medal of honor. To my surprise, I found out that since the award's inception in 1862, there have been at least 18 Jewish CMOH recipients.

In 2004, according to Wikipedia, Jews were only 2.1 percent of the total U.S. population but they have "constituted about 4.23 percent of the U.S. armed forces." That makes 18 CMOH awards a fairly decent number. Even more significant is the fact that during the Civil War, when there were only a handful of Jews in America, six Union soldiers of the Jewish faith were awarded the nation's highest honor.

In preparing for this blog, I learned that the religious identity of a soldier is not always easy to determine. In the past, because of anti-Semitism, many Jewish soldiers felt the need to change their names or enlist as a Christian - Simon Suhler, a CMOH recipient from the Indian Wars, received his medal while serving under the name of Charles Gardner. So it is quite possible that there are actually more than 18 Jewish recipients. I personally experienced anti-Semitism while I served in the army during WWII. I'll never forget the time one asshole, upon learning that I was Jewish, told me that "a Jew is nothing but a nigger turned inside out."

So now, it is with great pride that I am listing the 18 known Jewish Congressional Medal of Honor recipients and the official military citation which accompanied each award:


Civil War (6)

Benjamin Levy In the Battle of Charles City Crossroads, Levy, a drummer boy, rescued the two standards which were dropped by their wounded color bearers. He unfurled them and carried them throughout the battle, preventing the colors from being captured by the Confederate soldiers.

David Urbansky Exceptional gallantry and heroism in many actions.

Henry Heller In the Battle of Chancellorsville, he was one of a party of four under heavy fire. They voluntarily crossed the enemy lines to capture and bring back to the Union lines a wounded Confederate officer from whom valuable information was obtained concerning the position of the enemy.

Abraham Cohn At the battle of the Wilderness, on 6 May, 1864, he rallied and reformed the disorganized fleeing Union troops from several regiments and established a new line of defense that held. At the Battle of Petersburg, Virginia, 30 July, 1864, he bravely and coolly carried orders to the advanced Union line while under severe fire from Confederate troops.

Leopold Karpeles In the Battle of Wilderness, the Confederate forces had charged the Union lines many times and the woods were full of smoke. Sergeant Leopold Karpeles was entrusted with the colors which he kept waving as it was the only visible thing the Union soldiers could see. General Wadsworth rode up and down the Union lines on his horse shouting to his disarrayed soldiers "rally around the flag boys!" Risking his life, Sergeant Karpeles kept waving the flag as Confederate gun fire kept missing him. The Confederate Army was checked and defeated as the Union soldiers were able to reform their lines and fight back. For his bravery in face of the enemy fire, Sergeant Karpeles was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Isaac Gause In hand-to-hand combat while on a reconnaissance along the Berryville and Winchester Pike, he captured the colors of the Confederate Army's 8th South Carolina Infantry.


Indian Wars (2)

Simon Suhler (aka Charles Gardner) For outstanding bravery and gallantry in action against the Indians.

George Geiger George Geiger, with his three companions, courageously held a position against fierce attacks from the Indians to secure the water for the command.


Hatian Campaign (1)

Samuel Marguiles (aka Samuel Gross) In company with members of the Fifth, Thirteenth, Twenty-third Companies and marine and sailor detachments from the U.S.S. Connecticut, Gross participated in the attack on Fort Riviere, Haiti. Following a concentrated drive, several different detachments of marines gradually closed in on the old French bastion fort in an effort to cut off all avenues of retreat for the Caco Bandits. Approaching a breach in the wall, which was the only entrance to the fort, Gross was the second man to pass through the breach in face of constant fire from the Caco Bandits and, thereafter, for a ten minute period, engaged the enemy in desperate hand-to-hand combat until the bastion was captured and the Caco resistance neutralized.


World War I (3)

Sydney G. Gumpertz When the advancing line was held up by machine gun fire, Sergeant Gumpertz left the platoon of which he was in command and started with two other soldiers through a heavy barrage toward the machine gun nest. His two companions soon became casualties from the bursting shells, but Sergeant Gumpertz continued alone in the face of direct fire from the machine gun, jumped into the nest and silenced the gun and capturing nine of the enemy crew.

Benjamin Kaufman He took out a patrol for the purpose of attacking an enemy machine gun which had checked the advance of the company. Before reaching the gun, he became separated from the patrol and a machine gun bullet shattered his right arm. Without hesitation, he advanced on the gun alone, throwing grenades with his left hand and charging with an empty pistol, taking one prisoner and scattering the crew, bringing the gun and prisoner back to the first-aid station.

