BBC management must have been pulling their hair out over this interview. Must be a hole in the vetting process!

Wow. That was phenomenal. Can someone give Colonel Kemp a medal? ("Bravery in Hostile Environments", perhaps?)

Maybe Seraphic Press could start a list of people like the Colonel, individuals who demonstrate their support for Israel (and true understanding of the circumstances in "the region") at this time when the media becomes less and less concerned with sugar-coating their message of "Guys, just stop fighting and die, already!"

The winners of this conflict, the party in power proved that they can inflict damage with a kill ratio of 100 to 1, that Hamas fighters are very weak and very poorly led, that the Israeli forces would telephone ahead of time before a house would be bombed, and Hamas would gather children to put on the roof. Enough said. The losers were Bebe since his election chances have been reduced, and Tony Blair who is truly useless. Also, US liberals who were looking forward to putting pressure on Israel to cave will be sorely disappointed.

Wow!!

If the rockets keep landing in Sderot and the smuggling continues, this cease fire will be a victory for Hamas. Perhaps the IDF really did run out of targets but they can always request the Hamas leadership in Gaza surrender or they will be rooted out.

And no word about Shalit.

More rockets and no Shalit equals a victory for Bebe, not a defeat.

Hi Robert, As an Indian I completely sympathize with your viewpoint. We face a very similar situation with respect to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as Israel does with Hamas

Norm:

The BBC have been particularly virulent in their Jew-hatred. I guarantee we will never see Col. Kemp on that network ever again. He's too, y'know Winston Churchill.

Michal:

Great idea, a medal for Col. Kemp. To go against the powerful pro-Jihadist tide in Londonistan takes guts and decency.

Keating:

Thanks so much for the articulate comment. It's interesting but Bibi is now leading in the polls. The Israeli public is furious about the cease-fire. They, unlike the craven government, have learned from past experience.

Johnny:

The IDF should continue the offensive against Gazastan until Gilad Shalit is liberated from his cruel captivity.

Hindu Agnostic:

First, we owe you an apology for not responding to your first comment in Seraphic Secret a few days ago. We are way behind on our comments and our G-mail.

Greatly appreciate your words of support. India and Israel have much in common.

One of my best friends here in LA is a Jewish woman from New Dehli. She was attending a wedding in India when the Mumbai massacre took place.

Here's what she told me: “India and her Hindu citizens are fed up with Pakistan and the jihadists. They will strike back at the Muslim terrorists. And believe you me, Robert, they mean business. Not like here in the U.S. where Jew-haters and terrorists are treated with kid gloves.”

BTW, my friend from New Dehli is my greatest source for inside information about Bollywood. She dishes me all kinds of fab-u-lous gossip.

I think this is what happens; the international press does not pay as much attention to Hamas because their actions are much more insidious. But when Israel gets fed up and launches an attack, then everybody starts talking about it because of its suddenness. I find it appalling that the international press does not realize that:
a. Small, insidious attacks can be as devastating, if not more, than strikes
b. Israel strikes only because it was provoked so much by Hamas, not because they take pleasure in doing it.
A couple of years ago, one of my friends moved to Israel from the US and based on our conversations, I could not help but feel that a minor reason for the move was the constant anti-Israel leanings of the popular press in the US

Hi Robert, no problem, and many thanks for promptly responding and for your support of India.

Your friend is indeed right that we are fed up with Jihadists from Pakistan and are eager to take very severe action against them of the kind that Israel has taken. For fifty years now we have been tolerant of their shenanigans and enough is enough. One problem we unfortunately face which Israel does not is that the Paks have nukes. So we need to carefully think of an effective strategy.

Also, when the Mumbai massacre was happening, many in the press were ludicrously trying to assure everyone that the terrorists were killing victims randomly irrespective of race or religion. This was so obviously dishonest, given the tragic killings in Chabad House. The Jihadis are very explicitly targeting Hindus, Jews and Christians, and almost anyone else who does not agree with them. They clearly need to be told that they will be swiftly and totally retaliated against if they don't stop their attacks and propaganda.