William Sawelson (Killed In Action) Hearing a wounded man in a shell hole some distance away calling for water, Sergeant Sawelson, upon his own initiative, left his shelter and crawled through heavy machine gun fire to where the man lay, giving what water he had in his canteen. He then went back to his own shell hole, obtained more water, and was returning to the wounded man when he was killed by a machine gun bullet.


World War II (3)

Ben Salomon (KIA) Captain Ben L. Salomon was serving at Saipan, in the Marianas Islands on July 7, 1944, as the Surgeon for the 2d Battalion, 105th Infantry Regiment, 27th Infantry Division. The Regiment's 1st and 2d Battalions were attacked by an overwhelming force estimated between 3,000 and 5,000 Japanese soldiers. It was one of the largest attacks attempted in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Although both units fought furiously, the enemy soon penetrated the Battalions'combined perimeter and inflicted overwhelming casualties. In the first minutes of the attack, approximately 30 wounded soldiers walked, crawled, or were carried into Captain Salomon's aid station, and the small tent soon filled with wounded men. As the perimeter began to be overrun, it became increasingly difficult for Captain Salomon to work on the wounded. He then saw a Japanese soldier bayoneting one of the wounded soldiers lying near the tent. Firing from a squatting position, Captain Salomon quickly killed the enemy soldier. Then, as he turned his attention back to the wounded, two more Japanese soldiers appeared in the front entrance of the tent. As these enemy soldiers were killed, four more crawled under the tent walls. Rushing them, Captain Salomon kicked the knife out of the hand of one, shot another, and bayoneted a third. Captain Salomon butted the fourth enemy soldier in the stomach and a wounded comrade then shot and killed the enemy soldier. Realizing the gravity of the situation, Captain Salomon ordered the wounded to make their way as best they could back to the regimental aid station, while he attempted to hold off the enemy until they were clear. Captain Salomon then grabbed a rifle from one of the wounded and rushed out of the tent. After four men were killed while manning a machine gun, Captain Salomon took control of it. When his body was later found, 98 dead enemy soldiers were piled in front of his position. Captain Salomon's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

Raymond Zussman (KIA) On September 12, 1944, Lt. Zussman was in command of two tanks operating with an infantry company in an attack on enemy forces occupying the town of Noroy le Bourg, France. At 7 p.m., his command tank bogged down. Throughout the action, armed only with a carbine, he reconnoitered alone on foot far in advance of his remaining tank and infantry. Returning only from time to time to designate targets, he directed the action of the tank and turned over to the infantry numerous German prisoners that he had caused to surrender. He located a road block and directed his tank to destroy it. Fully exposed to enemy gun fire 50 yards away, he stood by his tank directing its fire. Three Germans were killed and eight surrendered. Again he walked in front of his tank, leading it against an enemy held group of houses, with machine-gun and small arms fire kicking up around his feet. The tank fire broke the enemy's resistance and 20 more surrendered. Going forward again alone, he passed an enemy held house from which gun fire and grenades were directed at him. He ordered the tank to fire on the house and eleven Germans were killed and fifteen surrendered. Going on alone, he disappeared soon to appear with thirty prisoners. Under Lt. Zussman's heroic and inspiring leadership, eighteen enemy were killed and ninety-two were captured

Isadore S. Jachman (KIA) For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty at Flamierge, Belgium, on 4, January, 1945, when his company was pinned down by enemy artillery, mortar and small arms fire, two hostile tanks attacked the unit inflicting heavy casualties. Sergeant Jachman seeing the desperate plight of his comrades, left his place of cover with total disregard for his own safety dashed across open ground through a hail of fire and seizing a bazooka from a fallen comrade advanced on the tanks, which concentrated their fire on him. Firing the weapon alone, he damaged one tank forcing both of them to retire. Sergeant Jachman's heroic action, in which he suffered fatal wounds, disrupted the entire enemy attack, reflecting the highest credit upon himself and the parachute infantry.


Korean War (1)

Tibor Rubin For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty: Corporal Tibor Rubin distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism during the period from July 23, 1950, to April 20, 1953, while serving as a rifleman with Company I, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division in the Republic of Korea. While his unit was retreating to the Pusan Perimeter, Corporal Rubin was assigned to stay behind to keep open the vital Taegu-Pusan Road link used by his withdrawing unit. During the ensuing battle, overwhelming numbers of North Korean troops assaulted a hill defended solely by Corporal Rubin. He inflicted a staggering number of casualties on the attacking force during his personal 24-hour battle, single-handedly slowing the enemy advance and allowing the 8th Cavalry Regiment to complete its withdrawal successfully. Following the breakout from the Pusan Perimeter, the 8 th Cavalry Regiment proceeded northward and advanced into North Korea. During the advance, he helped capture several hundred North Korean soldiers. On October 30, 1950, Chinese forces attacked his unit at Unsan, North Korea, during a massive nighttime assault. That night and throughout the next day, he manned a 30 caliber machine gun at the south end of the unit's line after three previous gunners became casualties. He continued to man his machine gun until his ammunition was exhausted. His determined stand slowed the pace of the enemy advance in his sector, permitting the remnants of his unit to retreat southward. As the battle raged, Corporal Rubin was severely wounded and captured by the Chinese. Choosing to remain in the prison camp despite offers from the Chinese to return him to his native Hungary, Corporal Rubin disregarded his own personal safety and immediately began sneaking out of the camp at night in search of food for his comrades. Breaking into enemy food storehouses and gardens, he risked certain torture or death if caught. Corporal Rubin provided not only food to the starving Soldiers, but also desperately needed medical care and moral support for the sick and wounded of the POW camp. His brave, selfless efforts were directly attributed to saving the lives of as many as forty of his fellow prisoners. Corporal Rubin's gallant actions in close contact with the enemy and unyielding courage and bravery while a prisoner of war are in the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself and the United States Army.


Vietnam War (2)

Jack H. Jacobs For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Capt. Jacobs (then a lieutenant) distinguished himself on 9 March, 1968, while serving as Assistant Battalion Advisor, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division, Army of the Republic of Vietnam, during operations in Kien Phong Province. His unit came under heavy enemy attack. Jacobs called for and directed air attacks against the enemy. He was wounded by mortar fragments and he continued to direct the air fire while bleeding profusely from head wounds. He assumed complete control of the unit and he reorganized it for its defense and attack. He made numerous trips through the rice paddies evacuating the wounded. His gallant actions and extraordinary heroism saved the lives of one U.S. advisor and thirteen allied soldiers. Captain Jacobs by his conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action in the highest traditions of the military service, has reflected great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army.

John L. Levitow For Airman First Class), U.S. Air Force, distinguished himself by exceptional heroism on 24 February, 1969, while assigned as a loadmaster aboard a AC-47 aircraft flying a night missionconspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his own life above and beyond the call of duty. Sergeant John L. Levitow (then . On that date, Sgt. Levitow's aircraft was struck by a hostile mortar round. The resulting explosion ripped a hole through the wing and fragments mad over 3,500 holes in the fuselage. All occupants of the cargo compartment were helplessly slammed against the floor and fuselage. The explosion tore an activated flare from the grasp of a crewmember, who had been launching flares to provide illumination for Army ground troops engaged in combat. Sgt. Levitow, though stunned by the concussion of the blast and suffering from over forty fragment wounds in the back and legs, staggered to his feet and turned to assist the man nearest to him, who had been knocked down and was bleeding heavily. As he was moving his wounded comrade forward and away from the open cargo compartment door, he saw the smoking flare ahead of him in the aisle. Realizing the danger involved and completely disregarding his own wounds, Sgt. Levitow started toward the burning flare. Sgt. Levitow struggled forward despite the loss fo blood. Unable to grasp the flare with his hands, he threw himself bodily upon the burning flare. Hugging the deadly devise to his body, he dragged himself back to the rear of the aircraft and hurled the flare through the open cargo door. At that instant, the flare separated and ignited in the air, but clear of the aircraft. Sgt. Levitow, by selfless and heroic actions, saved the aircraft and its entire crew from certain death and destruction. Sgt. Levitow's conspicuous gallantry, his profound concern for his fellowmen and his intrepidity at the risk of his own life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Air Force and reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his country.

DOGGONE IT, CALL SWAT

By now, most of you have either read about or seen the surveillance video of a bold unarmed grocery market thief who would not be deterred in his crime spree despite a face-to-face confrontation with the store manager. Even so, this story of the shoplifting dog, whose acute sense of smell led him directly to the pet supply section, is too good to be left out of my blog.

Here is one of the better accounts of this news event as reported yesterday by John Hollenhorst of Fresno's ABC30 Action News:

A four-legged thief struck quickly at a grocery store in Utah. It walked right into the store, grabbed a present (a $2.79 rawhide bone), and made a clean getaway. But not before leaving some incriminating paw marks.