As you said, India and Israel do have much in common. We are both fed up with the Jihadists who are bent on destroying us. We both seem to have governments that are not taking hard enough stances on terrorism. And the press and other leaders (most recently UK foreign secretary David Miliband in case of India) are somehow almost always sympathetic to the other side, which is appalling. How can they take the side of the terrorists when Hamas's charter clearly calls for the annihilation of Israel? How can they be sympathetic when even the "moderate" Muslims of Pakistan violently protest when someone draws cartoons of Mohammed, but not when hundreds of innocents are mowed down in Mumbai? The bias is staggering.

The way I see it, India and Israel need to forge new collaborations in a common fight against the Islamic Jihadists. As you might know, there has been some crucial military technology sharing between the two nations (the Arrow radar system for example) and this should continue.

Oh, and gossip from Bollywood is always welcome! I am glad your friend regularly doles it out :)
Sorry for the long comment by the way but I could not help expressing a sentiment of solidarity

P.S. My uncle and aunt visited Israel last year and loved it. I am very much interested in visiting sometime

Galid Shalit should have been the minimum objective of the entry to Gaza and it should be a minimum concession from Hamas for a cease fire.

How the members of the IDF can fight on, putting their lives on the line knowing they could be the next Shalit speaks to the professionalism and bravery of each and every one of them. For the government not to do everything in it's power to get him back should be a badge of dishonor to Barak, Livni and Olmert. And if Netanyahu does the same thing shame on him. Everyone wearing the uniform deserves their government to fight as hard for them as they do for their country.

The apologists for Hamas will always claim the rockets are a response to the blockade or some other excuse. But no one can argue there is any excuse for kidnapping a soldier in uniform.

Bob:

Thanks so much for the analysis.

Let me add this thought: Israel is the only country in the world whose legitimacy is constantly under attack. I believe that this is Jew-hatred disguised as sophisticated political thought. Inevitably, this crypto Jew hatred has become common currency in leftist ideology, hence no matter how Israel reacts to proudly genocidal group such as the Hamas, Israel is labeled the aggressor. Self-defense is redefined in Orwellian terms, and the line between good and evil is conveniently erased.

Hindu Agnostic:

The friendship between India and Israel is viewed by the Mulsim terrorist world as a strategic threat to Jihad. But India and Israel, I believe, will forge ahead and deepen their ties.

The failed Muslim state of Pakistan is, as you say, armed with nuclear technology hence the conflict with nuclear armed India is horrifyingly complicated and dangerous.

The world should take note of this strategic conundrum and make sure that Iran does is not permitted to go nuclear.

Bollywood produces some of the best films evuh! Indian female stars, like, huge sigh! Tabu, possess old time MGM glamour mixed with a stunning loads of talent and unearthly beauty. If anything, Bollywood must be defended against the lunatic Arab Muslim terrorists who only enjoy You Tube movies of infidel beheadings.

Johnny:

The failure to place Gilad Shalit's freedom as a condition for cease fire is an unforgivable blot on the current Israeli government.

Three cheers for Colonel Kemp.

Robert:

Calling it an unforgivable blot is a very family friendly description of what the government has done. Galid Shalit was willing to give his life for his country and they can't make the effort to save him?

And what does it say for the nine members of the IDF that gave their lives fighting in Gaza? This is what they died for?

I had friends in the military that thought Bill Clinton should have been impeached for the deaths in Somalia from the Blackhawk Down episode. While never a fan of Clinton's I always thought he believed he acting in the best interests of the country.

But do the trio in charge of Israel really think the rockets will stop for the next ten days much less the next year? Do they really think Shalit's life is not worth pursuing? Unless the Hamas leadership is arrested or killed for their war crimes the IDF will have to go in again in a few years.

We elect leaders to put the interests of our country ahead of kisses from the rest of the world, something I'm not sure Obama understands. I hope it is something the voters in Israel believe.

We should decapative the Hamas, Al Qaida, Radical Islamist and Muslism terrorists.

You don't want to see another 9/11 happens to countries:
England, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam.