At Smith's Food & Drug in Murray (a Salt Lake City suburb), a popular place these days is the manager's office, where they have the surveillance video.

"You had to see to believe it", said Tracy Jacobson of Smith's Food & Drug, "but it happened. So. It's crazy."

A suspicious character entered through the front door.

"I've never seen him shop in here before, brand new customer" said Roger Adamson, the store manager.

What happened next is already becoming legend.

"How likely is that, for a dog to walk into a store, go down the pet aisle, get his bone, and walk out?" Adamson said.

Let's reconstruct the crime a step at a time.

Entering at the checkout area he approached a young girl. At that point he had a decision to make. Left? No dog food. Right? Dog food.

He turned right and went straight to aisle 16. The dog food isle.

He grabbed a rawhide bone like this and headed down the aisle, only to be confronted by the manager.

"I looked at him, I said drop it! I decided I wanted to keep all my fingers. So, I didn't try to take it from him. He looked at me and I looked at him and he ran for the door and away he went. Right out the front door." Adamson added.

At last word, he was still at large, presumably enjoying his Christmas loot.

IACOCOA'S FED UP CALL TO ACTION

Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now in his eighties and has a book, "Where Have All The Leaders Gone?" The book appears to be highly critical of President Bush. Will Barack Obama be the leader Iacocoa is looking for? Only time will tell. Here are some excerpts from his book:

"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay The course.'

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.

The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the 'America' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about You?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The biggest 'C' is crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.

We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving.

We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country.

We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.

Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy
policy.

Our schools are in trouble.

Our borders are like sieves.

The middle class is being squeezed every which way.

These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?

We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.

Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina.

Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm.

Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again.

Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem.

The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises:

The Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Kennedy Assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.

If I've learned one thing, it's this: You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a 'Call to Action' for people who, like me, believe in America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had enough."

CHRISTMAS TREE OR HOLIDAY TREE?

If you read my blog, "Chuck Norris (And Thomas Jefferson) On The Separation Of Church And State" (11-25-08), you know that while being of the Jewish faith, I am not offended by public displays of Christian symbols. The majority of people in this country profess to be Christians and as such should have the right to display a cross and, at Christmas time, a Nativity scene on government property sites as long as symbols of other religions are welcome and not excluded. After all, isn't that what Freedom of Religion is all about?

On the other hand, I do oppose subjecting school children from other faiths to Christian prayers in public schools. In my "Chuck Norris ....." blog, I recalled how uncomfortable I was made to feel when I had to listen to daily prayers ending "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit" or "in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Savior" while I was attending school in Marshall, Texas. I do not have a problem with nonsectarian prayers in public schools.

As for those of the Jewish faith who have joined with the ACLU and other groups in opposing the public display of Christian symbols, I have this to say: I hope you represent only a minority within the American Jewish community. By your opposition to those Christian displays, you are fanning the flames of anti-Semitism and that is going to be your sole accomplishment.

In today's TownHall.com, Jacob Sullum has an interesting collumn dealing with the same or similar issues I expressed in my blog. He calls attention to those who see Christmas trees as "Holiday Trees" to justify their display on government property sites. What a crock! How ridiculous can you get? Let's get real. A Chritamas tree is what it is - a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree. And no Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or ahteist should be offended by the public display of Christmas trees.

Here is Sullum's TownHall.com collumn:

PEACE, LOVE AND MISUNDERSTANDING
by Jacob Sullum

A couple of years ago, perceiving a giant, light-covered fir at the Capitol in Olympia, Wash., as a symbol of Christmas, the Jewish organization Chabad of Seattle sought to erect a menorah to commemorate Chanukah. A local real estate agent, perceiving the menorah as a religious symbol, decided to sponsor a Nativity scene.

This year the Freedom From Religion Foundation, offended by the Nativity scene, retaliated with a large plaque in the Capitol declaring, "religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." The provocative plaque attracted nationwide criticism and inspired various rejoinders, including a sign announcing, "atheism is but myth and superstition" and a 5-foot aluminum pole marking Festivus, the fictional holiday invented by George Constanza's father on "Seinfeld."
All this fuss could have been avoided if only Chabad had recognized that the decorated evergreen in the rotunda, sponsored by the Association of Washington Business, was not a Christmas tree. As the Associated Press noted, it was in fact "a nonreligious Holiday Tree."

You don't buy that? Neither do I, but it's remarkable how many people at this time of year will insist with a straight face that they are celebrating a secular winter holiday season, when the reason for the season -- the birth of the Christian Savior, whom his followers believe to be the Son of God -- is about as religious as things get. Even Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, who was predictably outraged by Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire's willingness to make room for atheists, tries to have it both ways.

O'Reilly says the Capitol's "traditional holiday display" was "perfectly appropriate since the federal and state Christmas holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem." At the same time, he says, "most Americans, even those living in the far-left enclaves, respect uplifting traditions like Christmas, where peace and love is the theme of the great day." He adds, "Can't we all just get along for a few weeks in December?"

The plea to get along is touching, especially coming from a professional hothead like O'Reilly. Yet O'Reilly can't seem to decide whether Christmas is, as the name suggests, all about Jesus Christ, or simply a time of warm feelings that even atheists can appreciate.

He is not alone in his confusion. As long as local and state governments stick to illuminated evergreens and other "secular symbols" of "the winter holiday season," the U.S. Supreme Court has said, they don't have to worry about violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by endorsing a particular religion.

This sort of reasoning explains why the Christmas Program at my 5-year-old daughter's public school in Dallas was instead called a holiday program, at which the children sang festive holiday songs that to my untrained ear sounded a lot like Christmas carols. The school did seem to eschew songs that explicitly mention Christ (as long as you ignore the Christ in Christmas), but it still forced my wife and me to choose between 1) letting our daughter publicly celebrate a religious holiday that is not part of our tradition and 2) making her feel excluded by stopping her from joining all the other kindergartners in an official school activity that involved weeks of preparation in music class. The Christmas stocking with her name on it that she proudly brought home from school and wanted to hang above our fireplace put us in a similarly ticklish position as practicing Jews.

I'm not sure this sort of thing rises to the level of a constitutional complaint, but maybe we'd all get along better if the majority did not pretend that everyone can comfortably celebrate Christmas. The other day, as we were preparing for the first night of Chanukah, we had a visitor who remarked that she had always thought of Christmas as a secular holiday. My wife, a rabbi, explained to her why that view is problematic. Upon leaving, our visitor wished me a happy Chanukah and a merry Christmas.


EDITOR'S NOTE: Now I want to wish all my readers a Very Merry Christmas or a Happy Chanukah. And may 2009 be a happy, healthy, safe and prosperous year for all of you!

ABBREVIATED HISTORY OF CHANUKAH

Chanukah (the orthodox Jewish spelling) is a holiday that falls around Christams time. It is also known as "The Festival of Lights" because every night for eight nights, Jewish people light candles in a menorah to commemorate an eight-day miracle which occurred in 167 B.C.

In today's TownHall.com, Mona Charen has a column in which she defends the hanging of outdoor Chanukah lights by some of her friends, a practice that is condemned by "Puritanical Jews," her way of referring to strict Orthodox Jews. In her column, "Hanukkah Lights," Charen gives us an abbreviated history of this Jewish holiday, a history that I suspect many secuolar Jews are not aware of.

For the benefit of both Christians and those Jews who do not know the story behind this holiday, here is Mona Charen's short history of Chanukah:

"Hanukkah, which began on Dec. 21 this year, is an important Jewish holiday. It's possible that, like Christmas, it is celebrated in the dark of winter not because the events it memorializes happened in December but rather because this time of year demands a warm celebration. But that is a trivial matter. The actual events on which Hanukkah is based concern faith, the challenge of secularism, and victory over persecution.

In 200 B.C.E., Israel, which was then Judea, was controlled by the Seleucid Empire (one of the successors to Alexander the Great). The confrontation between Jews and Greek culture was a complicated one. Jews found much to admire in Greek philosophy, the Greek language and literature. In fact, so attractive were Greek ways that a rift opened between Hellenizing Jews, who adopted Greek styles of dress, exercise (nude), and eating; and traditional Jews who clung to Biblical teaching and abhorred Greek polytheism, sexual license, and love of pleasure.

It might have remained a simmering civil conflict. But in 167 B.C.E., King Antiochus IV erected a statue of Zeus in the Temple in Jerusalem and outlawed a number of Jewish practices including observing the Sabbath. That sparked a rebellion. The Maccabees, a small band of zealous Jews, took up the sword against the Seleucids and also against their Hellenizing brothers (though the latter is less often mentioned).

The Maccabees' victory against a numerically superior foe was unexpected. They cleansed and rededicated the Temple and relit the lamp that hung before the altar. It had only enough oil to burn for one night. But as the story goes, it miraculously burned for eight -- long enough to press and prepare more oil."