Robert, thanks for your great coverage of the war, or really the skirmish in the greater war that's been going on for decades. One of my favorite pictures from this conflict was the Israeli tractor with, "Gilad, we are coming for you," written on it in Hebrew, which I believe i saw on your blog but I can't be sure. How sad that the Israelis did not achieve that goal.

This is probably an inconvenient fact, but still fact. Almost everyone is aware that the powers behind almost all the terrorists are the larger arab/Islamic contries Iran and Syria. The only way to stop the terrorist attacks is for those countries to intervene and tell those whom they support to stop and quit supplying them with weapons. They will not stop because they are bent on Israel's destuction. They are useing the terrorist organizations as pawns and have nothing to lose except for a few dollars from their oil profits to supply the terrorist organizations with weapons. This money is inconsequential to them, beging considered a small price to pay to achive their objective, the destuction of Israel. This is not going to be popular, but you don't kill a snake by clipping off the tip of it's tail, you cut off it's head. This probably would mean expanding the conflict, but if those who support the terrorists had much more to lose than a few dollars, such as maybe some of their cities or countries and know that we mean it, they would rethink their position. Iran has already stated that they (their President) would be willing to give up to 60% of it's population to destroy Israel. Maybe we need to make them put their money where their mouth is. Apparently the hardline Muslems have no respect for anything but overwhelming power, and even less for those who have the power but refuse to use it. There are more deaths and injuries by prolonging a conflict than there are by going in and doing what you must and getting it over, then helping to rebuild. War is terrible and there is always collateral damage. It is its nature. It is not a parlor game and cannot be fought as politcally correct. It is terrible, but peace at any price is not an option.

I bet Colonel Kemp is already under pressure to retract his statement.
Did it ever occur to anyone besides me that if all those people who want Israel charged with war crimes and genocide get their wish, a dangerous precedent will have been set? A precedent with consequences those useful idiots won't like at all? If its a war crime, if its genocide, for the ISRAELIS to shoot back when Arabs shoot at them or make any effort to stop the Arabs from simply walking in and taking over their country, then its a war crime, its genocide, for the BRITISH or the FRENCH to shoot back when Arabs shoot at them or make any effort to stop the Arabs from walking in and taking over their country.

Dear Robert: Since when do you rely on Human Rights Watch for information? I thought they were just a bunch of Hamas enabling propagandisits and useful idiots?

If I'd known about IDF soldierettes a few years ago, I'd've emmigrated and joined up. Blimey.

> If anything, Bollywood must be defended against the lunatic Arab Muslim terrorists who only enjoy You Tube movies of infidel beheadings.

Quite. Funnily enough, I remember Mark Steyn giving a similar reason for how he diversified from writing about Broadway musicals to writing about the Jihad. These people want to destroy musicals!

Actually, this inauguration reminds me more of what I've read and heard about the elevation of Juan Peron in Argentina. He came in as a savior to a flagging economy and made things much, much worse by the time his original term ended. The cult of Peron was very similar to what we're seeing with Obama now.

I often make the point when debating against Israel's critics that people who are not Jewish cannot possibly understand the psychological impact that the holocaust has had on Jewish people and on Israel. Perhaps in light of today's historic event we can acknowledge that people who are not black cannot possibly understand the psychological impact that slavery has had on the African American population.

Robert I think your affirmative action comment is deeply unfair.

*I* think Robert's affirmative action comment was spot on. In academia, I have seen recipients of AA given a pass time and time again, because no one had the guts to hold them to the same standards the rest of us had to meet. This presidency will be treated the same way. Anyone trying to hold him to account will be called racist.

Thankfully, I am able to avoid the orgy of Obamalove on my campus today. I kind of doubt they opened the field house for a live broadcast of either of Bush's inaugurals (I wasn't here then, but I have this feeling). My mood is a mix of anger, disgust at the media worship of this empty shell of a politician, and worry for the future of my country.

He will be my President, and I will support where I can and vigorously oppose where I need to. I'm sorely tempted to give him the same respect and consideration the Dems/libs gave GWB (and Clarence Thomas, who I heard speak once and thought was marvelous). That party, and most of the people in it, is a whited sepulchre.