UNBELIEVABLE BUT TRUE

Two current court cases in the news would be considered unbelivable were it not for the fact that they are both true. One case concerns an insurance company's denial of a claim arising from the deaths of three fire victims. The other case concerns a law suit filed against the driver of a truck that was rear-ended in a deadly collision by a drunk driver, the daughter of a juvenile court judge.

The Great American Insurance Company of Cincinnati has petitioned a federal judge to absolve it of any liability for the deaths of three victims in a Houston office building fire. The company argued that the families of the victimes should not be granted any compensation because the deaths resulted from smoke inhalation and not from actual flames.

Great American is invoking a clause in the insurance policy which excludes any damage or injury caused by pollution, fumes and soot. The insurer insists that since it specified smoke to be a form of pollution in its policy, the three deaths fall under the policy's exclusionary provisions.

Let's make sure we get this straight. The three victims who were trapped in the burning office building did not die as a result of the fire. They were killed by pollution. UNBELIEVABLE!

Great American is not the first insurer to have invoked the pollution exclusion. In 2004, Allstate also denied any liability in the deaths of three children killed by smoke inhalation in a house fire, but the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the "pollution exclusion" did not apply and forced the insurer to pay the claim. And in 1997, the Kansas Supreme Court denied a claim by Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Company that smoke damage in a grovery store was excluded because it fell under the pollicy's pollution exclusion.

In the Connecticut and Kansas cases, the insurance policies did not specify smoke to be a form of pollution. In the Houston case it is possible that, since Great American specified smoke as a pollutant, the court will rule in favor of the insurer and deny the families of the three victims any compensation.

According to Houston Chronicle columnist Lisa Falkenberg, "the 'pollution exclusion' originated after oil spills in the 1970s. It was intended - surprise - to apply to real pollution and, for example, corporations whose actions led to scandalous pollution events."

"Where there's fire, there's smoke" a Houston Fire Department official told Falkenberg. There is a total lack of ethics and morals by Great American and its legal staff in insisting on a literal interpretation of the pollution exclusion clause. As Falkenberg states, "For the sake of every property insurance policyholder in Texas, let's hope it's an argument U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal doesn't hesitate to stamp out."

If you think the smoke exclusion is a stretch, you ain't seen nothing yet. Last year, Elizabeth Shelton the 21-year-old daughter of a Houston juvenile court judge, was convicted of intoxication manslaughter for a freeway accident that killed her boyfriend. According to two tests, Shelton had a blood alcohol concentration MORE THAN THREE TIMES the legal limit when she smashed the SUV she was driving into the back of a box truck around 2 a.m.

After her father, the judge, used every legal trick in the book to keep his daughter from paying for her crime, Shelton was sentenced to eight years of probation and ordered to serve four months in jail. In my opinion, SHE GOT OFF WAY TOO LIGHT!

During the trial, the defense relied on an "expert" witness who blamed the truck driver for the collision, claiming that Shelton struck the truck only after and because he made an unsafe lane change on the freeway. The prosecution's expert witness testified that there was no evidence that the truck driver was in any way to blame. (I have a very low opinion of expert witnesses. Refer to my blog of 7-30-06, "Judicial Whores ...............")

Now that he's failed to get her off, Judge Shelton has joined his daughter and her dead boyfriend's family in filing a lawsuit against the driver of the truck. The suit seeks $20,000 for the destruction of the Lexus SUV she was driving and an amount to be determined for mental anguish, pain and suffering.

Let's make sure we get this straight. Elizabeth Shelton's family and the family of the young man she killed are suing the truck driver and 15 other defendants - including insurance companies and banks - because she rear-ended his truck while driving rip-roaring drunk on a freeway around 2 a.m. UNBELIEVABLE!

As for the dead boyfriend's family, how did they come to be so misguided? It is Shelton and her father that they should be suing, not the poor truck driver. And Judge Shelton? He ought to be ashamed of himself - but then he's a lawyer and most of them have no shame.

I can understand a father wanting to help his daughter defend herself. But Shelton's father is a judge and judges are held to a higher standard than us ordinary souls. By suing the truck driver, Judge Shelton has lowered himself to the same depths as those sleezy lawyers representing the Great American Insurance Company. In my opinion, Judge Shelton is unfit to sit on the juvenile court bench and should be removed from office.