It also ticks me off that I failed 16 grad students for plagiarizing and an unrepentant plagiarizer will be VP.

I'd better stop because I'm getting angrier by the minute...

Dr Carol - if it is any solace I believe that everyone with hubris eventually comes down - I don't think the "racist" label can stick once one is in the Presidency because there is nobody to blame for the mistakes but himself. But we shall see.

I think we are in for a bumpy ride. On plagerism, at my old alma mater, UVa - we had to sign a statement in front of each work before turning it in that "I have neither given nor received information on this exam" - anyone caught plagiarizing would be expelled.

Never understood one's desite to cheat - what does it benefit in the long run? Eventually kharma catches up with you.

DrCarol

Affirmative action assigns jobs to minorities in order to "level the playing field" does it not. What, you think Obama was given the presidency ? Do you deny he ran an extremely effective campaign and made fewer mistakes than McCain.

Affirmative action gives PREFERENCES to minorities. It does not (or isn't supposed to) outright give them jobs. In practice, that's a different story.

I do deny that Obama ran a more effective campaign. I think he ran a media-assisted campaign. You cannot deny that the MSM anointed him and effectively got him the nomination and the election. Palin and McCain were savaged beyond belief, while Obama's and Biden's missteps were not reported at all. The many things that are bothersome about Obama (Ayers, Wright, Reszko, his obviously socialist leanings, his complete lack of any accomplishments whatsoever) were minimized. American voters elected a man with a radical past and present, and I pray we do not reap the whirlwind.

people who are not black cannot possibly understand the psychological impact that slavery has had on the African American population.

That may be so, but it would not affect Obama, since his ancestors were not slaves. In fact, half of them were white. For heaven's sake, the man has lived a priveleged life! Let's not feel sorry for him.

Interesting debate -- I can certainly sympathize with Dr. Carol as I work in higher education too!

3 other comments:

1) Gilad needs to be returned safe and sound.

2) The soldierettes need ammo in those rifles -- at least one of them appears to be unloaded!!!

3) Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a nut-job when she compares Palestinian girls to Anne Frank... see my post at http://americanapologist.com

ProphetJoe

Ted:

President Obama has received support on issues which would have buried any ten white men.

1. His 20 year association with an avowedly black separatist church where America hatred and Jew hatred were regularly preached. Imagine if McCain was a member of such a white church.

2. Obama's lies, and everyone knows it, that he never heard Wright preach, well, what he preaches.

3. His association with American terrorist Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dorn.

4. His association with crook Tony Rezsko.

5. His stunningly empty record of legislative accomplishments: in fact, zero.

It helps that President Obama is a Democrat, for the press enables Democrats, but if you think that blackness does not give him tons of mileage, well you don't understand America.

BTW, one could look at Obama's presidency as affirmative affirmative action. A black man is POTUS. The American people are open and free of prejudice, right?

BTW, President Obama did not run his campaign. David Axelrod and his staff did. Obama was a full time candidate.

Axelrod, before he cleansed his website, was a PR man for multi-national corps., specializing in improving tarnished images.

Dear Robert: You're the one who so often points out that movies are a moral landscape. What is the moral landscape of BONNIE AND CLYDE? It romantacizes a couple of psychopaths.

Miranda:

I was pointing out that the shoot-out at the motel is particularly harrowing and realistic. I was not indicating that the film inhabits a decent moral landscape.

Here's Juan Williams commenting on the treatment Obama got from the press--and the very danger Robert warns against, characterizing all criticism of him as racist.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249791178500439.html

Dear Robert: I heard the news on the radio this morning that Olmert is talking about swapping Gilad Shalit for terrorists in Israeli prisons. I didn't know whether to cry or vomit. Why doesn't the IDF go back into Gaza and GET HIM OUT? Hamas has already broken the cease fire. The IDF should have resumed the assault on Gaza when the first rocket was fired.

Even McCain acknowledged that Obama and his associates ran a great campaign. Even if we don't like him, let's give the man his due where it's justified.