THE RELIGION OF PEACE

As my readers know, I have published a number of blogs on the true believers in Islam. Last January, I blogged "The Peaceful Silent Muslim Majority" (1-5-08) which included exerpts from an essay on "peaceful" Muslims by Emanuel Tanay, a respected psychiatrist from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Here are some of the same exerpts, as well as additional comments subsequently made by Dr. Tanay:

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor- kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the "silent majority," is cowed and extraneous. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

So, here we sit in America with several million peaceful Muslims living amongst us. Was it not the peaceful Muslims that were seen cheering in the streets as the towers fell? They may not have blown them up, but they certainly were supportive of the deed. Not all Muslims of course, certainly not.

I didn't see any demonstrations by Muslims after 911 protesting what others of their faith had done however. Hundreds of peacful Muslims have come across our borders illegally or have overstayed their visas and so far they have done nothing of a terrorist nature. They are "peaceful" so far.

Millions attend their mosques that are headed by radical Imams right here in America and in Washington DC in particular, who preach a decidedly non-peaceful agenda. So far, the peaceful majority have not acted on these words, but we are left to wonder why these radical Muslims are allowed to stay here to poison the minds of the peaceful majority?

They are using our freedom of religion laws against us. They are using our freedom of speech laws against us. They are using our freedom of assembly laws against us. The legions of peacful Muslims in this country have only to do nothing and provide a cover for the not so peaceful minority and they become passive co-conspirators.

I am wondering where the outrage is amongst the peaceful majority here? Why are they not throwing out the hate mongers in their mosques? Why are they donating to radical causes in the middle east? Why are they sending their Muslim-American sons to the middle east to learn the old non-peaceful ways and then come back here to influence the remaining millions that as yet appear peaceful?

Those that are peaceful and vocal that terrorism is not to be tolerated should be allowed to stay, those that sit quietly are a huge potential future terrorist problem and should be shown the door. The non-Muslim majority of this country should deal with this potential problem from a position of strength and intolerance of the terrorists intolerance.

The truly peacful majority of Muslims should start cleaning up their communities and irradicating the non-peaceful minority by turning them in to homeland security and helping the rest of us to feel secure in having any Muslim in our country.

It is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the minority and the majority. As the majority starts to demand that this country bend to their religious and cultural standards, the more we give in to them, the more emboldened they will become.

Personally, I can't see myself in a burkha. I am done compromising on anything heading in the Muslim direction..

CONSUMER BE DAMNED

Whatever happened to the cost of doing business? There was a time when businesses bit the bullet and absorbed the ordinary cost of doing business. Them days are gone forever. Nowadays, the consumer gets stuck with those costs. Capital improvements? Raise prices. Upgrade computers? Raise prices.

I believe most consumers would agree that it was perfectly reasonable for businesses to charge higher prices to offset the skyrocketing cost of fuel which we experienced in recent months. But now that fuel prices have fallen back down, have businesses lowered prices accordingly? I don't think so.

When it comes to screwing the consumer, CenterPoint Energy takes the prize. CenterPoint, a spin-off from electric utility giant Reliant Energy, is the electric transmission provider for the greater Houston area. (It is also the gas company for part of the region.) CenterPoint is going to replace the traditional spinning dial electric meters with digital meters for all homeowners and businesses in the region.

The so-called "smart meters" can be read and controlled remotely from a central information center. For the privilege of letting CenterPoint operate more efficiciently without having to employ meter readers, electric consumers are going to have to pay a $3.24 monthly surcharge for two years and then $3.05 for the next ten years. Each of the 2.2 million customers served by CenterPoint will have paid a total of $443.76 in surcharges by the end of the 12 year period.

Lets see, $443.76 x 2,200,000 = $976,272,000. CenterPoint says the new system will cost $640 million, with the balance of the $976.3 million used to pay for the financing costs. The surcharges will be added on to the customer bills of Reliant Energy, TXU Energy and the other electric power companies competing for business in the greater Houston area and will be billed in addition to the $3.88 monthly fee CenterPoint already charges.

Once the new meters have been installed, CenterPoint's cost of doing business will have been reduced and a whole bunch of meter readers will become unemployed, with a good number of them having to go on welfare. But instead of passing their savings on to the consumers, CenterPoint is doing just the opposite. The consumer be damned!

A PRIMER FOR MEN

THE TRUE MEANING OF NINE PHRASES WOMEN USE

(1) Fine: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.

(2) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.

(3) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine.

(4) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don't Do It!

(5) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to # 3 for the meaning of nothing.)

(6) That's Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That's okay means she wants you to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.

(7) Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or faint. Just say you're welcome. (I want to add in a clause here - This is true, unless she says 'Thanks a lot' - that is PURE sarcasm and she is not thanking you at all. DO NOT say 'you're welcome' that will bring on a 'whatever').

(8) Whatever: Is a woman's way of saying FUCK YOU!

(9) Don't worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking 'What's wrong?' For the woman's response refer back to # 3.

A TRIBUTE TO THE AMERICAN SUBMARINE SERVICE IN THE PACIFIC DURING WWII

American Submariners
by David Clemow*

In Australia and New Zealand, on Anzac Day (April 25) thoughts turn to those who gave their lives during various wars over the last century. But there is one group which has never been given recognition for what they achieved in World War II and that is the United States submariners, 3505 of whom lost their lives, including 374 officers.

When one analysis what they achieved there is no doubt they did more than any other group to defeat the Japanese and save Australia and New Zealand from being invaded. The reason is simple - they sank more than 60 per cent of the Japanese merchant marine fleet. Without these ships, not only was the Japanese advance stifled, their occupying troops lost their supply lines and they virtually could not be evacuated like the British were at Dunkirk to fight in other battles.

Additionally with the loss of shipping, Japan found it very difficult to supply the home land with raw materials from the conquered territories.
After the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the US instigated a policy of restricting supplies to Japan . This ultimately led to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

The Japanese advance over the next five months was nothing short of staggering _ Hong Kong, the Philippines, Burma, Borneo, Malaya, Thailand, Indo-China (Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam) and Singapore on February 15, 1942 where 80,000 troops surrendered (the largest surrender of British military personnel in history) were occupied. Ships played a most important part in this role.

The Dutch East Indies ( Indonesia ) was occupied in March and Darwin first bombed on February 15, 1942. The farthest Japanese advance was Guadacanal in the Solomon Islands by July 6. The farthest advance in Burma was on May 8, 1942, which was the second day of the Coral Sea battle - their first setback, followed by the Battle of Midway on June 3-6.

Without a huge marine fleet this advance would never have been possible. Over the next two years the US Navy submarine fleet went to work.

Fortunately they had cracked the Japanese naval code so they virtually knew their every move. The Japanese had also failed to destroy the enormous naval fuel-oil installations at Pearl Harbor when Admiral Nagumo did not go ahead with the third wave of air strikes. Admiral Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the US Navy Pacific Fleet, said that had the tanks been destroyed the war would have been prolonged by two years as it would have immobilized every ship in the Pacific Fleet.

The Japanese had no long-range anti-submarine aircraft and probably their destroyers were not that well equipped to deal with submarines. The problem for the American Navy was where to base the submarines. Darwin was ruled out because the harbor was considered too shallow. Finally Fremantle (near Perth ) was chosen and obviously that was too far away for the Japanese to attack with aircraft. It was a long haul for the submarines to the areas where Japanese ships were active to the north but on the surface, diesel-powered submarines have a tremendous range.

Obviously they would sail on the surface for most of their operations to and from Fremantle. Evidently Japan never found out where the submarines were based. The Fremantle base had 125 American, 31 British and 11 Free Dutch submarines. The Americans deployed 288 submarines during the war so nearly half operated from the Fremantle base.

Japan started the war with six million tonnes of shipping and of course built more as the war went on. US submarines sank 1314 of their ships of more than 1000 tons each, plus 700,000 tons of naval ships including eight aircraft carriers, a battleship and 11 cruisers.

They did 416 patrols and fired 14,500 torpedoes. Out of a total of 52 subs lost, 48 were lost operating from the Fremantle base. American submariners made up only 1.6 per cent of the US naval manpower but they had the highest loss rate of US Armed Forces with 22 per cent killed.

At the German Naval Museum at Laboe, northeast of Kiel , there is a memorial to the 3505 American submariners and a memorial to the 31,000 German submariners who lost their lives out of a total of 39,000 men who served in their U-boats. The Germans built 1154 U-boats and lost 800.

More than 50,000 allied Merchant Seamen lost their lives, many as a result of U-boat activity. They, too, have never been given true recognition for what they achieved in the Atlantic and the sacrifices they made.

Last year while in Los Angeles I spoke to a group of American submariners. Many did not know of their predecessors' achievements in the war and none knew there was a base in Fremantle.

They are going to make a concerted effort to bring this oversight into prominence when remembrances are held. Their sacrifices certainly saved us from invasion. Anzac Day is now also the time to remember those 3505 dead submariners of the US Navy.


*David Clemow of Auckland is a retired Air New Zealand pilot, previous technical director of the Airline Pilots Association and a qualified meteorologist.